085 Hansard

Whitehorse, Yukon

Monday, April 14, 2008 — 1:00 p.m.

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

Prayers

DAILY ROUTINE                                                                  

Speaker:      We will now proceed with the Order Paper.

Are there any tributes?

TRIBUTES

In recognition of Yukon Education Week

Hon. Mr. Rouble:    Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to pay tribute to Yukon Education Week, which runs from April 14 to 18. This year’s theme is “Opening doors to lifelong learning”, because education opens doors to opportunities for individuals and strengthens communities. Education Week is a time for us to celebrate education and let Yukoners know what resources are available to becoming a lifelong learner or continuing lifelong learning.

Mr. Speaker, it is also a time to thank our educational professionals for their commitment and hard work. We appreciate the work that every single one of them does to ensure that Yukoners acquire knowledge and develop skills so that they can get the most out of life.

Mr. Speaker, education helps everyone get involved and participate more effectively in our family, in our community, and in our workplace. By being involved in education, whether as an educator or as a learner, today and every day, one is on the road to getting the most out of life.

I invite all members to take time to stroll through the halls of the Department of Education between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 16.

At this time staff at the Department of Education are hosting an open house, and it is an opportune time to see for yourself all of the first class resources that are available to the 5,000 students who attend our Yukon schools.

Mr. Speaker, opening doors to lifelong learning — it is exciting to see just how many lifelong learning opportunities are available to Yukoners of all ages and across the territory.

I encourage you and others to participate in some of the many activities that are being hosted at schools throughout the Yukon to celebrate Education Week.

As education is all about the sharing of information, I would like to share with my colleagues across the floor the latest copies of the NorthWind Books. These are a series of early childhood readers produced by the Department of Education. They are produced by Yukoners for Yukoners, and I would like to share them with the members opposite.

Mr. Fairclough:   I rise on behalf of the Official Opposition to pay tribute to Education Week from April 14 to 18. Partnership in education is very important. Partnering with students, parents, professional educators, First Nations and all levels of government is critical for Yukon’s future. Meaningful consultation and partnerships, including parental and public participation, will result in the highest quality of education for Yukon students.

The academics of learning to read and write are important, but the nurturing of each child to unlock and develop their full potential is paramount. Each child is unique and we must develop that uniqueness, and give the essential tools and skills to help them become productive, responsible and self-reliant members of Yukon society. Our education system must ensure students experience the joy of learning while at school. It must instill in our students a respect for oneself, fellow students, educators, family and community.

To understand that education is a lifelong learning experience, and to be a lifelong learner, students must have ingenuity, creativity, and critical thinking skills. We must credit the important leadership role that teaching professionals play in our children’s lives.

During Education Week, the tributes belong to those who make it happen: the students, the teachers, the staff, the parents, the volunteers and the citizens throughout the Yukon who contribute to education by their leadership or by example of lifelong learning.

I encourage all Yukoners to get involved and attend one of the many open house opportunities, or participate in one of the many available workshops being held throughout the Yukon. We celebrate teaching excellence and student achievement as they engage and embrace new technologies. Our students of today will become leaders of tomorrow. They are our future.

Thank you.

Mr. Cardiff:   I rise on behalf of the NDP caucus to pay tribute to Yukon Education Week. We are all concerned with education on various levels and in many capacities. Some of us work in the field of education in elementary schools, high schools, colleges or non-governmental organizations. Some of us have children or grandchildren in these systems, and some of us are actively learning in an education system ourselves.

The importance of education to all of us cannot be overestimated. It is a demanding field to work in and forms the backbone of our society. The theme of this week is “lifelong learning”. At one time, education and learning were meant only to be for children. Society believed that there comes a point in our lives where we can no longer learn. We are now more open to the idea that adults, while they may learn differently, are at least as ready to learn as children are. Sometimes they are better learners than children when they apply the skills they have gathered from parenting, working and coping with the stresses of life.

The reality of our work and the knowledge economy dictate that we must all be ready for multiple careers. We must be ready to take advantage of learning systems all our lives. Adult education systems are adapting to this need by more experiential learning, more basic skills training and adaptive scheduling.

The importance that we place on lifelong learning is reflected in the fact that there are many people in the territory who volunteer, not only in our schools, but with adult education at the college, by sharing expertise in various skills and with adult literacy programs.

Thank you to the many volunteers for all those extra hours and for their devotion to lifelong learning. Thank you, as well, Mr. Speaker, to all those who work in our education system: the teachers, the educational assistants and the people in the department.

Thank you.

In recognition of National Victims of Crime Awareness Week

Hon. Ms. Horne:    Günilschish, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to affirm that victims matter. This week is National Victims of Crime Awareness Week. The theme this year is “Finding the way together”. It is a call for us to recognize the evolution of victim services and move forward together. That is why, today, we are here to find the way together.

In early March 2008, over 100 delegates who work with victims of crime gathered in Whitehorse to begin to examine ways to better respond to the needs of victims in the criminal justice system. This conference also provided opportunity for the delegates to exchange experiences, ideas and to build important relationships that will benefit victims.

This conference began the work toward developing a victims program model, a strategic approach to how we work with the victims of crime. This recent work brings balance to work already in progress through the correctional redevelopment strategic plan.

Sincere efforts are being made to give victims of crime recognition in this redevelopment process. We are here to support victims of crime, to listen to them and learn what they need and how we can help. We are here to think about how, as a society, we care for each other when we have been hurt or wronged.

Today we can take comfort in the fact that certain crimes, such as murder and abduction of children and youth, are declining in Canada. While we must take action to ensure that this trend continues, we also need to be there for those who are hurt by the crimes that do take place.

To move forward, we need to hear the stories of people who have been victimized. We need to help them find their voice, and restore the self-confidence and self-control that crime can so often take away.

We can begin by acknowledging that they have a role to play in the justice system and in our communities. Even if we have not been victims of crime ourselves, sometimes just talking about what is happening to others can make us feel vulnerable. Sometimes just the fear of becoming a victim is enough to affect the way we act, but we can overcome this fear. By working together we can do better. We can build Yukon’s future together. We can create safer communities. We can find the way together. Indeed, we must because victims do matter.

Günilschish. Thank you. Merci.

Speaker:   Are there any further tributes?

Are there any introductions of visitors?

Are there documents or returns for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   I have for tabling today the annual report 2006-07 of the Yukon Lottery Commission, entitled “Winning in Our Communities”.

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   I have for tabling the Yukon Workers’ Compensation Health and Safety Board 2007 activity report.

Mr. Mitchell:    I have for tabling a letter to the Hon. Premier dated March 31, 2008, from the executive of the Yukon Métis Nation regarding consultations on the Child and Family Services Act.

Speaker:   Are there any further documents for tabling?

Hearing none, 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 congratulates the federal Minister of Industry, the Hon. Jim Prentice, for his decision to veto the takeover by a U.S. company of the space division of Richmond, B.C.’s MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates Ltd. that is responsible for the development of the Radarsat-2, which is so important to safeguarding Canada’s sovereignty in the Arctic.

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

THAT this House set aside Bill No. 50 until a special sitting of the Legislative Assembly is convened specifically for the purpose of hearing witnesses and considering amendments to the bill that will address the outstanding concerns of Yukon First Nations and other interested parties.

I also give the following notice of motion:

THAT this House urges the Yukon government to take a stand against obesity by giving incentives for families to eat healthy foods and by encouraging more activity at home, in schools and at the workplace.

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

THAT this House urges the Yukon government to proceed with the implementation of the education reform project report so all Yukoners may have input into the education system of their children and benefit from the recommendations contained in the report.

Mr. Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, I give notice of the following motions:

THAT this House urges the Yukon government to eliminate fees for requests for information under the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which act as a barrier for MLAs, the media and the public to obtain important information about government policies and procedures.

I also give notice of the following motion:

THAT in the interest of making government operations more transparent and understandable to the public, this House urges Cabinet to make departmental budget briefing books that are prepared for ministers available to all MLAs.

NOTICES OF MOTION FOR THE PRODUCTION OF PAPERS

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

THAT this House do issue an order for the return of

(1) all position papers submitted as part of the final report of the education reform project; and

(2) all correspondence from the Education minister to the education reform project team since the inception of the education reform process.

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:     Child and Family Services Act

Mr. Mitchell:    I have some questions for the Premier on his decision to shut First Nations out of the final stages of the Child and Family Services Act. We found out on Thursday afternoon that the Premier thinks Yukon First Nation leaders should be seen but not heard. He refused to allow their representatives to appear before this House to discuss the Child and Family Services Act. The Grand Chief described the Premier’s actions as unacceptable. He said the government’s actions are contrary to any sort of collaboration. So much for a partnership with First Nations.

What is the Premier afraid of? Why is he so reluctant to allow First Nation leaders to address the bill on the floor of this Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Once again, the Leader of the Official Opposition fails to recognize the extensive process involved here, whereby all First Nation leaders, as agreed to through the chiefs health committee and the Council of Yukon First Nations, had a significant amount of input since 2003 — some five long years. This process included jointly informing the drafting of the bill. There has been a tremendous amount of input into this bill by First Nations across this territory.

The member has now stated that there is this issue of cooperation between the Yukon government and Yukon First Nations. I’m going to list the plethora of examples of cooperation.

I begin with the Child and Family Services Act; I go on with rural drinking water initiative, working with First Nations in cooperation; the local area planning for Ibex Valley, Mayo Road, Dawson City, et cetera, in cooperation with First Nations; YESAA and the consultations ongoing on projects through the YESAA process, in cooperation with First Nations; section 17 negotiations with alcohol and drug programming and aboriginal languages, in cooperation with First Nations; education reform in cooperation with First Nations; the Yukon First Nation Education Advisory Committee — cooperation with First Nations; education curriculum working group — cooperation with First Nations; and I have 10 pages more.

Mr. Mitchell:    There were years of consultations on the Workers’ Compensation Act, but we still heard from witnesses. It’s the Premier’s job to act as a uniter, not as a divider.

Last year we brought forward an amendment to the Cooperation in Governance Act to ensure that First Nations are adequately consulted on new legislation. This is an example of why those changes are needed. The Premier needs to learn how to work more closely with First Nations, not read lists.

How does he respond to their requests? He dismisses them and says, “If you don’t like our approach, then do it yourself.”

The Grand Chief asked the Premier not to pass this bill until First Nations’ concerns are addressed.

Why is the Premier ignoring this request from the Grand Chief?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   The Leader of the Official Opposition once again should be correcting the record. Nobody on the government side has said anything of the sort — if First Nations don’t like it, then do it themselves.

The member should stand on his feet, if the strength of character is there, and correct the record.

But, I’ll go on with the issues of cooperation conducted by this government. Yukon Chiefs Committee on Education — working in cooperation with First Nations; the implementation of the big game outfitter policy and all non-YESAA-related projects — working in cooperation with First Nations; the forest resources act — all the preliminary work on the act, in cooperation with First Nations; the Fisheries Act — and traditional knowledge on placer mining and the Yukon Placer Secretariat — in cooperation with First Nations; Mount Nansen closure planning, with Little Salmon-Carmacks First Nation, elders, citizens and their land resource departments — working in cooperation with First Nations; the Yukon oil and gas dispositions under YOGA — in cooperation with First Nations; the Carmacks copper mine development project — working in cooperation with First Nations; the Wildlife Act amendments — working in cooperation with First Nations; the harvest management strategy for the Porcupine caribou herd — working in cooperation with First Nations; the elk management strategy — working in cooperation with First Nations.

Does the member want me really to continue, or does he want to change his approach?

Mr. Mitchell:    The member opposite just said I should have the courage to stand on my feet and correct the record. Last Thursday, from the Blues:

“Mr. Speaker, should any First Nation government want to go beyond where this bill takes us today, they have that right to occupy the authority as negotiated in their agreements.”

The Hon. Premier said that.

Again I ask: why is it more important to hear from the chair of the Workers’ Compensation Health and Safety Board than from the Grand Chief of the Council of Yukon First Nations and other First Nation chiefs?

It was very disappointing, last Thursday, to see all the members on the government side of the House vote last week against First Nation people having a voice. Not one member on that side of the House had the courage to stand up and do the right thing.

This government is taking a very adversarial approach to its relationship with First Nations. It prefers litigation over negotiation. It is refusing to work on education reform in good faith, and its decision to shut First Nations out of the Child and Family Services Act is only the latest setback.

Why is the Premier pursuing this adversarial approach to First Nations relations?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   There is no point commenting on the member’s assertions of “adversarial”, because this is the member who is quite efficient and adept at being adversarial. And this is another approach that is very adversarial.

Let’s look at the member’s position. What that member is suggesting is that, even though public government remains responsible and liable for children in care, we should pass on the decision-making to others. That is not what this government is going to do. If the member opposite wants to do that, that is the member’s business.

Let me continue with examples of cooperation: the bison harvest management strategy — working in cooperation with First Nations; the Richardson sheep management planning initiative — working in cooperation with First Nations; Kusawa park planning — working in cooperation with First Nations; Fishing Branch Wilderness Reserve and Habitat Protection Area and ecological reserve — working in cooperation with First Nations; Old Crow Flats special management area — working in cooperation with First Nations; the Marwell tar pit remediation — working in cooperation with First Nations; SMAs Agay Mene and Bonnet Plume — working in cooperation with First Nations.

The member has got it wrong. The member knows exactly what is at stake here; it is public jurisdiction. This government will not devolve public jurisdiction.

Question re:    Education reform project

Mr. Fairclough:   I have a question for the Minister of Education.

The education reform project was released by the minister several months ago, although the public had a draft copy much longer than that.

Respecting the depth and scope of this report, I have afforded the minister and his officials ample time and opportunity to review it and bring forth an action plan to deal with the many recommendations contained therein.

The minister is fully cognizant of the fact that Yukon First Nations and the Yukon government both have authority over education. The Yukon government exercises its authority, and the First Nations are in negotiations of devolving that down.

The report clearly states that it makes sense for both governments to prepare for change in the way education is delivered. In fact, Mr. Speaker, this was the essence of the mandate given to the project.

What implementation plans have been put in place, and what are the timelines?

Hon. Mr. Rouble:    Mr. Speaker, education of Yukoners is certainly one of the highest priorities of this government. Educating our citizens is fundamental to building happy, healthy, productive societies, and I am very relieved to finally receive a question from members of the opposition.

Here we are in the fourth week into the session. I’ve lost track of the hundreds of questions that have been asked, and we finally have an education question brought forward. I appreciate the member’s interest.

I would like to thank the Education reform project team for the extensive, hard work that they did. This was a joint project run by the Government of Yukon and the Council of Yukon First Nations. I was very pleased to finally receive the report. It was signed off on November 23 as being a final document. After we had an opportunity to print it, to share it with the Council of Yukon First Nations leadership, it was released to the public. This was done after a meeting with the Council of Yukon First Nations early in February, when the approval to release the document publicly was given.

Mr. Fairclough:   Four months and the minister still can’t answer a question in this House. Let’s try another one.

Under chapter 24 of the Umbrella Final Agreement, the following issues of “Subjects for Negotiation” are in the division and sharing of responsibility of education. They are student counselling, cross-cultural teacher/administrator orientation, composition of teaching staff, the curriculum for early childhood, special and adult education, curriculum for kindergarten through grade 12, and the evaluation of teachers, administrators and other employees.

The education reform project was created to facilitate the developments necessary to ensure that these two levels of government work effectively to make the education system more responsive to all Yukoners, particularly First Nations.

Will the minister be more specific in how those goals are to be met?

Hon. Mr. Rouble:    Yes, the member opposite is correct; the education reform project was created to identify the goals that people had for education and to look at ways to increase the outcome for all Yukon students.

I’m proud to say that the Department of Education has been working very closely with its various stakeholders and partners in education in working on discussing and bringing forward many of the ideas, thoughts and concerns from the education reform document.

Mr. Speaker, I’ll be honest; this is a very large, very in-depth document, and there are a lot of good suggestions in there. There are also some other suggestions and ideas and recommendations that will require much more consultation and much more work with our partners. I’m happy to say that we’ll continue to work with all our partners, with the Commission scolaire francophone du Yukon, with the Catholic association, with the Yukon Association of School Councils, Boards and Committees. Right now, the Department of Education is working very closely with the Council of Yukon First Nations. We’re continuing that relationship with a working group right now that is diligently working and meeting quite regularly to look at the best processes for bringing these issues forward.

Today, at the Pan-Canadian Interactive Literacy Forum, one of the topics on the agenda is education reform, and the themes of literacy are being discussed at that event.

Mr. Fairclough:   Mr. Speaker, this is Yukon Education Week, and I can’t think of a more appropriate time for this minister and this government to chart a new course for education. Now this government has, when convenient for them, resorted to consultation with stakeholders. Education has been extensively consulted on in the past years and now it is time to implement what they have heard and what has been reported to them by the education reform team.

What process will the minister take to implement the reports so that the new direction will reflect all Yukoners and is in keeping with the stated aspirations of the Yukon First Nations?

Hon. Mr. Rouble:    Mr. Speaker, the Department of Education is going to go to work with partners and stakeholders in education to review the document and to look at strategies for implementing some of the recommendations and looking at which recommendations should not be implemented.

The work is continuing; it is called “New Horizons” and it is going on with the Council of Yukon First Nations right now. There have been many joint presentations between the Department of Education and the Council of Yukon First Nations. There is a presentation going on today at the literacy forum on addressing the literacy themes that came out of the education reform document. Also, this coming Friday we’ll have a meeting of the Yukon Association of School Councils, Boards and Committees. Their agenda includes the education reform themes and how to go forward.

Mr. Speaker, there was a lot of very good work put into the education reform document and I’d like to thank all the people who put so much of their time, energy, heart and soul into it. Now we’ll be working with all our partners to implement the best recommendations in order that we can improve the outcomes of our education system for our students.

Question re:  Child and Family Services Act

Mr. Edzerza:   Mr. Speaker, this government appears to be willing to work in cooperation with First Nations on all things but the most important issue to First Nations: their children.

Last week, the Council of Yukon First Nations called the proposed Child and Family Services Act “flawed”. The council said it was deeply stressed that this government is not working with them to get the act right.

Let’s look at some of the reasons. One of the key issues for First Nations is that the discretion of the director is paramount in many areas. One area in dispute is determining if intervention is called for before a child may have to be taken into care.

Will the minister look at expanding collaborative planning to include assessing the risk and deciding what intervention is needed right from the beginning, instead of waiting until a child has been apprehended?

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, if the member would read the act, he would see that it is in there.

The member should note — I have mentioned much of this in debate already — that one of the themes that is threaded throughout the entire bill is inclusive collaborative planning and decision-making. That includes taking the steps, to start with the least intrusive approach, based on an assessment of the situation, and to take all steps to involve the First Nation and extended family in a cooperative planning process.

It is in the act; I would encourage the member to read it.

Mr. Edzerza:   This minister continues to repeat that members on this side of the House need to read the act. Mr. Speaker, four different independent legal counsel gave opinions on this act. Maybe he should question them and say they don’t know anything about what is in the act.

Another problem, not only with First Nations but with many Yukoners, is the provision for accountability measures in this act. The department has promised to work with First Nations to review the act after one year. Bill No. 50 allows for a review of the act every five years. If the Education Act review is any indicator, we may not see this action to review the Child and Family Services Act for a lot longer than five years.

There is no appeal system, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister consider establishing an independent body to conduct the five-year reviews and to hear appeals of decisions made by the director?

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   Our debate would be significantly benefited if the Member for McIntyre-Takhini and his colleagues, and the members of the Liberal Party, would actually read the legislation. It appears that many of them —

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Point of order

Speaker:   Leader of the Third Party, on a point of order.

Mr. Hardy:   The member opposite continues to make accusations that we have not read the act, with no substantial proof that he can point to. We have read the act.

Speaker’s ruling

Speaker:   There is no point of order, it is simply a dispute among members. Minister of Health and Social Services, you have the floor.

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I would point out, in answer to the Member for McIntyre-Takhini’s previous question, the section of the act, section 6, “Cooperative planning processes,” in the bill, on page 18 of my draft: “The purpose of cooperative planning is to develop a case plan that will (a) serve the best interests of the child; (b) take into account the wishes, needs, and role of the family; and (c) take into account the child’s culture and community.”

This is a new provision in the act, a new reference — in fact, the focus on cooperative planning is entirely new in this legislation and is one of the many areas that, if the member would read the act and compare it to the current Children’s Act, the member cannot help but see that the new Child and Family Services Act is a significant step forward to create increased involvement of the First Nation, relevant to the child — their First Nation — an increased involvement of First Nations, increased involvement of extended family and increased cooperative planning and approaches to avoid taking intrusive measures such as apprehension, unless absolutely necessary for the safety of that child.

Mr. Edzerza:   All at the discretion of the director, all the way through the act. One concession the Premier did make was to promise there would be a child advocate in place within a year. However, we need to know we’re all speaking the same language here. A child advocate must be totally independent of the director and free to criticize government policies and processes. The advocate doesn’t just act for the child in court. There is also the important role in public education on behalf of children. The advocate must be able to gain the trust of children in dealing with very complex circumstances, not just when the child is taken into care. The minister has promised there will be consultation on creating this position.

What specific guidelines will the minister be using for those consultations and how does he expect them to succeed in the current climate of mistrust he has helped create?

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   If anyone is creating a climate of mistrust — or facilitating it — it is the members opposite. Again, I have to encourage the members —

Speaker’s statement

Speaker:   Order. One does it, the other one does it. Somebody make some sense here. You have the floor, honourable minister. Would members please conduct themselves accordingly.

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   It’s a pleasure to hear the voice of reason. Again, I have to point out and encourage the members opposite to please read the legislation. It’s unfortunate they do not appear to have done so over this past weekend. Compare the new Child and Family Services Act to the existing Children’s Act, and the members cannot help but see that it takes a significant step forward in involving First Nations, in involving the extended family, in recognizing practices such as custom adoption, which are important to First Nations but were not recognized before. As the member indicated, in the final stages of consultation it was identified that the one substantive issue that stakeholders and First Nations were asking for was the creation of a child advocate office. Therefore, the commitment is in the legislation to work with them — we will be working with First Nations, stakeholders and the public — to develop the role of the child advocate office and to table a piece of legislation governing that office.

Question re:  Child and Family Services Act

Mr. Hardy:   Consultations should not be used to compromise positions. The Child and Family Services Act, unfortunately, has brought this to the forefront. It’s often how we do our consultation and what happens at the end of that consultation.

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I believe a fundamental shift in attitude needs to happen within the Legislative Assembly and among elected members in order to work together, side by side, as equal partners, and that’s from the beginning of any kind of endeavour or initiative or consultation, right to the end. We need to build on trust, collaboration and shared responsibilities.

I’m really trying to find a way to move forward on this in a non-confrontational way, but it’s getting very difficult because there’s such a roadblock here. My question is very simple: does the Premier not believe that public government and First Nation governments are capable of working cooperatively to create child welfare legislation that meets the needs of both native and non-native people in the territory?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Yes, the government side and I believe that it is fundamental, Mr. Speaker, and that is why we embarked on the process that we did. It was all about ensuring that First Nations’ concerns, when it comes to their children and those children who are in the care of family services, are being looked after in accordance with First Nations’ views and desires. That is why this process was constructed in the manner that it was so that those concerns could be addressed. If one were to stand up here and debate the bill clause by clause, then we would all see and recognize that throughout this bill First Nations’ concerns are being met.

I want to point out to the Leader of the Third Party that the government and family services branch are responsible for all children in Yukon, not just First Nation children.

Mr. Hardy:   I can assure the Premier that I understand that, and I don’t want to get into the rhetoric of name-calling and accusations and that. I want to move forward in a constructive manner. I believe that is what the First Nations want to do as well, and they want that final inclusion in this act. They want their voice to be heard and they want to be directly involved in shaping the legislation. I was very disappointed — like so many people in the gallery were — with what happened on Thursday and the position that was taken by the government. I don’t know why it is so threatening to have witnesses before us. I don’t know why the Premier has adopted a negative approach in this regard, especially when he has recognized their contributions and called them the “architects of the new act”.

Is the Premier now saying that the only options available to First Nations to move on with their concerns about the new act are either learning to live with it or exercising their final agreement right to draw down authority for child welfare? Do they need to do that now?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   First Nations don’t need to draw down the authority; they have negotiated the option and the right to draw down that authority. We have no issue with that. We encourage First Nation governments to fulfill what the spirit and the intent of the self-government agreements are all about. That would be taking on responsibility and liability for their children. That’s why they negotiated it in the manner that they did. That’s why it is in the self-government agreement.

First Nations, for five long years, have been witness to this process with respect to revisions and the development of a new Children’s Act. Five years, which included — as the member just pointed out — the overall structure of the act itself and jointly informing the act.

I have to stress and emphasize for the Leader of the Third Party, in the spirit of cooperation, that what we should be doing here is debating the act clause by clause, so the members on the opposite side of the House will become more aware of what is in the act, instead of listening to those who have an agenda to ensure that what they wanted to see happen is not being forgotten.

That is co-governance. We have no desire to go down the road of co-governance. We maintain the liability and the responsibility for all Yukon children, and we will not devolve it.

Mr. Hardy:   It’s a shame that the Premier looks at the First Nations’ concerns as “an agenda”. Eighty percent of the children in care are First Nation. Of course, they have a concern and a stake in this — but it is not an agenda to take down the government or to destroy this act; they know the work has been done.

The Premier promised cooperation, consensus and even compromise if necessary, but now, unfortunately, even with that language, it sounds like confrontation. We saw the same thing last year in a debate about education reform.

I think our system would work a lot better if the Premier followed his own advice about replacing confrontation with cooperation, consensus and compromise, and I believe he can do this.

Since the Premier seems determined to force the issue, unfortunately, will he at least guarantee that First Nations that do choose to draw down authority for child welfare will have the support and cooperation they need from this government to make a successful transition?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Of course, Mr. Speaker; that is exactly what we are obligated to do under the agreements, and that would include the federal government.

I want to once again repeat and emphasize for the Leader of the Third Party the process that we embarked on, and we did that because 80 percent of children in care are First Nation children.

It began by agreement back in June 2003 with the development of joint terms of reference and the establishment of co-chairs. It went on to a major public consultation that commenced in April 2004 — consultation on proposed policy content of the new act and a series of policy forums were held. Elders forums were held. Technical meetings on proposed policy content of the new act; more policy forums were held. Process for jointly informing the drafting — targeted consultation on the draft act has been occurring and will continue on an ongoing basis because we will revisit this act in five years.

Ongoing briefings with CYFN leadership have occurred throughout the process. The act, months ago, was provided to the Yukon First Nations for their comment. There has been extensive consultation including community policy forums, jointly informing the drafting, and on and on we go.

Mr. Speaker, this process has been second to none in the country when it comes to involving First Nations and their concerns.

Question re:     Education reform project

Mr. Fairclough:   Mr. Speaker, I wish to return to the education reform project team’s report. I believe the authors were very clear on the need for a partnership to exist between the Yukon government and the Yukon First Nations.

The education reform project team used the definition of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples in referring to partnerships, and I quote from the report: “relationships that are worked out on the basis of nation-to-nation negotiation amongst equals who reach agreements by means of consent on both sides and no subordination on either side”.

Will the minister confirm that this is the position being taken by this government as they move forward with this report?

Hon. Mr. Rouble:    Education is certainly a priority of this government, and we will work with all our partners and stakeholders in education in order to achieve the best possible education system for our children and our learners. It’s incredibly important in our education system to work with the students, parents, teachers, the school councils, school boards and other orders of government.

In our territory, the First Nations have negotiated self-government agreements. Those agreements are in place, and they do establish the relationship that we work within. As well, this government has gone another step further and put in place the Cooperation in Governance Act, where we meet on a regular basis with First Nation governments in order to discuss issues government to government.

The Department of Education and I will continue to meet with First Nation governments. The First Nations programs and partnership unit will continue to meet with the First Nation working groups we have established in the territory and we will ensure that our education system meets the needs of all Yukon students, including those of First Nation ancestry.

Mr. Fairclough:   I want to get to specific recommendations made in the report itself but I feel we must clarify whether we are playing on a level playing field.

The Premier said in this House on November 29, 2006: “We must work in a climate of cooperation, collaboration and partnership,…” He went on to say, “…our final agreements, and the Yukon self-government agreements were intended to form a collaborative approach in governments in the Yukon, where Yukon First Nation governments and public governments collaborated to build Yukon’s future.”

As recently as last week, the Premier’s action regarding a request as simple as appearing as a witness in Committee of the Whole cast doubt on this government’s sincerity on this matter. His words rang hollow to Yukoners.

Will this minister assure Yukoners that all recommendations of the report are open and on the table?

Hon. Mr. Rouble:    I agree; working in cooperation with all our partners in education is incredibly important. I must also say that coming to a compromise on some of the issues is also very important. That’s what happens when you have two different opinions. We both hear the cases that are being presented and find a compromise that best addresses all the interests possible. It’s not one way or the highway. There has to be work and give-and-take by all parties. We’re doing that work.

The education reform document was released to all the stakeholders and partners in education, and if anyone else wants a copy of it, they can download it from the Web or contact the Department of Education for more copies. We’ll be working with the Council of Yukon First Nations on our “New Horizons: Honouring our Commitment to the Future” project and how to develop an implementation strategy, to implement the recommendations that should be implemented. Many of the issues that have been brought forward, such as the creation of the First Nations programs and partnerships unit, the First Nation curriculum groups, the advisory groups, the relationship with the Chiefs Committee on Education, the relationships with many school councils and boards are already in place.

Mr. Fairclough:   The minister is having a hard time answering that question. Now, the Minister of Justice said on the floor of this House on November 29, 2006, and I will quote: “I will work on developing partnerships between public government and the First Nation government, which is critical, and I will devote time to promoting and facilitating partnerships…”

Well, Mr. Speaker, the minister voted to deny First Nations the opportunity to appear last week as well. The Yukon Party government cannot have it both ways. So we have a credibility problem with this government. The Minister of Education can be as well-intentioned as he wishes, but he needs to have his team onside and at this point, I am suspicious that he doesn’t.

Again, I would ask the minister: is this government committed to a full partnership with Yukon First Nations on this issue?

Hon. Mr. Rouble:    Mr. Speaker, I can guarantee the member opposite that this Yukon Party government is onside. The education of our children is of the utmost priority, and we will all work toward accomplishing that goal — that will happen in the Department of Health and Social Services, the Department of Justice and the Department of Economic Development. Across the board there is a commitment to work toward the development of our students — our learners — to build a better, brighter future.

Mr. Speaker, we will work with all our partners, our orders of government and our structures. We will continue to respect the structures that we have in place. Those include the Commission scolaire francophone du Yukon and our school councils. We’ll work with them so that they can deliver the type of programming and create the type of school that they want to see in their community. Mr. Speaker, will that involve compromises? Of course it will, but everything in life worth fighting for is also going to involve some compromises. What will not be compromised is the quality of education for our children.

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

Government bills.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GOVERNMENT BILLS

Bill No. 46: Second Reading

Clerk:   Second reading, Bill No. 46, standing in the name of the Hon. Mr. Kenyon.

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   I move that Bill No. 46, entitled  Act to Amend the Liquor Act, be now read a second time.

Speaker:   It has been moved by the minister responsible for the Yukon Liquor Corporation that Bill No. 46, entitled Act to Amend the Liquor Act, be now read a second time.

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   It is my pleasure to introduce Bill No. 46, Act to Amend the Liquor Act, for the Legislature’s consideration. The purpose of the legislation is threefold: to modernize the legislation; to strengthen enforcement tools and penalties; and to streamline licensing categories. These changes are needed as Yukon’s Liquor Act remains outdated and inadequate to respond to certain business and public safety needs.

The amendments proposed to the Liquor Act in this bill will provide several practical improvements to the act that reflect the wishes of Yukoners as expressed through a 2001 public consultation process and as reflected in the recommendations made by Liquor Act Review Committee.

The 2001 Liquor Act and Regulations Review report recommended 49 changes to the legislation. Twenty-eight of these recommendations have already been addressed, including the amendments made last spring to increase opportunities for economic diversification by allowing Yukon businesses to manufacture wines and spirits as well as to brew beer.

The amendments proposed in this bill address an additional seven key recommendations made by the Liquor Act and the regulations review committee: (1) minors should be allowed to entertain in cocktail lounges; (2) minors should be allowed to deliver food to patrons in cocktail lounges and to deliver liquor to patrons in other licensed premises; (3) the act should allow the RCMP to take intoxicated people into custody for 24 hours; (4) the act should streamline and modernize the licence classifications available, allowing for a diversity of licensed premises such as neighbourhood pubs and off-sales in RV parks; (5) you-brew products should be able to be served at permit events; (6) fines and penalties should be significantly increased; and (7) the fines and penalties for over-service should be significantly increased.

The amendments to the act will allow the RCMP to hold an intoxicated person in custody for up to 24 hours. It will increase fines and penalties for liquor-related offences. It will, with a reception permit, allow service of homemade wine and beer at private family events held in public places. It will permit RV park owners to sell beer and wine to registered overnight guests.

It will eliminate hotel-room requirements for bars. It will eliminate meal requirements to consume alcohol in a restaurant. It will streamline classes of liquor licences and it will allow minors to serve liquor in restaurants or enter bars for limited work purposes and to perform in bars.

The proposed changes provide safe alternatives and address concerns expressed by the RCMP, by our liquor inspectors and by local businesses.

The RCMP will be allowed to hold an intoxicated person in custody for up to 24 hours, correcting the long-standing matter of premature release for those under the influence of alcohol.

Fines and penalties for liquor-related offences will increase, particularly for selling and for supplying liquor to minors, bootlegging, over-service and the use of forged identification cards. Increasing the fines and penalties for liquor-related offences will enhance enforcement tools in areas such as bootlegging, over-service of alcohol and infractions of the Liquor Act involving minors.

Further, this amendment will enhance the opportunity to achieve the values desired in the SCAN legislation — or safer communities and neighbourhoods legislation — for situations relating to reducing bootlegging and selling or providing liquor to minors.

The proposed amendments will result in increased fines and penalties, which we hope will deter some from the practices and will provide tough consequences for those who are convicted of such offences.

The SCAN legislation, coupled with increased penalties, has the potential to remove the offender from his or her location and impose a financial penalty of some consequence.

Increased fines and penalties for liquor-related offences also support the Yukon substance abuse action plan. Its general goal is to establish policies and programs designed to reduce the harm from the abuse of alcohol and other drugs. It specifically commits to addressing bootlegging and other community concerns regarding infractions under the Liquor Act.

This act supports the economic development in the hospitality sector. Subject to regulations, businesses whose primary purpose is the operation of an RV park will be able to sell beer or wine to registered overnight guests.

Streamlining the class of licences will substantially reduce red tape for businesses involved in the industry.

Elimination of the hotel/bedroom requirement for bars will allow businesses to establish neighbourhood pubs.

Eliminating the meal requirement to allow alcohol to be served in a restaurant, and allowing a food-primary premise to change into a liquor-primary premise later in the day, will provide restaurant operators with more flexibility in providing food and liquor service to Yukoners.

Minors will be allowed to serve liquor in restaurants and enter bars to work at tasks that do not include the service of alcohol. This will provide young people with employment opportunities, particularly in rural communities, where staff options and jobs are limited. Employers will have a greater flexibility in hiring servers and kitchen staff.

This act promotes arts and culture, including assisting and promoting the emerging artists by providing young performers with the opportunity to participate in cultural and economic activities in venues that serve liquor.

The provisions providing more flexibility around minors are balanced with safeguards. The Liquor Corporation has established criteria and conditions within the proposed Liquor Act regulations to address conditions where there is a perceived risk to minors. For example, the underage person must be at least 16 years of age, have written parental consent, and must be closely supervised by the adult manager of the establishment.

In addition, the proposed legislation will provide a person of drinking age or older with a reception permit to serve homemade beer or wine at a private family event held in a public place.

Mr. Speaker, the proposed Act to Amend the Liquor Act helps to fulfill this government’s commitment to helping achieve a better quality of life. It supports economic development in the hospitality sector and promotes arts and emerging artists, balanced with increased fines and penalties for liquor-related offences. Enhanced enforcement tools in areas such as bootlegging, over-service and infractions of the Liquor Act involving minors are there.

With this legislation, we are providing a balance of strengthened enforcement tools and penalties with increased business opportunities that reflect the current Yukon business environment.

For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present the proposed Act to Amend the Liquor Act for your consideration. We anticipate bringing the amendments into force this spring and are working on them at this moment in time. We will ensure that all Yukoners may benefit from the changes this summer.

Thank you.

Mr. Inverarity:   It gives me pleasure and I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak to this bill today. I’m not going to speak for long. I think that the Liberals are on record as supporting amendments to this particular act, considering the fact that we actually brought in most of the regulations through the Liquor Act review that we did back in 2001.

I guess the biggest single concern that I have at this point in time is that it has taken seven years to get from the act review to getting the act on the floor here so that we can debate it. I think that it has taken longer than the Children’s Act to actually get to this point in the process. It strikes me that there must have been something wrong with the Liquor Act review to take so long that maybe we should have been looking at public debate on this particular subject. It is either that or just the efficiency of this particular government — perhaps they have been impaired by the topic that we are discussing today.

I find that the position that the government has taken over the past seven years has been interesting. They opposed it initially. They wouldn’t discuss or debate it. They have sent letters to the B.C. and Yukon Hotels Association indicating that they would not be moving forward with amendments. Now they have done a 180 degree turn and here we are now debating this whole issue.

As a result, I am looking forward to the actual debate on the issue when we get into it. I may have a couple of amendments — I’m not exactly sure at this point — because there are a few things that I think might be required. I’ll go into that a little bit later.

I find that some of the particular amendments that are coming into the act — the minister talked about seven areas and that 28 had been done — one, in fact, just a year ago, which we all know was very worthwhile, because it brought in increased business opportunities. I think my position on increased business opportunities has been well-documented in the House. I do have some concerns — only in that I’m not sure where we will ultimately be going, but I think that the permit for RV park owners to sell beer and wine is, on the surface of it, very good, and I will support it.

However, I’m not sure whether or not we should be looking at the greater issue — which is either to go in the direction of opening up sales of beer and wine to all retail establishments, but I’m also concerned about the effect that may have on communities, for example, where there is no territorial liquor agent. How are the individuals there going to purchase liquor if they want? Perhaps we should be looking at — you know — if there is an RV park in the area, I can see issues around bootlegging happening — if that’s the case in some of those communities. I’m also concerned about the overall negative impact — and these go to questions about government staff who are currently working in jurisdictions where, in fact, there is an RV park and there is a territorial liquor agent — and the effect it might have on employees in that community doesn’t seem to be addressed.

However, overall, I think the act is welcome. I would have liked to have seen some of the additional amendments, which are still missing and were in the legislative review, being tabled at this particular time. They have not been, which means that we still have to go with this whole act in a piecemeal sort of way. We get an amendment here, we get an amendment there — let’s do seven now — one last year.

 It would be nice to get it all over and done with. All the hard work had been done; seven years ago, this could have been done; things could have been moving forward and they haven’t been. So I would encourage the minister to perhaps even table some additional amendments while we debate this coming up in the near future. Thank you.

Mr. Hardy:   It is interesting to see these proposed regulation amendments brought forward. I do have to agree with the Member for Porter Creek South that it would have been nice over the last few years to see all the amendments that were accepted by the government brought forward, and we could have dealt with this as a package. I’m not saying that every amendment that was part of the Liquor Act review is automatically a good amendment, because I do have some very serious concerns.

Maybe the minister could correct the record, but I don’t think licensing distilleries was part of the recommendations seven years ago. He seems to have indicated that it was, but I don’t think it was. Could he just clarify that, and we can make sure that it is on record. I haven’t seen it — maybe it is written in a different way.

In the first one, the RCMP would be able to hold an intoxicated person in custody for 24 hours — I have heard the arguments why, and there seems to be some justification around that.

Fines and penalties for liquor-related offences will increase — I think we’ve been calling for that for quite awhile. I think people have to recognize the seriousness of what alcohol actually does to a person and to a society. Does this mean that we will be finally able to have more inspectors on the job? We are going to need them, just from looking at some of the other amendments. Will more inspections be scheduled, and will there be more enforcement?

Increasing the penalties and fines will only work if you apply them. There hasn’t been much action on that front nor have there been enough inspections and inspectors on the job to ensure compliance to the act we are bringing in. So that is a concern.

Licensing requirements will be streamlined to allow greater flexibility in the conditions of the use and sale of alcohol for the service industry. For example, a primary-food premise may become a liquor-primary premise later in the day. I think we need some more explanation around that. I am quite worried about that. Are we saying that if you serve breakfast in the morning, you can serve nothing but liquor later on and basically become a bar or a pub, and you don’t have to serve food? As long as you can meet one small requirement, you can switch it over to a bar. Maybe I’m wrong in that area, and I’d like to have an explanation of that.

Minor — I have a big problem with this one. It might be my own personal philosophical issue, but I do not want to see minors exposed to alcohol at such a young age. It’s just something I believe. They’ll be allowed to serve liquor in restaurants, okay. If people are sitting down eating a full meal and having a glass of wine, okay. I can understand that; I’ve travelled around the world and that has not been that uncommon. But allowing them to work in bars? It doesn’t really stipulate what limited work purposes are. Maybe that can be expanded upon. I’d like to debate that. Performing in bars: I understand you have young performers, but young performers are subject to a completely different audience in a bar. Most of them are not there to hear you. They’re there for socializing and drinking and activities the bar has, but they’re not coming out to listen to young performers.

Young performers have a lot of other avenues. Maybe we need to create more, but exposing them to that kind of element does raise serious concerns for me. It’s like introducing them at such a young age to the world of the bar and drinking and all those elements that are part of it. I fundamentally and on principle haven’t been convinced it’s a good thing.

Also, we still don’t have child labour laws in the territory. We don’t have laws to protect the children, yet we’re going to put them in an environment that is a lot more unsafe than a lot of other areas, and expose them to elements in our society that aren’t generally good. Lots of things happen in bars, and we all know it. It’s not just drinking, either.

I am really worried about that. The RV park owners and the homemade beer and wine: nothing has really jumped out at me in my look at this.

The meal requirement enabling consumption of alcohol in a restaurant, and the hotel room requirement for bars, will be eliminated. So what you are saying is that you can take a restaurant and turn it into a bar. You don’t even have to serve the food, in the end.

How does this one work with the other one — licensing — to allow more flexibility for the service industry, which says a primary-food premise may become a liquor-primary premise later in the day? In other words, they may sell just liquor as long as they serve a meal, and you get to this one and it says that you actually don’t have to serve a meal to drink alcohol. So what is actually being said here? It’s confusing to me. I am looking for some guidance and some clarification.

There are — as the Member for Porter Creek South had mentioned — a lot of recommendations that have not been brought forward. They are still outstanding and maybe the minister can explain why some of them were not brought forward at this present time. If not, should we expect to see them in the fall possibly, or maybe later in this sitting? Is there a reason why they are not being brought forward at this time and why just these seven were picked?

And finally, I guess, social responsibility: actually, it’s one of the recommendations. I am just looking through the paper here. I see it jumps out. I will read it:

“The Yukon Liquor Act should direct profits of the Yukon Liquor Corporation either wholly, or in significant part, toward Yukon Government approved “socially responsible” alcohol education and/or treatment programs.”

That one has not been brought forward.

We all know the impact alcohol has on our society. We deal with it daily and a lot of the budget is already eaten up in dealing with the health and social impacts that alcohol has on communities and our society. We are increasing access to alcohol with the changes that are made. I know that it is not the Yukon Party’s Liquor Act consultations — this is based upon the 2001 Liberal initiative in this area — but it is an adoption of it. I think that it needs a very good airing. I don’t like this piecemeal. As the Member for Porter Creek South said, I would have rather debated this wholly and maybe we could have made some amendments or changes ourselves within the Legislative Assembly to try to address some of the very serious concerns in regard to the tremendous negative impact that alcohol has.

I’m not going to get into how it is nice to have a glass of wine once in awhile or how it is nice to have a beer — we all know that. We also know that often it doesn’t stop at that and there is violence attached to it; there is social unrest; there are family disruptions; and there are illnesses. This is not a good drug and yet we treat it like it is.

There are huge industries built around it. We don’t have treatment centres to deal with it and we don’t have good education around it. We don’t have lots of programming at various stages of a person’s life, as they become addicted to alcohol or have problems with it. We have failed in that area. We did have a substance abuse summit that I was a part of in initiating, and it didn’t address enough, and we haven’t addressed enough of the recommendations that came out of that summit before making changes like this.

I look forward to some very interesting debate around the changes that are being proposed. I don’t think we’re all in agreement that these are good changes. Unfortunately, piecemealing it makes it very hard to take a solid position around the recommendations.

I think one of the reasons it’s being piecemealed is because of the one I read about regarding socially responsible alcohol education and treatment programs, and a significant portion of the profits from the sales of alcohol going to that. Most governments don’t like that; they don’t like money being earmarked specifically for a program. They like the general revenue kind of approach, then they can use it where they want to. Unfortunately, we’re making money off people whom we often have to treat in the end or try to help. Not ensuring that that money goes back to assist is counterproductive and doesn’t make sense to me in this day and age.

I look forward to the debate on this at a later time.

Mr. Edzerza:   I just wanted to put a few things on record also, because I do have some very serious concerns about making access to alcohol a lot easier for the public at large.

I want to start by just speaking a little bit right from the heart about how difficult a person’s life can be when you have an alcohol addiction.

These amendments may prove to be not too bad for someone who doesn’t have a serious addiction to alcohol, but for the ones who do have a serious addiction, this is like a gift from heaven. It’s a lot easier to get; it’s more available; you don’t have to go to bootleggers; you can go here, there and everywhere and get it from now on. You can go sit in the café, order a sandwich and drink all day. It’s making it too convenient.

In my own personal experience I have run into very difficult situations, and this was many years ago — 30, 40 years ago. Even at that time, it created a lot of family disputes or disruptions in my family — divorce and a lot of bitterness. There were a lot of times when I couldn’t control the power of alcohol and drank up the rent money, for example. I had a very difficult time trying to find ways to make up for the money that I went and drank in the bar.

On a number of occasions, my children had to go short on some of their needs because I had drank up all the money that I may have put aside, as an example, for their winter clothing. They would have to wait until I was able to save enough money to replace it.

All of these examples I give you are very relevant to making changes to an act that would really assist all of the things that I mentioned. It is a very difficult addiction to deal with. It is unbelievable the power that it does have, and only those who have really suffered from this disease will know exactly what I am talking about. People who haven’t should go and talk to some of these individuals who are suffering from drug and alcohol addictions, and I believe that would be a really good exercise for any minister to do. Sit down and talk to the people it really affects, and get some input from those people, not only the business people and the people who are going to make money off this — and it is going to be nice for their business to do all of these amendments.

I am going to be monitoring this pretty closely to see if there is an increase in social problems in future, from the date that this bill becomes law. I want to see what it really does to the public at large. Was it good for them? We should be able to find that out in a very short time. I would say before this government finishes its mandate, you will have seen some results from the liberalization of liquor laws.

I also have grave concerns about young people being able to go into these establishments to work. There are a lot of other places for young people to go, other than where they are subjected to the bar scene. They don’t need it. They really don’t need it. They should be discouraged from even going around the bar, period. I don’t buy the fact that, if they’re entertainers, we want them in the bar. I don’t buy that. I think it’s totally wrong.

I believe there needs to be more preventive methods to put in place to discourage young people from getting accustomed to the alcohol scene. We all know that it’s evident — anyone can look at historical issues within the bar scenes and there are always drugs involved. It seems to be a place for the drug dealers to hang out, and it’s almost like that is their headquarters.

What we are saying here now is that we’re prepared to introduce young people to the drug scene along with the alcohol. I think it’s a very negative move. I certainly don’t support that part of this bill. I think the minister should really think seriously about taking that section out of this bill, because you don’t need to be able to legislate young people to go into the bar. We’re trying to help them deal with these issues as they get older, and it’s not a good thing.

I also want to put on the record here that I find it a little bit disappointing that this government is so willing to liberalize the liquor laws and make alcohol more available but are reluctant to get busy and construct a land-based treatment centre for alcohol and drug addictions here in Yukon. I remember quite specifically the Premier standing on the floor of this Legislative Assembly saying that he would work with First Nations in partnership to establish land-based treatment centres.

Offhand, Mr. Speaker, I probably know of at least three and maybe as many as five who have all the infrastructure in place to be able to start a land-based treatment centre within a very short time. I would say that some of them would be right up and running within a month and maybe even less. All they need is a dedicated partnership, and this government has boasted on the floor of this Legislature for years about how they have such a marvellous working relationship with First Nations. Here is an opportunity for them to really shine and be sincere about dealing with the alcohol and drug addiction scene.

I know that they will say that we have the Sarah Steele Building — whoop-de-do. I think that a lot of people don’t use it; therefore, they feel there is no need for it. Most of the people who go to the Sarah Steele Building are probably ordered by the court to go there. I know a lot of people, right to this day, who would take those first steps to start addressing alcohol addiction if they were able to go to a land-based treatment centre.

It has really been difficult to get this government and other governments before this to understand that there is a cultural difference. There is, but they won’t admit it. They keep on saying things like, “Well, it is our responsibility. We are responsible for this and that, and if First Nations want to have authority then they had better start paying their own bills; they had better start taking responsibility financially.”

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to look through the Umbrella Final Agreement and to realize there are no monies attached to anything. No money is attached to anything. Talk about all of these good things that could happen, like the land-based treatment centre — I certainly hope this government starts getting very serious about addressing those issues.

There is one unfortunate thing, Mr. Speaker, and that is when you deal with social problems or social programming, they are not money-generated programs. If they were, this government would be right out front doing all they could to ensure that there is infrastructure in place for alcohol and drug treatment. If they were going to get $1,000 a day from everyone they brought in there, they would have people from all across the territory coming here to go to their big modern drug rehabilitation centre.

The fact is social programs are not revenue-generating programs. In the same breath, I think the government is making a big mistake by not looking at those areas more carefully.

We talk about a shortage of labour and a shortage of tradespeople in the territory, and I think that could change quite a bit if there was a rehabilitation centre here for alcohol and drug addiction.

Most First Nations are duped into believing that if you let us open a mine on your property, you are going to get lots of work. That is a myth, because right away the mining company that comes into the community puts into place policies and procedures so that if you have one indication whatsoever of any drug in your system, you don’t get hired.

We talk about alcohol. Alcohol is a drug. So is marijuana. It just so happens that I know a lot of people who would smoke a marijuana joint, but they don’t drink. The person who smokes a marijuana joint won’t get a job; the one who drinks a gallon of whiskey will. I don’t think it’s fair. I don’t think the work options are on a level playing field. They are all over the place. There is differential treatment of the two drugs, and I certainly hope that this government will really get serious about focusing on rehabilitation. In an indirect sense, the government is responsible for all these social problems that go on, because they are the only one with the authority to sell alcohol.

We talk about seeing an increase in fines; that could generate an awful lot of extra dollars for the government. I would be interested in knowing if that is just going to go into a slush fund where the government would get to spend it on economic development, or could they make some commitment that monies collected from such things as increased taxes and all the increased dollars collected from fines will be put into prevention, that it will be put into rehabilitation of people who are suffering from alcohol addiction.

It would be nice if that were the case, but I don’t have much faith that it will be. I think it will become probably a pretty good money-generating avenue for the government. So, they will have a few extra dollars in the coffers, again on the backs of those who are suffering from social problems. In that sense, it is not a good thing.

I could probably go on and on with reasons why these amendments are going to increase the social problems, but I am not going to. I am going to sit down and let the minister get up, knowing that, if the minister is true to form, he will give a good bashing for my comments, which I feel are constructive criticism. But I know I will get thrashed for that, and that is all right — at least my opinion is on the floor. Thank you.

Speaker:  If the minister speaks, he will close the debate. Does any other member wish to be heard?

Hon. Mr. Kenyon: For the Member for McIntyre-Takhini, I don’t remember ever bashing him on anything inappropriate. I would like, actually, to thank him on this one for answering the Member for Porter Creek South’s question.

One of the delays in this is the safer communities and neighbourhoods legislation and the substance abuse action plan — all of these things and related topics had to be under control. That had to be done first.

So the Liberal position that it should have been done earlier is interesting and I do recognize that, in their short time in government — the shortest majority government in the history of the Commonwealth of Nations — that they were not able to do it. But I do give them credit for doing the consultation on this and having accomplished something in that very short time.

To move around on some of the comments on this, one of the comments came up in terms of inspectors. I would like to point out, for the record, that I expected that this would come up. Currently, I believe we have five inspectors and actually, with the RCMP members also being appointed as inspectors under this act, that leaves us with 126 inspectors, if you wanted to be really technical.

But when we were down to three inspectors, I did a little survey with British Columbia and found that left us with 11 times more inspectors than the Province of British Columbia. Inspectors are critical to this and we recognize that. That’s why we have increased in this area and that is why we will be watching this very carefully.

In terms of a number of the things — and again, I’ll jump around a little bit — the ability for beer and wine only — not hard liquor — to go to RV parks is for overnight guests only. I don’t think that anyone would risk their licence to sell a bottle of anything to someone who is not a registered overnight guest. We are aware of that problem and that will be very carefully monitored.

The difference between food-primary and liquor-primary simplifies the number of licences. It simplifies the approach to this. What makes it very difficult in many cases is the fact that if we wanted to discuss this — and have mushroom caps and a glass of wine to discuss it — under the current act, that is illegal. You can’t do that. We would have to go to one of the bars and have two or three beers to discuss it.

So I’m a little nervous when some members claim this makes alcohol more readily available. I suspect that it actually will cut down in some respects on that.

In the development of this, one group that certainly was heard loudly at the end of my phone was the number of women who would love to go out and have a drink after work, but they won’t go to the bars. They’re loud and they’re noisy. The members opposite have made the point that they have other social problems there. They don’t want to do that. This will give them that ability. It will give people the ability to go to a neighbourhood pub, watch a ball game or a hockey game and have wings and a beer. Because in the liquor-primary, the comment one of the members had made was that food would not be available — that is not true. Food always has to be available in both. But it gives the opportunity for the business owners to change over at night. Even right now, under the current act, if you or someone wanted to bring their six-year-old to a restaurant, it’s perfectly legal. If you wanted to bring your six-year-old to a restaurant — as long as you are the legal guardian or one of the parents — you could order that six-year-old a beer — perfectly legal.

But there is a point when most businesses want to not have children there. We’ve had challenges with that, for instance with some of the existing hotels. If the restaurant is part of what they consider as the bar then we would have to issue special licences to get around that until 11:00 in the morning so travellers can go down with their kids and have breakfast, because it would technically be illegal.

There were two instances quite recently of men who brought their children — one brought a 12-year-old girl and one brought a six-year-old girl — and they wanted to stay for dinner that night, but the licence had changed to what we would now call “liquor primary” and the restaurant, according to our current legislation, had to deny them dinner and throw them out — both were slightly horrified at this. We would leave that as a business decision for the business owner to do.

The Member for Whitehorse Centre brought up a couple interesting points. Again, I think he’s not quite reading the act critically. For minors to work in bars — this is not to work in the bar, per se; I think that is an over simplification. We’ve had cases, for instance, where an 18-year-old working in the kitchen can’t get to the freezer without going across a corner of the bar. In one case, he was fired because he could not do his job and he couldn’t cross that little 10-foot strip to get to the freezer to continue cooking. That is a little bit silly and very limiting in smaller communities.

It is also a bit strange that when someone orders, say, wings or chips or something, that someone from the kitchen can’t simply come out, give them the chips and walk away. That is what we’re talking about with working in what we would now call “liquor primary”.

At the same time, an 18-year-old server in a restaurant now has to drag someone out of the kitchen — potentially, in a small place — to bring a glass of wine or a bottle of beer out to the table. Under the proposed amendments, they cannot pour or mix a drink, and they cannot open that bottle of beer or wine. But once poured or opened, they could then simply bring it to the table. Again, this is an irritation in a large community and strongly limiting to a small place in a community.

One of the members opposite made some comments about performers. I think it was the Member for Whitehorse Centre. It is nice to say that they should be working in other venues, but I’d sure like to know what other venues are open.

We are in an interesting jurisdiction where there are few venues available, and we have been very heavily told by the music industry that this is of great concern to young performers. You could have a band that is booked to play, or more than willing to play, but the drummer is 18, in which case they can’t be engaged to do that. The point was made by some that they wouldn’t want their kid to do that. Well then, don’t give the written consent, which would be necessary. Unless there is written consent available to the inspector when the inspector is there, that would not be allowed. It would also be mandatory under regulations that we are putting through that the underage performers would have to be escorted from the door to the stage or performing area, and then escorted away again, and not allowed anywhere near the place where liquor is being consumed.

What we are trying to do is remove the mystery involved with drinking, to demystify it. The Member for Whitehorse Centre made the comment about travelling around the world. Some parts of the world are a little more lax than others, I agree. But in many jurisdictions, suddenly alcohol isn’t a real big issue, because they have at least seen it. They have had exposure to it. They have been to the pubs. Again, it becomes a business decision that if things were to get out of hand, as the Member for Whitehorse Centre thought, we have the inspectors and we have the ability to make sure that is looked after. It becomes a business decision where nobody is going to jeopardize their licence to put up with any shenanigans, for want of a better term.

A number of different things have come up in terms of us basically evolving and coming up with what I think is a very good amendment and a good way of doing it. A couple of members have asked about the recommendations that we’re not following. First of all, if we look at the recommendations that have not been implemented on this — one was what the Member for McIntyre-Takhini had referred to of directing profits for socially responsible alcohol consumption, education and/or treatment programs. The profits made by the Yukon Liquor Corporation are substantially less than what currently goes in there. This recommendation would actually end up reducing the amount of money available and that is not something that I think is at all reasonable.

In terms of the fines — the Member for McIntyre-Takhini invited me so I’ll say it — he feels that the fines are a money-making scheme. Well, first of all, if this works well, the amount of money generated will be quite a bit less because people are going to look at the increased fines — some of them quite huge — and say, “We’re not going to do this. It is just too expensive. It is too ridiculous.” In a perfect world, the fines would go to zero and we’d make nothing off of them, but I know that is probably not too reasonable.

Recommendation 9 was that the government should produce multi-purpose identification cards. This is underway in conjunction with the Department of Community Services. They are looking at a multi-purpose identification card for someone who has stopped driving or someone of the older persuasion who simply doesn’t drive. What do you do? Get a driver’s licence in a community that has no roads? That would make very little sense and has been a huge problem in Nunavut.

Recommendation 14 is that we should work with other governments to resolve problems of loitering, panhandling and related activities. All of that relates to municipal issues, zoning issues and bylaw issues within the community. We are always willing to work with that, but there is nothing that we could put into this act that would do anything for that.

The Be A Responsible Server program or bar training should be mandatory for at least one supervisor. That would make sense in some of the businesses; it would make little sense in some of the others. Again, the liquor inspectors have the right to demand that at any point in time, so if they see a problem developing within one particular business, they have the right to say, “Okay, you’re going to take the course.” Since this was done, we have put that course on-line and made it free of charge. The business owner might actually have to pay someone to take it or pay them to take it live, but at least it’s free from our perspective. Again, the liquor inspectors have that right at this point in time.

Recommendation 23 says that the act should provide the right for servers to refuse service to a pregnant woman. That is hugely problematic in terms of when you determine pregnancy and, if you follow that to its logical conclusion, you literally would say no woman of child-bearing age should ever consume alcohol. That’s probably not a realistic approach but, again, a huge problem in there to make that determination, and a huge legal problem.

Recommendation 24 says that bar tabs should have to be paid on the same day. I remember when I first came to the Yukon, I was living out at Judas Creek. People had run bar tabs for months. On the surface, that seems pretty reasonable, but to do it would also mean that, when you have a tourist who comes in and stays at the hotel and calls down for room service, they would have to settle for the can of beer they were going to buy from the mini-bar. They would have to go downstairs or call downstairs and have someone come up and collect for it. Again, there are big problems with that.

Recommendation 38 talks about how non-payment of Liquor Act fines should be tied to a driver’s licence renewal and income tax or other means. That involves so many different acts and so many different things in there that the legalities would take us years to develop. However, there are other ways to solve that problem and to look after that.

With those comments and those answers, I hope some people feel a little bit better in terms of answering those questions. With that, Mr. Speaker, that’s all I have.

Speaker:   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. Ms. Horne:    Agree.

Mr. Nordick:    Agree.

Mr. Elias:   Agree.

Mr. Fairclough:   Agree.

Mr. Inverarity:   Agree.

Mr. Hardy:   Agree.

Mr. Edzerza:   Agree.

Clerk:   Mr. Speaker, the results are 12 yea, nil nay.

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

Motion for second reading of Bill No. 46 agreed to

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

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

Motion agreed to

Speaker leaves the Chair

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Chair:   I will now call Committee of the Whole to order. The matter before the Committee is Bill No. 51, International Child Abduction (Hague Convention) Act. Is it the wish of the members to take a brief recess?

All Hon. Members:  Agreed.

Chair:   We will take a 15-minute break.

Recess

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

Bill No. 51 — International Child Abduction (Hague Convention) Act

Chair:   The matter before the Committee is Bill No. 51, International Child Abduction (Hague Convention) Act.

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is a pleasure to rise here. I won’t be too lengthy in my introductory remarks to Committee of the Whole as I covered much of this at second reading and would simply move on to allow members the opportunity to bring forward any questions, if indeed they have any.

Bill No. 51, International Child Abduction (Hague Convention) Act, is in reference of course to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, which is a multi-lateral treaty that seeks to protect children from the harmful effects of abduction and retention across international boundaries by providing a procedure to bring about their prompt return.

The convention is part of the existing Children’s Act but was removed from it to be re-enacted as a separate piece of legislation for the purposes, twofold: one being of clarity, in that it deals with a different aspect of law than most of the Children’s Act, and secondly to keep it separate from the public consultation process and not create undue confusion in the minds of any of the public and stakeholders who are participating in that process. Of course, the Hague Convention being an international convention, the choice is largely to adopt or not to adopt. It is not something where we can deal with individual lines and clauses in a separate manner, particularly since it is a lengthy international convention.

I should also mention for members that it is commonly enacted by Canadian jurisdictions as stand-alone legislation for those purposes of clarity.

One of the most difficult and frustrating elements for a parent of a child abducted abroad is that Canadian laws and court orders are not automatically recognized abroad and, therefore, not directly enforceable outside of Canadian borders.

The Hague Convention was drafted to recognize the need for cooperation between countries to address wrongful removals or retentions between countries of children.

The countries that are party to the Hague Convention have agreed that a child who is habitually resident in one party country and who has been removed from or retained in another party country in violation of the custodial or access rights of the parent who was left behind, shall be promptly returned to the country of habitual residence.

The convention applies throughout Canada and in approximately 80 other countries. The Hague Convention was incorporated into Yukon law as part of the Children's Act and came into force February 1, 1985.

Again, to clarify the difference in purpose from that and the rest of the Children's Act or the new Child and Family Services Act, there is an area that pertains to civil law and provides legal mechanisms to parents as a civil action and the parents — not governments — are party to that legal action.

Canadian cases involving signatory countries to the Hague Convention are managed through special offices or central authorities in each of the provinces and territories. In Yukon, the central authority is the Yukon government’s Department of Justice. Action can be taken by the central authority to seek the whereabouts of a child, to ensure that the child is not harmed, to take steps to arrange the volunteer return of the child, to take legal steps in its own courts to obtain an order for the return of the child to his or her country of original residence, or to effective exercise of the rights of access.

The central authorities offer considerable assistance in the case of children abducted to signatory countries. Over 400 Canadian children have been returned pursuant to the arrangements provided under the Hague convention. The Yukon Department of Justice has also assisted in a handful of cases in the last decade.

The Hague Convention applies to children habitually residing in a contracting country prior to the breach of custody or access rights. It ceases to apply when that child reaches the age of 16. The Hague Convention attempts to ensure orders are respected. In exceptional cases the courts may not order the return of a child if it can be shown that the parent seeking the child’s return has consented to the removal or if it can be demonstrated that the child would be at risk of physical or psychological harm if returned.

That, Mr. Chair, covers the high points of the bill. I would be happy to answer any detailed questions that the members have during general debate or in line-by-line on Bill No. 51, International Child Abduction (Hague Convention) Act.

Mr. Mitchell:    I thank the minister for his explanation. I won’t be very long in addressing this bill, not because it’s not important — because it’s very important — but because the purposes of separating this bill from Bill No. 50, Child and Family Services Act, as opposed to, in the past, when it was part of the Children’s Act, have been clearly laid out by the minister and we agree with the explanation that has been provided.

I cannot imagine anything that could be more painful for a parent than to be dealing with the abduction of a child and I’m sure it’s a tremendously difficult situation to find oneself in. Having this as stand-alone legislation appears to be the way this is being done by most jurisdictions and it only makes sense for Yukon to do the same.

Looking at the convention itself, when it says, “The States signatory to the present Convention, firmly convinced that the interests of children are of paramount importance in matters relating to their custody, desiring to protect children internationally from the harmful effects of their wrongful removal or retention, and to establish procedures to ensure their prompt return to the State of their habitual residence…” that clearly lays out what this is all about — that we should always have the welfare of the child first in mind.

I am curious about a couple of aspects on which I would just ask if the minister would answer a question or two. There have been some very high-profile cases in Canada that have made the news in recent years, and they have in some cases involved children who are considered Canadian children by the Canadian parent and considered to be a citizen of a different country by the parent who has left with that child. In the eyes of the Canadian parent, the child has been abducted, and in the eyes of the parent from another country, the child is living with the rightful parent — and both countries are, no doubt, signatories to the Hague Convention.

How is this resolved? It seems it becomes a very difficult series of court cases and petitions and, invariably, the Canadian parents try to get the Government of Canada involved and it becomes a diplomatic issue. The minister mentioned there have been a dozen or so cases over the years in Yukon.

Can the minister provide any clarity on how that procedure works? As MLAs, I’m sure if such a case were to arise, we would be hearing from the Canadian parent who is resident in Yukon.

Again, we support the objective of this bill and we will vote for it. Obviously, as the minister has said, it’s not up to us to change or modify any of the clauses of the international convention; rather, I just seek some clarity on that question.

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   As the member will see in Chapter III, article 8 of the act, there is a process around this that requires, “Any person, institution or other body claiming that a child has been removed or retained in breach of custody rights may apply either to the Central Authority of the child’s habitual residence or to the Central Authority of any other Contracting State for assistance in securing the return of the child.”

It goes on to list information that must be provided. Article 9 refers to the requirement of a central authority who “has reason to believe that the child is in another Contracting State, it shall directly and without delay transmit the application to the Central Authority of the Contracting State and inform the requesting Central Authority, or the applicant, as the case may be.”

In article 10, “The Central Authority of the State where the child is shall take or cause to be taken all appropriate measures in order to obtain the voluntary return of the child.”

Now, where it becomes complex, of course, is if it is disputed. As the member notes, when both parents claim that the child is habitually resident with them, it can be a complex matter since the courts in both countries do have jurisdiction over the matter; therefore, this can leave to lengthy wrangling.

I think that all signatories, including Canada — and Yukon as part of Canada — recognize that the Hague Convention is not a perfect mechanism. It does not always result in facilitating the early and simple return of a child. It is certainly better than nothing, which was the case without the Hague Convention. The central authority in the country where a child is located has the primary responsibility for processing the application, and there is a requirement for reviewing that and for forwarding it to the foreign central authority if the central authority determines that it complies with the requirements of the convention.

They are required to forward it to the foreign central authority and work with the authority until the case is resolved. In the case of it being voluntary and agreed, it is