Recherche avancée

087 Hansard

Whitehorse, Yukon

Wednesday, April 16, 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?

Introduction of visitors.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Mr. Lang:    I would like to introduce Vicki Durrant from Blue Feather Youth Centre.

Applause

Speaker:   Are there any further 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?

NOTICES OF MOTION

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

THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to review the Environment Act and the Economic Development Act in relation to the mandate and membership of the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment, or YCEE, in view of the fact that since the establishment of the YCEE in 1988:

(1) the Government of Yukon has assumed the responsibility for the management of land and resources in the territory effective April 1, 2003, through the Devolution Transfer Agreement;

(2) 11 of the 14 Yukon First Nation has settled their land claims; and,

(3) the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act is now in force and effect.

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

THAT this House urges both the Yukon New Democratic Party and the Yukon Party to comply with the Elections Act by completing and filing with Elections Yukon required financing reports from the 2006 general election.

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

THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to release publicly the completed legal review of the Porcupine Caribou Management Agreement.

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

THAT this House urges the Yukon government to introduce its climate change action plan, so that implementation can begin without further delay.

I give notice of the following motion:

THAT this House urges the Yukon government to expand the hazardous waste collection and disposal program so that waste fuel oil and other contaminants are better contained and less likely to end up in the land or water.

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House that:

(1) burning household garbage creates toxic pollutants that we breathe in the air, that get into the ground and into the water system;

(2) one of the toxins released in burning garbage is the dioxin TCDD, the most lethal human-made poison;

(3) there are links between the toxins released by burning household garbage and cancer, birth defects, autism, respiratory problems, and other health issues;

(4) burning garbage releases greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change; and

THAT, in the interest of protecting our environmental health, this House urges the Yukon government to ban the burning of solid waste and to resource rural dumps adequately so that more waste is diverted into recycling.

NOTICES OF MOTION FOR THE PRODUCTION OF PAPERS

Mr. Mitchell:    I give notice of the following motion for the production of papers:

THAT this House do issue an order for the return of the recently completed air quality report done at Whitehorse General Hospital.

Speaker:   Are there any further notices of motion?

Is there a statement by a minister?

This then brings us to Question Period. 

QUESTION PERIOD

Question re:  Electrical rate relief

Mr. McRobb:    Since Yukoners have been reaching deeper into their pockets lately to pay their electricity bills, I thought it would be a timely time to check in with the minister responsible for energy.

Many consumers are hurting from paying record-high gasoline prices and power bills. The minister increased power bills by 15 percent last July, and the impact on Yukoners will worsen when he increases power bills by another 15 percent this July.

Surely the minister and his colleagues recognize the extent of financial pain they’ve created by imposing these cost increases on people who can least afford them, including seniors, single parents and that demographic known as the “working poor”.

Will the minister consider postponing his next round of planned power bill increases?

Hon. Mr. Lang:            We certainly did look at the rate stabilization plan last year and, of course, renewed it at a 50-percent level. Those decisions would come in the near future if in fact we were going to extend that.

Mr. McRobb:   Another non-answer, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, asking nicely for compassion toward Yukoners doesn’t work with this Yukon Party government. It has been about a year since the Yukon Party shocked electrical consumers by announcing it would terminate the popular rate stabilization program. The program provided a financial dividend of up to $40 per month to shareholders of the publicly owned utility company, the Yukon Energy Corporation. Despite the significance of this action, for some strange reason, it escaped mention in the Yukon Party’s campaign platform. It has turned out to be another one of the minister’s secret surprises and to consumers about as welcome as another broken promise to not increase taxes.

Why won’t the minister spare consumers by extending this program from out of the government’s
$108-million surplus?

Hon. Mr. Lang:    We certainly realize the consumer has issues with rates and other issues with our power source, and we’re certainly working positively on that, Mr. Speaker. We’re looking at a complete overview of the rates coming up here in the fall and we’re certainly looking at reducing rates with the number of customers we’re putting on-line in the near future, and hopefully that will benefit all Yukoners.

Mr. McRobb:   When the minister announced his secret plan to raise consumers’ power bills, he promised to offset any increase with a reduction to power rates effective this past February — another broken Yukon Party promise.

Anyone who pays power bills can tell you they have gone up, not down. This has caused financial hardship to people who least can afford it, such as seniors, single parents and the working poor.

The government should have felt a duty to Yukoners to avoid causing drastic fluctuations to the cost of such an essential service that affects so many. This increase was easily preventable. How much longer will the minister continue this type of consumer gouging?

Hon. Mr. Lang:    I remind the member opposite that there was no such thing as any kind of tax on consumers. The rate stabilization fund was put forward by a previous government and was maintained up to last year.

We feel that we could work with a balance of conservation, which is very important as we get into this age of higher fuel prices. We are looking at a GRA to see what we can do for consumers about lowering all the rates, but we have to get more customers, and that is what we are doing by expanding our power grid from Carmacks to Pelly. We are putting on the grid the community of Pelly and also a large consumer, which will be Sherwood Copper. That is all on time, on budget and moving forward.

The corporation has committed, along with the independent power supplier, Yukon Electrical Company Limited, to go in front of the Yukon Utilities Board very soon. I look forward to lower rates for all consumers.

Question re:  H. pylori bacterium health statistics

Mr. Elias:   A recent study of residents of a community in the Northwest Territories has revealed a shockingly high rate of a stomach bacterium that is linked to cancer. The study revealed that 55 percent of the adults tested showed positive results for the H. pylori bacterium. This bacterium is normally found in 10 to 20 percent of the general population.

This type of infection can be treated easily if properly diagnosed and, has been linked to stomach cancer if left untreated. The key public safety issue here is getting an understanding of how extensive this bacterial infection is.

Will the Health and Social Services minister perform a study to determine how extensively this bacterial infection is present in the residents of Old Crow?

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   I thank the member for his question and his concerns about his constituents. The H. pylori situation that occurred in N.W.T. — I understand why this has brought concerns to the member’s attention.

The infection can be treated. Two major studies have failed to find any reduction in stomach cancer rates following treatment. At this point in time, there is no effective screening for stomach cancer, nor are there any proven prevention strategies. However, H. pylori is an actually fairly common bacterium. At least 50 percent of the population worldwide is affected with this, but only a small number will develop stomach cancer. However, our medical health officer is currently reviewing the results from the findings in Aklavik, N.W.T., and will be looking at the effect of this and reporting and making recommendations to the department and to me, if there is a need for further follow-up in this case.

Mr. Elias:   This is a very serious issue. Old Crow residents have concerns about the high rates of cancer in our community. This bacterial infection is very easy to treat, if it is diagnosed, but if the H. pylori bacterium is left untreated, gastric ulcers will occur and stomach cancer may well develop.

Mr. Speaker, this is a proven health risk that is easy to eradicate, as long as we know how extensive it is and have the resources and direction to test for it. Once it has been determined how widespread this infection is, then we can take the next steps to review the treatment options.

Will the minister table the health statistics with regard to H. pylori-related stomach ailments in Old Crow?

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   In fact, the number of cases of stomach cancer in the Yukon is very small; it has been tracked. I’m referring to the territory as a whole. In fact, for statistical purposes, in terms of estimating the percentage and in terms of not identifying individuals, the number is too small to be reported. The small number of cases, coupled with a small population, means that the incidence of stomach cancer in the Yukon is too small to be reliably estimated.

Yukon does report the incidence of lung cancer, breast cancers and — let me see. I’m just trying to find the response to the member’s question here. I recognize the member’s concern and, as I indicated, our medical officer of health will be reviewing the findings from N.W.T., and I will certainly communicate to the Member for Vuntut Gwitchin if we feel there is a need for further review.

But at this time, as I indicated, not only stomach cancer is linked to H. pylori, but all stomach cancers are very low in Yukon as a whole, not just in Old Crow.

Mr. Elias:   This is a preventive measure that can protect my constituents, and it is the Health and Social Services minister’s responsibility to find out if my constituents’ health is at risk. Here’s what the minister can do: build a team of experts in this field, including a gastroenterologist; conduct testing in Old Crow; analyze the results and find out which strain of H. pylori my community is dealing with. And then tailor the development of a treatment plan that will eradicate H. pylori from my community and reduce the incidence of internal cancers. We may also identify the source of the bacterium.

This is the kind of world-class medical care my constituents deserve and expect. Our community of Old Crow is pleading for help. Will the Health and Social Services minister respond to that plea?

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   I think what is prompting the concerns the member is hearing from his constituents is that there was a gastrointestinal illness that a number of his constituents did contract. The last report that I have is that the most likely cause is Norovirus. Testing is being done and specimens were sent to the Alberta provincial lab. I have not yet received the report on that, but they were being sent to determine whether it had a bacterial cause. Again, as I say, our officials within the communicable disease control unit advise us that it was likely Norovirus virus and that would have no linkage to stomach cancer. Of course it is a very serious stomach bug and can create not only great discomfort, but for the elderly and children or someone who is in a weakened condition, it can have impacts. Norovirus itself is a very common illness among the population.

As I indicated to the member, the medical officer of health will be reviewing what occurred in N.W.T. The report on the gastrointestinal illness outbreak that occurred in Old Crow will be coming back. We will be monitoring this situation, and I will be acting based on the advice of our experts and the officials, including the medical officer of health. We certainly recognize the member’s desire to ensure that his constituents are taken care of, and I share his concern. I will communicate to him any further action needed.

Question re:  Child Care Act

Mr. Hardy:   I have a question for the Minister of Health and Social Services. It is a very straightforward question that is similar to the one that I asked the Premier recently. Will the minister explain why he is not fulfilling the obligations of section 4 of the Child Care Act?

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   I would be interested to hear the member’s follow-up question and what he is referring to. Certainly, all members of this government and officials within departments and I take all appropriate steps to the best of each individual’s ability to fulfill all legal statutory, regulatory and policy obligations. If the member has a specific concern that he would like to make me aware of, I would be happy to hear it.

Mr. Hardy:   Using the member’s own words: I wish he would read the act, so he would understand it.

Section 4(1) of the act requires Cabinet to appoint a Yukon Child Care Board of no less than seven members. The board is supposed to consist of members nominated by Yukon First Nations, childcare groups, licensed childcare services and parents. Under section 4(3)(10) of the act, the board is required to meet no less than twice a year. According to the boards and committees Web site, it actually meets every six to eight weeks.

Why has the minister allowed this committee to become dormant, the same way the Minister of Environment has allowed the Council on the Economy and the Environment to become dormant?

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   The member’s assertion that the committee is dormant is incorrect. I believe, at this point in time, I think there are perhaps, to the best of my recollection, one, maybe two vacancies. There certainly have been appointments to this board within the last six months. The board has been active and is continuing its work.

I am not sure where the member is getting his information. He is referring to a Web site, but quite frankly, I do not spend my time surfing the net. I have been at meetings of the Yukon Child Care Board, so I can assure him they have been held. I have received correspondence from the Yukon Child Care Board. I can assure him they are continuing to do their work.

Mr. Hardy:   I just had to tell him what part of the act we are talking about because he is not aware of that. I also have to point out the fact that he has staff to keep these boards filled. Let’s give him a few more facts.

The fact is, according to the government’s own Web site, the Yukon Child Care Board, right now, consists of only two members. The appointments for the other eight members, including the chair and the vice-chair, expired on February 22.

The act sets out a number of duties for this board. These duties include making recommendations to the minister on childcare issues; reviewing the government’s childcare policies, programs, services and administrative procedures; advising on planning, development and standards of childcare services; and hearing appeals under the act.

When will the minister fulfill his duty and make sure the Child Care Board is up to strength, and able to perform its mandated role under the act?

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   Again, I remind the member that the board has been continuing its work and that we have made appointments recently. I will check the member’s concern to determine if a few other appointments have lapsed, but the member relying on a Web site for information — well, the Web sites should be updated regularly, and efforts are made to ensure they are, but they are not always current.

I can tell the member the board has been carrying on its work. We have been actively engaged in meetings within the past six or eight months — that would be, I’d say, the last time I attended one of their meetings. I know they have continued their work beyond that. We have made appointments within the last six months to the board. The board is continuing to do their good work. The member’s assertion that we’re not following the obligations of the act is incorrect. The member is relying on a Web site for information.

If the member has concerns, I would encourage the member to write me a letter or talk to me directly. I would be happy to follow up on it. We have kept this board active, and the board has been fulfilling their obligations. For the member to make the assertion otherwise is unfortunate and does not respect those who put in their time on this board and its operation.

Question re:  Children in care costs

Mr. Hardy:   I will ask directly right now a new question.

My question is to the Minister of Health and Social Services. I realize he may not have the precise information at his fingertips; that is just the way it is with him.

Can the minister give the House an indication of what it now costs his department per day, per child, for children in care, and what percentage of that cost is for First Nation children in care?

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the member to discuss this where we usually discuss it: in budgetary debate. At that point in time, I will have the information at my fingertips.

I appreciate the member’s question, but the members have spent almost half this session taking time on things such as some of the motions today and procedural motions and efforts to delay debate in previous discussion. If they would get down to business and discuss the budget that we are ready, willing and able to debate, we will happily get into that level of information; however, it is best discussed in line-by-line.

Mr. Hardy:   The people of the Yukon know that it is the government that calls the budget to the floor, not us, so the responsibility lies with them for not bringing the budget forward.

The current budget shows that over $7.5 million is recoverable from the federal Department of Indian and Northern Affairs for child welfare. There is also over $500,000 from the federal child benefit. This is $8 million total for service by this government to First Nation children.

It’s amazing that this minister doesn’t know this. If First Nations opt to draw down responsibility for child welfare, will all of that $8 million be on the table or is the minister looking at a different amount?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I’ll give full marks to the NDP researchers for actually looking into the budget and how it relates to recoveries and expenditures in any given area. Of course, with the recoveries from Canada, come a great deal of obligations for the Yukon that we must carry out.

With respect to the member’s question on the eventuality of a First Nation negotiating a PSTA, that’s to be determined by the negotiation. It includes the federal government, the Yukon government and any specific First Nation that formally requests to occupy any area of authority as defined in their self-government agreements.

It’s not directly linked to the numbers in the Yukon budget at any given time. It is addressed through that negotiation, through that agreed process, and before we can determine the outcomes, we must go through that process.

Mr. Hardy:   Child welfare cannot simply be turned over to another jurisdiction without a great deal of coordination, not to mention the costs involved. Developing and implementing First Nation legislation and policies that operate in both systems at once is very complex. Then there is the question of hiring and training professional staff. Social workers who are already overworked could be called upon to train and mentor First Nations.

Since the Premier hasn’t been willing to accommodate First Nation concerns in the new act, I’m curious about how cooperative he will be during negotiations to draw down this authority.

What amount has the Finance minister identified in his budget forecast for negotiations and to help First Nations build capacity? Or does he expect the federal and First Nation governments to take on the costs themselves?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I think what has to be said here — and I’m going to be very blunt about it — is the continuing comments by the opposition that we, the government, and First Nations involved in the process that we embarked upon almost five years ago to create a new child act — to say that we haven’t met First Nation concerns is complete nonsense.

In fact, because of the large percentage of First Nation children in care, because of the situation we recognized, along with First Nations, that has to do with the existing act and its deficiencies, because of so many other factors, First Nations were engaged in a full formal partnership, right to where we jointly informed the drafting.

Let me make this point: yesterday we experienced amendments coming from the third party that included commas, periods and no substantive amendment to change, improve or affect the act as tabled in any way, shape or form. The issue here is they have failed to bring forward any substantive issue, and I would challenge them to do so or move on to constructive debate.

Question re:  School funding

Mr. Fairclough:   I have a question for the Minister of Education. There has been a great deal of public debate about the budget for the Department of Education this spring. I’d like the minister to put something on the public record. According to his own budget documents, the amount of money going to public schools is down this year from last year. It’s not a large amount but it is down.

Will the minister admit that this in fact is the case, that funding for public schools is down?

Hon. Mr. Rouble:    I appreciate that this is Education Week in the territory and that a lot of attention comes to the Department of Education at this time. I appreciate the opportunity to clear up some issues for the member opposite. If the member opposite would take a look at the budget in a little bit greater detail, he would notice that the facilities management agreement amount has been taken out of the budget.

Mr. Speaker, that was $8.5 million that was in previous years’ budgets, which was used to maintain facilities. That responsibility and expenditure has now been transferred to the Department of Highways and Public Works. So, Mr. Speaker, $8.5 million has been removed from the budget, and the responsibility has gone with that.

When we compare the existing numbers, you’ll see that there are actually increases in what we’re expending on education.

I thank the member opposite for bringing this forward, giving me the opportunity to clear up this misunderstanding.

Mr. Fairclough:   Well, the minister was unable to answer the question as it was put to him. I’m talking about public schools, not the whole budget in that department. If the minister looks at it, it is down. I know the minister is sensitive about this and wants to skirt around the question.

Now, last year, the funding for public schools was $81.2 million, and this year it’s $81.1 million. That is a reduction; it is a cut. At the same time, funding is up across the board in many other departments.

The Yukon Party government is sitting with $108 million in the bank, yet it is cutting back funding for public schools. The minister has a lot of money to spend on every household flyer with his picture on it, but he has cut funding for public schools. Why has funding for public schools been cut?

Hon. Mr. Rouble:    Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is incorrect. His examination of the budget document is not complete or thorough, and he needs to look at it in much greater detail. Perhaps when we get into the Department of Education budget, he will ask me a question about it.

Last week, when we looked at the supplementary budget for education, which increased the number of educational assistants by 10, the member opposite didn’t even have a question on it. We asked them for their support. We recognize the importance of education in our territory and the priority that it has for all Yukoners today and into the future, and the government will continue to fund important projects, and to build new schools. I expect to see the member opposite at the school opening in his community on Friday.

We don’t have a construction project like that in the budget this year, so obviously the capital budget would be less. We have just finished constructing a school. I don’t know how the member can get up and say education is not a priority, when on Friday we are going to open a new school in his community.

Mr. Fairclough:   The fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that the new budget cuts funding to public schools. The minister knows it; the Yukon Party government knows it, and yet they want to skirt around it. They can’t answer the question.

Mr. Speaker, I am asking about funding for public schools. It is on page 7-4 of the budget. If we can’t debate the budget, maybe we will have to ask questions in Question Period.

It is down from last year, and there is no reason for the government to be cutting back on education. There is $108 million in the bank. The minister has enough money in his budget to send a flyer to every household in the Yukon about all the great work he is doing. Interestingly enough, he isn’t saying anything about the cuts for public schools.

Will the minister admit that funding for public schools is cut in this budget?

Hon. Mr. Rouble:    The easy answer for the member opposite is no, because that’s not accurate. It simply is not accurate. When one takes a look at the budget and at what has gone on in the department, at the transfer for the facilities management agreement and recognizes that is no longer an expenditure of the department, he’ll see that. If he compares the mains of this year to those of previous years, he’ll understand that.

I recognize the member opposite wasn’t a member of the previous Liberal government when they were in power, but I would recognize that he has joined them and, therefore, he must be endorsing some of the priorities, practices and policies of that party.

There has only been one party I know of that has cut education, and that member has joined the party.

Question re:  Teacher staffing cuts

Mr. Fairclough:  I have a question for the Minister of Education. The definition of school catchment areas is the responsibility of the Minister of Education. The area for new school development, known as Whitehorse Copper, presently falls in the Elijah Smith Elementary School boundaries. Elijah Smith school presently is at capacity. In fact, some children living in the school area are being sent to Takhini Elementary School. It would seem that with any new families moving to the Whitehorse Copper area, the burden would fall on the Elijah Smith school.

On the other hand, Golden Horn Elementary School has capacity to absorb more students from the Whitehorse Copper area. Will the minister commit to realigning the catchment area so that Whitehorse Copper students will attend Golden Horn Elementary School?

Hon. Mr. Rouble:    Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member opposite. It is a good question regarding how we’ll go about working with our constituents and working with our schools and working with the existing infrastructure and continuing to ensure that we have quality education in all Yukon schools and ensuring that we have equity in all Yukon schools.

Mr. Speaker, when we were re-elected, we immediately went to work and created the Copper Ridge school advisory group that worked with a consulting firm. It presented us with a report that included a recommendation — and a recommendation from the Copper Ridge school advisory group — that we take a look at the catchment areas.

As well, the MLA for Mount Lorne has sent me a letter and has addressed this issue. He has brought it to my attention, and he has concerns about the school population at Golden Horn. I can let the members rest assured that I have directed the department to examine catchment areas and to work with the school councils and the school administrators and to come up with recommendations that will address the issues that are being raised and work in the best interests of all our schools.

Mr. Fairclough:   Mr. Speaker, the catchment areas need to be looked at first before determining the staffing needs. There has been considerable concern expressed by school councils that schools will be facing teacher cuts this year. The number that is being floated around, Mr. Speaker, is 15. Fifteen teachers are to be eliminated.

According to the budget stats, Yukon school populations only decreased by four students last year. How could this even result in one FTE being eliminated? How can the minister even attempt to justify that, Mr. Speaker? The public school budget has been cut. School populations are now holding constant and yet we hear of teachers being cut. Will the minister commit to no teacher cuts this year? Yes or no?

Hon. Mr. Rouble:    I will make it very clear for the member opposite: this government has no intention of cutting teachers. In our supplementary budget, we asked for the opposition parties to support us in increasing the number of educational assistants in our system by 10.

We also asked them to endorse the supplementary budget that included additional funds for our teachers. I trust they will support us on that.

Mr. Speaker, we will go to work with the school councils in the affected areas. I have directed the Department of Education to do so, to ensure that we build the best possible schools, to ensure there is an appropriate distribution of students, and an appropriate distribution of assets and resources so that we can build the best possible education system for the territory.

Mr. Fairclough:   With regard to the teacher cuts, Mr. Speaker, we are hearing something else, and the minister ought to be listening more closely to the people out there who are involved in education.

The same minister predicted last year that school populations would decrease by 89 students. Well, the number was only four, not 89, and the minister was in error by a factor of some 2,200 percent. I suggest the minister leave the imaginary numbers to grade 10 algebra and restrict himself to real numbers.

Mr. Speaker, that leaves parents with little confidence that this minister knows what he is doing, and it reminds me of the Premier’s inability to deal with real numbers in his department.

Will the minister agree to realign the catchment areas for Golden Horn now, and ensure parents of Golden Horn, and all Yukon schools, that there will be no further teacher cuts in the next school year? Yes or no?

Hon. Mr. Rouble:    I wish the member opposite would listen to my comments and that his follow-up questions would reflect the information that I presented.

Is that too much to ask for sometimes, Mr. Speaker — that the members of the opposition would listen and reflect the information in their supplementary questions? I’ve stood on the floor and said we’ve increased the number of educational assistants, the number of teachers in our system has increased, while the school populations have decreased. The number of students we have in our system does change on a day-to-day basis. Families move into the territory and others move out. We have a population right now of about 5,003 students in our school system, and we will work with our school councils and with our school administrators to ensure there is equitable, appropriate allocation of resources to all our schools, so that we can help all our students reach their fullest potential.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

OPPOSITION PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS

MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS

Motion No. 373

Clerk:   Motion No. 373, standing in the name of Mr. Hardy.

Speaker:   It is moved by the Leader of the Third Party

THAT this House urges the Minister of Environment to uphold the Environment Act, and make a commitment that the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment will be brought up to full strength within the next six months and be given the direction and support it needs to fulfill its mandate.

Mr. Hardy:   I’m going to open this discussion around something that is extremely important for the future of this territory, as well as the present, by reading a two-page item called “Our Sustainable Future: A Shared Responsibility”.

“Like the establishment of the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment in 1989, the drafting of a Yukon environment act reflects our growing recognition of the need to think carefully and act responsibly as we pursue two major goals: the protection of our environment and the development of our economy.

“These two events also underscore the importance we place on achieving these goals in a particular way. Consultation and cooperation: these are the means we have chosen to accomplish our ends. Indeed, as this report will demonstrate, the council’s views about the draft Yukon environmental act not only reflect the diverse opinion present in the territory, but reaffirm the need for all Yukoners to continue working in a cooperative and consultative fashion.

“Between February 28 and March 25, 1991, the council held a series of meetings with representatives from a broad range of economic and social sectors: mining, First Nations, agriculture, tourism, business, renewable resources, forestry and municipal government. It did this to hear specifically what the sectors had to say about the content of the proposed act.

“Only in this way could the council fulfill its mandate to bring together ‘people with a wide range of economic and environmental interests’ and ‘ensure that both the environment is protected and economic development is beneficial.’”

As part of the draft act states, a symbiotic relationship exists between our environment and our economy. A healthy economy requires a healthy environment. Thinking in exclusive economic or environmental terms is not ethically or financially affordable. Sustainability requires that we think in social, cultural, environmental and economic terms. We must continue to work toward complete compatibility between our economic and environmental goals and agendas. Only then will we be truly sustainable.

Consequently, the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment believes that, in an appropriately revised Yukon Environment Act that reflects a positive tone, shared responsibility and fairness, it should be enacted in the near future, but it also anticipates that, like economic legislation, it will someday be superseded by a new kind of legislation. As our thinking about the environment and the economy continue to move closer together, so should our legislation. We believe, therefore, that the Yukon Environment Act should be seen as a confident first step toward a Yukon sustainable development act.

What I have just read, Mr. Speaker, really and truly lays out what we need to do for the future in this territory. There is a lot of concern by the people of this territory about the environment, the wilderness and about what’s happening.

The Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment is a reflection of people’s concerns, interests and being engaged in that kind of debate. It’s incumbent upon a government, once they create a board or committee, to ensure that the board or committee has the means to address any items or issues brought before it, to fulfill their mandate.

What is their mandate? The Yukon government created the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment to help ensure that the economy and environment are managed in a harmonious way to raise public awareness of sustainable development issues.

The principles of sustainable development are explicitly recognized both in the Yukon conservation strategy and the Yukon economic strategy, as well as Yukon’s Environment Act and Economic Development Act. Together, these documents form a foundation for policy and actions to strengthen and protect the Yukon’s environment and economy.

Through research and public education and by advising government on a range of issues, the council encourages sustainable development policies and practices in the Yukon.

More specifically, what does the council do? It reviews major government policies, strategies, legislation, and programs that affect the Yukon’s economy and environment. It also works with industry, community and public sectors to promote development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

As well, it advises on the implementation of the Yukon economic strategy and Yukon conservation. It monitors the progress of the Yukon conservation strategy and evaluates its success in guiding sustainable development. It holds public meetings, workshops and conferences on major economic and environmental issues. It promotes public awareness and understanding of the connections between the environment and the economy. It reviews and comments on reports related to economic and environmental issues and recommends research on sustainable development issues.

Mr. Speaker, that is a huge mandate when you think about it. It is a mandate that a government can only benefit from by ensuring that they have the resources, they have the people on the committee, and they have the time and the task given to them to fulfill that mandate.

They also have a set of terms of reference that we need to refer to when we are thinking about this. The terms of reference on YCEE are as follows: act as a forum for economic/environmental issues in the Yukon, which is, of course, reviewing major policies of the government; take a leadership role in working with various sectors toward stable and, in the case of the renewable resource sector, sustainable development, particularly through identifying significant opportunities for advance in economic development activities that are environmentally sound; function as a central advisory group on the Yukon economic strategy and monitor progress on the implementation of the actions in that paper, and evaluate their success in guiding environmentally sound economic development and diversification in the Yukon; function as a central advisory group for the Yukon conservation strategy and monitor progress on implementation of actions outlined, and evaluate their success in guiding sustainable development of the renewable resource sector and environmentally sound and stable economic development of the non-renewable resource sector in the Yukon; encourage the development by industry, government, labour and aboriginal and non-governmental organizations of projects that demonstrate environmentally sound economic development.

I call on the responsible ministers — and there are two of them here — the Environment minister and the Economic Development minister — to arrange public symposiums on major economic environmental issues.

Mr. Speaker, I can’t even remember when the last one was done, yet this is part of their terms of reference: promoting cooperation with the Government of Yukon, public awareness and understanding of the linkages between environment and the economy, and the importance of environmental economic integration and sustainable development; recommend research that may, as appropriate, be funded by government to further understand our economy and our environment and how it links together; and review and comment on any reports that address the state of Yukon’s economy, environment and resources.

I haven’t seen any reports for many years, Mr. Speaker. I haven’t seen a current state of the environment report — any current one. I think the last one that has come before us is dated 2005. So we are behind on that. This is what the YCEE is supposed to be looking at.

It is a big agenda and it is an important agenda. Most wonderfully, in many ways, it deals very much with bringing together the economy and the environment and not having them separate. I would even go so far as to say that, in looking at the YCEE, what also should be considered is the social agenda. They are all interconnected, and it has a role to play there. There is nothing that we can point to that stands completely alone. Each of those three items — each of the important challenges that we face in this territory are all interconnected: the environment, the economy and the social issues that we face.

There are a lot of areas that we can talk about on this. Under the Environment Act, it states very clearly that the council has a role to play. I’ve already stated some of the actions that they are supposed to be doing, Mr. Speaker. However, also under the Economic Development Act, it has a role to play.

I have recently heard from some people that unfortunately the two departments, in the past, have played the council off on each other. The council has asked the government to bring forward or give them an assignment so that they can fulfill their mandate in advising the government, and one department has said, “Oh no, you’re under the Environment Act”, and then the other department, Environment, has responded by say, “Oh no, no, no, you’re under the Economic Development Act. Therefore, you go to them.” They’ve been bounced back and forth. I’ve heard that from the board members.

I should say ex-board members, because what we are talking about here is the failure of this government to ensure that the council has been able to fulfill its mandate. And it’s in our acts. It has a role to play. It is law, and it’s not happening. We have a board that no longer has quorum, does not have members on it. I think it’s down to four now, when it could be anywhere from eight to 12, so it’s not functioning on that level.

We have the Council on the Economy and the Environment, which has a mandate to fulfill, and they can’t fulfill it. They haven’t been given the task by the government to come back with reports or take a look at what I have just discussed. The government has not allowed them to do that work. It says very clearly that “The Commissioner in Executive Council shall ensure that the Council is provided with adequate staff support and resources as may be approved in the estimates.” 

It’s not there, Mr. Speaker. Where did it go? And we are talking years, now. I am not criticizing the government for something that has lapsed in the last six months. I can understand, sometimes you get behind. But you know what? In talking to some former board members, they cannot remember — they are former now, because their terms have run out — the last time they met, and they are going back years. They cannot remember the last time the government assigned any kind of duties to them. It goes back years. My understanding is the chair quit out of frustration in regard to the fact that they were named to a board, they have duties to fulfill, but they are not being allowed to fulfill those duties.

Another thing is that the members and past members feel very strongly about what it says in the Environment Act.  It states very clearly: “All reports of the Council shall be public, and the Council shall table a report to the Legislative Assembly at least once per year detailing its activities and expenditures.”

I stand to be corrected on this, and I hope I am corrected, because I hope I’m wrong on this one point: the last report that was tabled that I can find was between April 2003 and March 2004. They held one regularly scheduled meeting, as detailed in the report, and they’ve been waiting for various government documents in order to complete their legislative review responsibilities. That is directly from the executive summary of 2003-04, the first sentence. It says they’re waiting for various government documents in order to complete their duties. They haven’t come forward.

For instance, the council’s role in providing feedback for the government’s new Yukon economic strategy — the chair of YCEE has been representing council at various stakeholder meetings and has been working toward development of this. The council continues to monitor Yukon government progress, a sustainable progress indicators project, but where has that gone? That was a significant step — sustainable progress indicators — and they encouraged that inclusion in the Yukon economic strategy. The council remains hopeful the government will adopt the widespread use of these indicators, which measure progress in all aspects: environmental, social and economic.

Has that happened? It’s not there.

The council has been eagerly awaiting the release of a Yukon forestry policy and, to my knowledge, 2003-04 is quite a few years ago — four years — and where is it? Have they been able to review it?

In 2003-04, they were budgeted $50,000 to do their duties, the tasks that were assigned to them. They spent $16,836 of those dollars because they did not get direction from the government. They did not get any tasks assigned to them.

That is a failure of the government, unfortunately. The report by the chair goes on to say, “2003-04 has been a transition year for council. The challenges faced this year surrounded the refocusing of government priorities as well as a change in leadership to council.”

He further goes on to say, “Although only having met once this past fiscal year…” — which does not meet their mandate — “…YCEE has attempted to work on its legislated obligations and members have continued to stay up to date on issues affecting the Yukon’s economy and the environment.” They have “attempted to” — they are committed to this and they want to do the work.

My question comes down to this: is there a commitment by this government to get this committee up and running again and allow it to do what it is mandated to do? I am hoping today to hear some direction in this area because this is a period of time, four years now, in which the council has not been engaged with the government.

I will admit, I was one of the first members named to the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment many, many years ago, and served — I can’t remember how many years I did on it. I have to say it was probably one of the most interesting, invigorating councils I have ever been on. It was fascinating to have 12 people in a room from various walks of life and different backgrounds working to identify sustainable development, looking at the environment and economic growth in a sustainable way, with all our different backgrounds. The backgrounds ranged from me at that time as a labour representative, to mining representatives, to business representatives, First Nation representatives, municipal government representatives, and a multitude of other representatives. I could go on. It was really a very interesting cross-section of people who came together, often with very different points of view. We had a good chair.

Once we got into the room together, once we sat down and looked at the tasks ahead of us, which the government had assigned to us — it could be anything from uranium mining to whatever the government felt was important — the road into the Peel River watershed. It could have been a multitude of issues that we looked at.

It was amazing to note how quickly we came together. We were able to understand each other’s positions and we were able to come together and recognize that we weren’t very far apart on any of these issues. We did share many of the same values and principles and feelings about which direction the territory should be going and the government should be leading the territory.

This was a tremendous benefit for governments. Because of my past experience on that board and what I’ve watched over the last while, I feel at times that the government doesn’t have that access to a council like this and hasn’t always made the most correct decisions that are more representative of the voice of the people of the Yukon.

This board, in many ways, did represent a multitude of voices of the people of the Yukon and was able to advise the government. Now, the board itself doesn’t direct the government; it advises the government. Any kind of advice you can get, even if you may not totally agree with it, will only strengthen your final product, and it is extremely important for legislation.

So, what has the board looked at in the past? I’ll just touch on some of them. In 1990, a presentation by the Angus Reid group, posters on public opinion around the environment — the board looked at that. In 1991, there was a public review of implementation of the Yukon economic strategy and the Yukon conservation strategy. Participants looked at agriculture, subsistence, fish and wildlife, mining, environmental protection, forestry, construction, manufacturing and energy. There’s quite a wide range of interests and discussion happening around that.

From 1993 to 1995, the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment consulted Yukoners and reported on expanding gambling and video lottery terminals. It was pretty fascinating and pretty interesting to take on that task. You know what? In some ways, it’s a relief for the government when they have contentious issues like this before them, to be able to have a board like the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment to say, “Go out, take a look at this and come back and advise us in this area.”

In 1994, they organized a sectoral conference on mining. Again, I have to remind people that this is a group of people from different walks of life, and they’re looking at very challenging issues. Invariably there was consensus and that’s a great achievement. It’s a wonderful group of people to pull from.

In 1995, they organized a public conference called “Energy for Tomorrow”, which looked at alternative energy sources, coal generation and demand-side management. In 1995, that was very forward-thinking and something the council could take on.

Again in 1995, they organized a conference called “The Future of Yukon’s Forests” in Watson Lake. They looked at establishing small, locally owned forestry industries and developing ecosystem management plans for the forest.

In 1990 to 1995, there was also a review of the Yukon conservation strategy during that period. It produced a report called Yukon Mining: The Next Century. There was a review of the contributions of the arts community to the Yukon economy. So you can start to get the idea how unbelievably broad this council was, just as were the members who made up this council.

In 1997-98 they worked with the Department of Economic Development to develop an economic diversification plan. They conducted public education around sustainable development. In 1999, there were community conferences called “Focus on the Future: Building Sustainable Communities”. The Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment looked at non-traditional economic initiatives and drew up profiles of 16 local businesses — now, that’s not bad.

In 1999 they reviewed the draft legislation of Yukon Development Assessment Act and, of course, brought forward recommendations. From a 1999 report on DAP, the council also has a responsibility to provide advice to the Cabinet on how the Yukon can achieve both a diversified and stable economy and healthy environment.

In the 2002-03 annual report, the first one to this government, the membership looks forward to receiving direction from a new government and is eager to work forward — what I just read, except that was in 2003-04.

What did it do during this period? It reviewed the 1987 economic strategy. It got feedback on the Yukon conservation strategy and revision. It provided comments and recommendations to the 2002 state of the environment report and encouraged and supported the Yukon territorial government around implementing the sustainable progress indicators — SPI, as a lot of people call it — project.

In 2003-04, as I’ve already said, they only met once. It says, and I’ll reiterate, the “Council has been waiting for various government documents in order to complete its legislated review responsibilities.”

It stopped there. It seemed to have lost its initiative, its direction and the support of the government, and yet it is supposed to be a committee that is functioning.

The council has sent two letters to the Minister of Economic Development requesting finalized, sustainable progress indicators. No reply has ever come back.

A motion was carried to redraft a letter to the Minister of Economic Development outlining the Yukon Council on the Environment and the Economy’s involvement in a sustainable progress indicators project requesting the finalized sustainable project progress indicators and encouraged the government to implement the indicators as a workable tool for the government. There was a draft letter regarding the state of the environment report for 2002 — asking for the completion of it.

So it seems they have tried to do their work. They want to do their work. They are mandated to do this work. It is in our acts — both in the Yukon Economic Development Act and the Environment Act — and it is hitting a wall. Since 2003-04 they have had one meeting, so really from 2003 onward this is a committee that really has not been used to the potential that it can be used, and has been in the past.

What I have listed already indicates how broad and how important the work that they do can be, and how beneficial it can be for a government, and of course to the people of the territory.

Unfortunately, looking at it, and looking at other boards and committees, we have a problem. I will give you some examples.

First Nation Advisory Council on Child Welfare — now, they are supposedly an advisory council, but I haven’t been able to locate who the members are, where and when and if they ever met and what their mandate is. So, I’m not sure if they are operating or if it is just in name only.

Another example of what has happened in this area is the Yukon Child Care Board — we asked the question today about boards and committees and about this one specifically. The member dismissed it by criticizing our source. Well, our source is a government source — it’s the government Web page. Our source is also phoning around trying to find out what is happening. I would assume that the government has faith in their own Web site, or is that just a bunch of propaganda?

Is that what the minister is — okay, I’ll withdraw the propaganda remark — or is that not accurate? I would hope that the information that is put out to the public on their Web site, just like any other publication or press release, is current and accurate and it’s there for the public to be informed on what the present conditions are. The Minister of Health and Social Services seems to have dismissed that and I feel that’s a shame.

Renewable resource councils are running short of people. What could be the explanation for this state of affairs? In the case of the Minister of Environment, it could be because the minister doesn’t want or need the input from the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment.

The Economic Development minister could feel the same way. As a matter of fact, the whole government could feel that they don’t need this type of advice, that they don’t need a panel, or a committee, of eight to 12 people representing various groups and concerns coming together and finding common ground around sustainable development. They could just be deliberately ignoring — or not supporting — these groups.

I would like the government to clarify why they have allowed the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment and other citizen advisory groups to basically wither on the vine.

Good government is not getting into power and then doing whatever you want. Good government is inclusive, cooperative, and making sure that you are representing the voice of the people out there.

I give you some areas where I think the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment could be working on — tasks for the government such as public/private partnerships. Why weren’t they tasked with taking a look at that kind of direction that the Economic Development minister wants the territory to go in. I see it’s on their Web page: P3s. There is a big promotion of P3s in that department.

There is also big promotion in that department around the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement as well. They could be looking at the impact TILMA would have on the territory, if any at all. We are signing that agreement, so it should be assigned to this group. These are big issues with Economic Development. I think the minister would appreciate, once he has seen the work that can be done by this council, the report that he would receive in that area. Wind River would be perfect for the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment. We’ve got to look after the environment. We are talking about sustainable development now; it’s no longer just development.

Coal-bed methane — another debate we could have. How about trade to China? How about the possible benefits there? That’s something the council could look at — and the public opinion around that one. That would be very interesting.

The pipeline, of course, flares its head once in awhile and then disappears. It’s hardly ever talked about in here any more. Yet I can remember that the Liberal government ran on the coming pipeline. Of course, many of us who have lived in the Yukon most of our lives know that a project of that size and scope takes many, many, many years and we are so far away from that starting up that you just have to give your head a shake, listening to the Liberal Member of Parliament and the Liberal government running around and thinking it was coming down the pike tomorrow and it was going to be raining money in the territory — or pouring money through the territory.

Of course, it was pie in the sky. Now, that’s not to say that it isn’t going to be built. But guess what? How many years later — six years later, and there has been hardly any movement whatsoever on it.

The Yukon Party also picked up on that initially, and then realized that it’s not really — it has a long way to go. It just hasn’t been talked about much any more. And I’m glad there hasn’t been much money poured into that area because so much work still needs to be done before a pipeline would come through the Yukon. There still isn’t even a decision on which way it would go.

Here’s one of my favourite wastes of money this government has brought about in the last while — the railway study. Private studies were done. YCEE could have done it for one-tenth of the cost. Common sense could have done it for nothing. There wasn’t going to be a railway built through the Yukon. I don’t see it. I don’t hear anybody talking about it any more. But we did spend millions of dollars on a study — another study that, of course, like many, many studies, ends up on a shelf.

So in a few years, if there’s talk of the railway again, we’ll have another study, because that one is old; the territory has changed. We’ll spend another few million dollars, and then that study will sit on a shelf. Until there’s a really strong private interest in the railway, it’s not going to happen. Until there’s an economic justification to build the railway, it’s not going to happen. That was common sense; that’s free; and it seems to have borne itself out.

It can look at the development of roads in areas. Some of the real challenges and debates we’ve seen over the years — and this is not any particular government, of course. It’s like building a road into Kluane National Park and the pros and cons of that. YCEE can look at that.

The council could look at parks, and be very serious about looking at the economic benefits of new parks — because there are economic benefits. It’s not just mining, but there is money to be made available through creating new parks. There have been studies done by economists about that. Possibly the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment could look at it.

It can work very closely with communities that are not benefiting so much from the economic activity that’s happening in the territory today. Some communities are struggling, and the council could possibly look at what’s working in the other communities that are benefiting as opposed to those that aren’t, to see how that activity can enhance those communities that are still struggling.

It could look at child labour. We could have a debate in here about it, but we could also have the council do some of the work around that in regard to young workers. It could have looked at the Liquor Act and the impacts of some of the amendments that are being brought forward.

The NDP is on record now saying that we do have some concerns about those amendments. I haven’t heard any from either — I don’t want to say a co-sponsor — the Liberals brought the recommendations forward in 2001, I believe, and the government has been bringing chunks of it forward over the last few years.

 But there are a couple that do raise some serious concerns and I think a good debate around those would be very interesting. I’m not sure if we are going to get the answers on the floor, so I would like to have the council look at what kinds of impacts that would have, possibly some of the challenges that it would face in making those changes.

It can look at climate change, adaptation, economic implications of climate change — that’s a perfect role for the council. As I said, economy and the environment — and climate change is going to have an impact on both.

Women’s involvement in the economy, First Nations’ involvement in the economy, economic diversification, and economic benefits of protected areas— it could even look at carbon taxing. All those this council can do. In every case, in the history of the council, they have done a very good job and they are there to advise the government — they’re not there to tell the government what to do. Ultimately, the government will make that choice, but it’s just another tool to make a good choice. I would recommend this government get this thing up and running again; get some people back on that committee; and allow it to fulfill its mandate by making sure the resources are there — then give it the tasks that will make the government and us on the opposition able to make informed decisions about what direction we are going in.

Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government side, I want to extend commendations to the Leader of the Third Party for his approach. I know his long history with respect to the council, its inception and how it has evolved since those heady days of governance here in the Yukon in the 1980s.

I have to make a couple of points before I delve into the content of my response to the member. First off, I want to encourage the member to recognize that when it comes to board appointments and committee appointments, there are so many variables in what the government must ensure takes place before an actual appointment is then sanctioned.

I will give an example, such as RRCs. In many cases, the final agreements obligate the government to seek consensus with First Nations on appointments to any individual renewable resource council. In that process, timelines are also committed to for response from the First Nation — and I could go on, but I think we have to debate these matters in the full context that they exist. It is not as simple as the government simply making an appointment on any given day. We must conduct ourselves as we are required to as government through these processes.

I can tell the Leader of the Third Party that at virtually every Cabinet meeting there are appointments on the agenda that are going forward. This is a very complex process and there are many requirements and variables that the government must address.

I share the member’s view of priorities for Yukoners: the environment and the economy. As probably envisioned back in the 1980s, some 20 years ago, Yukoners probably had at that time similar priorities in their view. It is what is important to Yukoners and that is why we as government must always address these areas with a great deal of emphasis. That is exactly what this government has done since coming into office in 2002.

We recognize those as priorities for Yukoners and we made clear commitments and we certainly articulated a clear plan and vision on what we would do in addressing both Yukon’s economy and its environment.

Mr. Speaker, much of that has already been unfolding and there has been success — no question about it, but I don’t need to delve into the detail on that regard. We know that in Yukon things have changed and there is improvement. Much of that is because of the emphasis placed on protecting our environment, conserving our environment and stimulating, diversifying and growing Yukon’s economy. I’m very pleased and encouraged to say today that we are making progress in that regard.

With respect to the member’s motion — a brief bit of historical data. It is important because it has to do with timelines and what is relevant at any given time in history and, indeed, how that impacts the present.

The Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment was established in 1989 and was entrenched in the Environment Act in 1991 and in the Economic Development Act in 1992. I believe — as I understand it and the government understands it — that the primary focus of the council at the time of its creation was the implementation of the Yukon conservation strategy. The council, by the way — and I want to make this point — has not always been fully active under previous governments. I think that is relative to what is going on at any given time. That is important to this debate because those are determinants or contributing factors to what work any council, committee or board may undertake and carry out on behalf of the public and/or government.

Mr. Speaker, this council is approximately 20 years old. The vision and the inception and the creation of this council goes back that far. It is a legacy of the Penikett government and we have to understand that its creation and its operations and mandate come from legislation developed almost two decades ago.

That’s an important and salient issue to the debate. And, as the Member for Klondike has pointed out today with the motion read into the record, much has changed and much has transpired in Yukon since that time. It brings into question how we address this particular issue.

Now, I’ll give some examples of what was not in place in the Yukon when the council was created and the required legislative framework was established: its mandate, its overall membership and how that was to be dealt with. What was not in place back in those times is very critical to this debate and has a huge bearing on where the Yukon is today.

For example, in the 1980s, Yukon had not progressed in responsible government to the level we are today. It was in April 2003 that the Government of Yukon assumed the responsibility for the control and management of the territory’s lands and resources. And that is under the DTA, or devolution transfer agreement.

Now, we also have to recognize that some very important governance issues and orders of government have been established since then and have a direct impact on how we as public government must conduct matters in governance across this territory.

Since 1988, the Yukon now has 11 of 14 land claims and self-government agreements in place, and the management and control of settlement lands and resources are under the auspices of those orders of government.

Those agreements also established a number of mechanisms, such as renewable resource councils, which, at the time of the creation of the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment, were not in place. They advise government on virtually the same matters with respect to wildlife and our environment.

Now, Mr. Speaker, further to this matter, as a consequence of the Umbrella Final Agreement, we now have in the Yukon another legislative mechanism, a federal act called the Yukon Environmental and Social Assessment Act that applies to all land throughout the Yukon — to federal, territorial and Yukon First Nation government lands across Yukon. This instrument was not in place at the time of the council’s inception. There are land use planning, habitat protection areas, special management areas, and other matters that are ongoing in today’s Yukon that were not happening in the 1980s when the council was created and what was envisioned for this council was established. Much has changed and that’s important.

We have to reflect on this in its full context: its mandate, its membership, its role in today’s Yukon, with all that has changed and with all that’s happening in today’s Yukon

Our government — I can assure the members opposite — is fully committed to undertaking the necessary review of the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment, as stated in the motion tabled today by the Member for Klondike. In view of this commitment and necessary work that must be done before further decisions and actions can take place, I will make a motion to adjourn debate.

Motion to adjourn debate

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I move that debate do now adjourn.

Speaker:   It has been moved by the Hon. Premier that debate do now adjourn. It’s a non-debatable motion. Are you agreed?

Motion to adjourn debate on Motion No. 373 agreed to

BILLS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT BILLS

Bill No. 103: Second Reading

Clerk:   Second reading, Bill No. 103, standing in the name of Mr. Inverarity.

Mr. Inverarity:   Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill No. 103, entitled Apology Act, be now read a second time.

Speaker:   It has been moved by the Member for Porter Creek South that Bill No. 103, entitled Apology Act, be now read a second time.

Mr. Inverarity:   Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank the members opposite for the opportunity to speak on behalf of this important act. I would also like to acknowledge a couple of other individuals.

Specifically I would like to acknowledge Mr. Hank Moorlag, the past Ombudsman, who is sitting in the gallery, and I would like everyone to welcome him here this afternoon to listen to the debate.

Applause

Mr. Inverarity:   I would also like to thank the University of British Columbia, Faculty of Law, specifically Mr. John Kleefeld, who has done significant research on apology legislation. I am indulging in some of his writings this afternoon, and I appreciate the support he has given me over the past year since this act went through first reading.

The bill itself is probably for me the second most important piece of legislation that I will have to deal with in this sitting, the first being, of course, the Human Rights Act, which we will be getting into later this summer.

This particular piece of legislation represents a major legal paradigm shift from one of litigation to one of alternative dispute resolution. This is not about giving apologies, or taking apologies. This is about an alternative dispute resolution, and specifically we are dealing with law.

The simple fact that this particular act is only less than 250 words should not be dismissed because it’s not that lengthy, and it should not be dismissed without a cause. It’s an important piece of legislation and in fact, probably affects more Yukoners on a day-to-day basis than any other piece of legislation that will come before the House.

For example, in the past weeks, we have been debating the Child and Family Services Act, and it specifically targets a unique group within the Yukon. This particular bill applies to every Yukoner — it doesn’t matter where they are, who they are or how old they are. This bill, the Apology Act, is a law-reform initiative that has the potential to revive the “civil” in civil society. It has the potential to make our justice system more responsive to the ordinary needs and instincts, and it has the potential to bring more humanity into the practice of law.

This Apology Act, properly understood and applied, can play a role in the realization of a more just society. Such results have been demonstrated in countries like the United States which has over 35 states that have apology legislation. Australia — every single state and territory has apology legislation. More recently, there are some Canadian jurisdictions such as British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba where apology legislation has also been adopted.

The purpose of apology legislation is to place limitations on the legal effect of apologies. Yes indeed, this initiative is specifically designed to change the mindset that an apology is a legal equivalent to an admission of guilt. With that apology comes associated liability. We’re talking about the mindsets of governments, corporations, individuals and legal actors. For example, lawyers typically advise clients against apologies. Even if you want to apologize, the legal culture would advise you not to risk an apology — it will create a legal liability.

This is the heart of this issue, Mr. Speaker. This is the reason that apology legislation is necessary. Our justice system is here to resolve disputes. We need legislation that will remove the concerns and uncertainty about the legal impacts of an apology.

It is fascinating to note that questioning the legal impact of an apology, and indeed the very development of apology legislation, has been driven forward by people who have had personal experiences with both the healing empowerment aspect of an apology as well as the debilitating resentment that persists when an apology remains forthcoming.

The paradox that we have to deal with is the vicious cycle that is set in motion when an offender wants to apologize but refrains from apologizing for fear of being sued. The lack of apology is precisely what galvanizes the offending party to take legal action.

The first apology legislation was brought forward some 20 years ago by a Massachusetts legislator whose daughter was hit and killed by a car while she was riding a motorcycle in the area. The driver who struck the girl never apologized because the driver dared not interfere with the litigation surrounding the girl’s death. An apology, under the circumstances, could have constituted an admission that might void his insurance coverage or increase the assessment of the liability claim.

So, upon the retirement of this senator, and with help from his successor, they presented legislation that was designed to create a safe harbour for would-be apologizers. The legislation defined benevolent gestures as actions that convey a sense of compassion or commiseration emanating from human impulses.

The bill, which was enacted and put into effect in 1986, ensures that statements, writings and benevolent gestures expressing sympathy related to pain, suffering or death of a person involved in an accident or made to such a person, or the family of such persons, are inadmissible as evidence in civil liability.

Mr. Speaker, closer to home, in the early 1990s, two young women became victims of mistaken identity. During a police shakedown, the women were surrounded by police and ordered to lie on the ground. When identification was checked and it became clear that a mistake had been made, the police moved on — presumably to the right address — but they did not apologize to the two women. In fact, they even made some offhand comments.

This, of course, led to a complaint, an investigation, and a lot of needless suffering and expense. Interestingly enough, had one of the police officers simply said, “I’m sorry. It’s an honest mistake,” at the time this was done, the women were quite prepared to forgive the officers, in light of the fact that it was in fact an honest mistake.

This anecdote is not intended to point fingers at police officers or lawyers — quite the opposite, Mr. Speaker. With the legal culture within the law enforcement environment at the time, an apology was equal to liability and therefore not considered a viable option.

This has, obviously, changed over the past two years, with changes to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and a long list of legislation that comes into effect all over the world. It even continues now.

Just on a personal note, I’d like to reiterate something that happened to me about 15 years ago. I owned a business in town. I had a computer business, an Internet business, and I was hacked. It caused a lot of pain. I had 500 or 600 customers at the time. We had to go to each individual customer and redo their passwords and user identification because of this.

The individual involved was a young lad, very talented and gifted. I could see that and certainly individuals around me at the time said, “Let’s stick it to him. Let’s put this guy in jail. Let’s bring the full force of the law.” At the time, I have to admit that it would seem to me the only viable option — it was a criminal offence.

However, what happened was the individual — and in fact, members of his family — came to me and apologized and said, you know, he’s young, he’s talented and he thought that this was interesting and this was fun — and there was compassion and there was certainly a willingness to correct the problem and correct the expenses that I had to go through.

So we went into a new concept that was introduced in the Yukon. Most people now look at it as an alternative dispute resolution — diversion is another word for it in the Yukon. But it was something that started here and has been quite popular within the youth crimes and things along those lines and so it does exist. People who apologize can benefit and it doesn’t have to be “all or nothing;” it doesn’t have to be “go to jail.”

Most of us look in life for an apology; it’s what we’re brought up to do and it’s how we deal with life. The concept of not apologizing is foreign to most of us. Yesterday, April 15, 2008, apology legislation was introduced in the Ontario Legislature. The Sault Ste. Marie MPP David Orazietti said: “The Apology Act would enhance the dispute resolution process by allowing all Ontarians to communicate genuine compassion, sorrow and regret for a mistake without worrying that it could later be used against them in civil court. Other jurisdictions that have implemented this type of legislation have seen a reduction of pressure on their civil courts…” So there is a real cost-saving there, Mr. Speaker, “…as well as reduced costs to public institutions, such as hospitals.”

Certainly in the United States it is clear that most of the states that have implemented it — I think I mentioned 35 — is largely because of the health care system and to avoid disputes in that area.

 I would like to point out that the MPP from Sault Ste. Marie is also the MPP who has recently introduced legislation in Ontario to ban smoking in vehicles. This is important. Even the Official Opposition Conservative Party in Ontario thinks that the Apology Act is actually worth looking at. While the New Democrats support the idea, they also want to make sure it doesn’t end up hurting victims.

Today, April 16, 2008, we here in the Yukon have the opportunity to do right by Yukoners. This is not a partisan bill; this is not a Liberal Party position as it is in Ontario and other jurisdictions in Canada and around the world.

An apology act is an important step toward social justice. It is not the exclusive jurisdiction of any one political party. It is a symbol that our culture is changing, Mr. Speaker, and that our society is recognizing that offering a sincere apology is simply the right thing to do in some circumstances.

It is a sign of caring, compassion, empathy, but not blame or guilt. This Apology Act could and should be one aspect of this government’s attempt to make our justice system more affordable, effective, and accessible to more people. This legislation supports our desire to promote the early and effective resolution of disputes by removing the concerns about the legal impact of an apology.

The legislation is straightforward and has essentially two parts to it — the first part is the definition of the apology, and the limitation of the effect of an apology on liability. I sincerely hope that this government will give consideration and meaningful debate to this bill along with unanimous support for this bill.

One question that I would like to address is whether or not apology legislation is in fact necessary to achieve these goals. The short answer, Mr. Speaker, is yes, apology legislation is necessary. There are a few approaches that can be taken to protect an apology. In fact, many jurisdictions have approached apology legislation by amending existing legislation to create a safe harbour for expressions of sympathy. However, Mr. Speaker, this is a cumbersome and expensive approach and creates a patchwork of exemptions and fails to generally provide protection for apologetic statements.

Our idea is to create an exception to the general rule that a party’s out-of-court statement or conduct against interests is admissible against the party at trial despite the statement’s hearsay status. This is where distinct and separate legislation has a clear advantage, Mr. Speaker. Nothing in the Apology Act alters the way apologies are created in criminal law or, for that matter, in any other area that is the exclusive federal legislation jurisdiction. The statute does not legislate mandatory apologies, but rather enables apologies by making them inadmissible for the purpose of providing liability or assessing damages. Liability and cause of action can still be proven by all other means used.

Mr. Speaker, this is a moral issue and perhaps a socially moral issue. We don’t live in a world of pristine morality where everybody rushes out and takes full responsibility for all of the harms that they have committed. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we live in a second-best world where many people actually don’t do this.

Right now the justice system fails those people who would be accountable for their actions. There are circumstances where an apology is the right thing to do.

It is a moral thing to do, and is the best way to deal with certain disputes, yet we have a justice system that will punish someone for doing so. Is that right? This legislation corrects that flaw by breaking the connection between an apology and liability.

The Apology Act is designed to protect those people who would act out of conscience and responsibility — responsible, practical and caring people who genuinely want to account for themselves and move beyond a system of social justice that is in conflict with their basic human values.

An apology is a human act. Apologies occupy a broad grey area in our society that includes law, psychology, economics, culture, and in fact touches theology, sociology, organizational behaviour and even political theory. But, most of all, it’s morality. Apologizing when one has injured another is a basic moral act; yet it is this act that is very much outside the traditional adversarial legal framework that exists today.

Apologies are hard to do. Real apologies have to be sincere and convincing. Believe it or not, there are four Rs that make up apology. They include remorse, responsibility, resolution and reparation — and without all four of these components directly focused on the offence in question, an apology is likely to fall flat or, worse, cause more damage than we have seen.

Remorse — I am really sorry I did that; responsibility — I know what I did was wrong; resolution — I promise something like this will never, ever happen again; and reparation — if there is any way I could make this up to you, please let me know.

An apology, whether written or verbal, should be addressed to specific individuals and acknowledge the wrong that was done to the individual. It needs to demonstrate commitment that this will never, ever happen again. An apology should ask for forgiveness and not expect it. You do not have to receive forgiveness in order to give an apology. You should not even expect it.

Forgiveness is, and will remain, the individual’s choice. This is, after all, what we were attempting to achieve with apology — reconciliation. What we’re looking to achieve is reconciliation of a dispute and forgiveness. Without a sincere apology, reconciliation and forgiveness is hardly possible.

We are legislators, and we need to be alive to the healing effects that a real apology can have in resolving disputes. We need to be aware of the influence that legal advisors have on their defendants’ decisions and create a social environment and legal framework that gets the most out of our second-best world.

A legislative solution is necessary here. The Apology Act provides the solution in three ways. This legislation declares that an apology does not constitute an express or implied admission of a fault; an apology’s relevance to a dispute must not be taken into account in the determination of faults, and an apology is inadmissible as evidence of fault in connection with the matter for which the apology was given.

This is the message that we want to give Yukoners: that apologies are protected. You are free to follow your conscience. You are free to do the right thing.

There are risks with apology legislation, as with any kind of legislation. Moral arguments against the act express fear that apologies may become a commodity. Fears of gratuitous apologies abound, as do concerns about strategic apologies.

As with other paradigm shifts, dealing with the risks of a staged apology is a matter of growth and social progress. A well-meaning but thoughtless, insincere or pseudo-apology can have a very real negative effect.

A form-letter apology is unlikely to be well-received, and we’ve seen those. A court-ordered apology is likely to be interpreted as hollow and empty — I don’t want to go to jail, so I say I’m sorry.

Mostly because they are empty and because they are not offered out of sincerity, the use of financial compensation to apologize to people who endured clergy abuse, for example, has produced the effect of adding insult to injury on some people because the settlement itself mimicked the very abuse that was inflicted. As one survivor said, “I feel like a prostitute now that I’ve been paid for being sexually violated.”

Social justice is evolving. Thoughtful, caring individuals want the freedom to follow their hearts on moral issues, and our current legal environment is in conflict with this. We have the chance to correct a major flaw in our social justice system here today.

An apology is a human experience and this human experience has been routinely subverted by corporations, governments, legal actors and individuals. Other jurisdictions in Canada have found the world to be moving, as we speak, to address this flaw. We can, as well.

Our world is getting wiser as it gets older. This doesn’t mean that our world was therefore foolish before; it means that we as legislators must act responsibly to encourage a richer and more participatory understanding of justice. We can and should enable a departure from traditional courtroom dispute resolutions so that other alternatives can be explored.

We can and should enable the emergence of an alternative dispute resolution process that is better and reflects more human experience, one that is morally based and is to the benefit of individuals, organizations and to society at large.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I want to thank the Member for Porter Creek South for his comments today with respect to the Apology Act. The member has thoroughly covered the intent of such legislation, thoroughly covered the rationale for such legislation and gone into great detail on some of the challenges with respect to this legislation.

I have one cautionary comment to the Member for Porter Creek South. If I were the member opposite, I would not presume what is important in Yukoners’ lives today. Statements that this is one of the two most important acts on the floor of the Legislature in this sitting, the other being the Human Rights Act is being somewhat presumptuous, considering acts like the child act and so on, with the major amount of public business that we, the government side, have tabled in this sitting.

Furthermore, I have to ask the question of the Official Opposition, who are now constantly on record that there is so much work to be debated and so much public business to be debated here in this sitting, why they’re accusing the government of stalling debate.

Motion to adjourn debate

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   That said, given the fact that this particular act, frankly, will not proceed in this sitting, I move that debate be now adjourned.

Speaker:   It has been moved that debate be now adjourned. Are you prepared for the question?

Some Hon. Members:   Division.

Division

Speaker:   Division has been called.

Bells

Speaker:   Mr. Clerk, please poll the House.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Agree.

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   Agree.

Hon. Ms. Taylor:    Agree.

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   Agree.

Hon. Mr. Rouble:    Agree.

Hon. Mr. Lang:    Agree.

Hon. Ms. Horne:    Agree.

Hon. Mr. Hart:    Agree.

Mr. Nordick:    Agree.

Mr. Mitchell:    Disagree.

Mr. McRobb:   Disagree.

Mr. Elias:   Disagree.

Mr. Fairclough:   Disagree.

Mr. Inverarity:   Disagree.

Mr. Hardy:   Disagree.

Mr. Cardiff:   Disagree.

Clerk:   Mr. Speaker, the results are nine yea, seven nay.

Speaker:   The yeas have it. I declare the motion carried.

Motion to adjourn debate on second reading of Bill No. 103 agreed to

MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS

Clerk:   Motion No. 376, standing in the name of Mr. Cardiff.

Speaker:   It has been moved by the Member for Mount Lorne

THAT this House urges the Minister of Community Services to, as a first step in eliminating abuse and neglect of animals, implement the recommendations of the Kilpatrick report, made public in September 2007, and provide clear parameters around policy, procedure, funding, staffing and logistical support so that the Animal Protection Act can function as it was intended.

Mr. Cardiff:   Mr. Speaker, the intent of bringing this motion forward today is because of what appears to be a lot of government inaction around this. I know this has been an issue that was brought to my attention by constituents — both in my riding and in other ridings — who had a deep concern about how animals in the Yukon Territory are treated and what type of laws there are to protect animals, to ensure that they are well cared for — and not just that, but how the government uses those laws that have been created, how they enforce them, and what the policies of the government are around the enforcement and around the protection of animals.

To give the government credit, after much pressure from this side of the House on this issue, they did actually commission a report, and they actually even promised to hire some people, but we haven’t heard anything about that.

I would like to give some background about the Kilpatrick report. Dr. Kilpatrick wrote the report, and basically what he said was that the Yukon Animal Protection Act is currently perceived by the public of the Yukon to not be working well.

As with any legislation that is perceived to be found wanting, analysis of the effectiveness of the legislation had to include both a review of the implementation of the legislation and of the legislation itself, and I think that is important. It is the implementation. The law is there, but if you don’t implement it and if you don’t have policies and you don’t have the enforcement of the law, there are a lot of questions the public would want to ask about that.

He says that the act itself appears to have been drafted by using other western Canadian provincial animal protection legislation as templates. That is not a bad thing, and in fact we encouraged the minister to look at other legislation in other jurisdictions as a template to bring in new animal protection legislation, but he decided against that and he decided to ask Dr. Kilpatrick to do this report.

The Animal Protection Act we have is similar to other statutes. However, in other jurisdictions, some improvements have been made. Some of them have been modernized. The penalty levels — which I’ll get into a little bit later today, I hope — in other jurisdictions are much greater than they are in Yukon.

But I think one of the points Dr. Kilpatrick makes is that clear parameters are not currently in place for the Yukon Animal Protection Act as to policy, procedure, funding, staffing and logistical support for the legislation; nor is there a formal policy with regard to prosecution of cruelty to animal matters.

Provincial animal protection acts are enforced through the provincial or city humane societies — the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, otherwise known as the SPCA. Either the provincial or city humane societies have full-time special constables or hourly contract investigators trained to carry out the provisions of the provincial acts. I don’t believe we currently have that here in the Yukon.

The critical difference between the provinces and Yukon is that the humane societies in Yukon function primarily as advocacy and animal shelter organizations, and they are not now, nor likely in the foreseeable future — unless the minister comes to the table with the appropriate funds and support — to be equipped with staff and support, paid special constables or animal protection officer positions.

The government expects this all to be done by volunteers because, for the most part, that is how humane societies in the Yukon operate. They have some core operating funds that the government provides for basically an animal shelter and advocacy for animals, but there is no — or a dire lack of — enforcement when it comes to animal protection matters.

Offici