088 Hansard

Whitehorse, Yukon

Thursday, April 17, 2008 — 1:00 p.m.

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

Prayers

Withdrawal of motions           

Speaker:      The Chair wishes to inform the House of changes which have been made to the Order Paper. Motion No. 168, standing in the name of the Minister of Community Services, has been removed from the Order Paper at the minister’s request.

Also Motion No. 394, standing in the name of the Leader of the Official Opposition, will not be moved from the Notice Paper to the Order Paper as the action requested in the motion has been fulfilled.

DAILY ROUTINE

Speaker:   We will proceed with the Order Paper.

Are there any tributes?

Introduction of visitors.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Speaker:   It is my distinct pleasure, fellow members, to introduce the participants of the 2008 Yukon Youth Parliament. They are as follows: from St. Elias Community School in Haines Junction: Kyle Karman, Jana Madley, Dylan Graves; from Watson Lake Secondary School: Jessica Thomas, Morgan Evans, Cody Magun, Robyn O’Brien, Stephanie Stone and Blair Relkoff; from Robert Service School in Dawson City: Greg Fischer; from J.V. Clark School in Mayo: Hazel Phillips, Sarah McDiarmid and Kissel Ried; from Whitehorse Individual Learning Centre: Francis Thompson; from Vanier Catholic Secondary School: Jason Lane and Patrick Docherty; from F.H. Collins: McKayla Morgan; and from École Émile-Tremblay: Jeanette Carney.

We are also delighted to have the chaperones and some of the teachers: Greg Nolan from Watson Lake; Geoff Scherer from Haines Junction; Karen Fischer from Dawson City; and Annabelle Lattie from Mayo.

Please join me in welcoming them.

Applause

Speaker:   Are there any further introductions of visitors?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Speaker:   Under tabling of returns and documents, the Chair has for tabling a letter from the Ombudsman and Information and Privacy Commissioner regarding Bill No. 50, Child and Family Services Act. The letter is dated April 16, 2008.

Are there any further returns or documents for tabling?

Mr. Hardy:   Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have for tabling an article written by the Grand Chief of the Council of Yukon First Nations that has been submitted to various newspapers, entitled “Let’s Get It Right”.

Speaker:   Are there any further documents for tabling?

Are there any reports of committees?

Are there any petitions?

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motion?

NOTICES OF MOTION

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

THAT this House urges the Yukon government to show respect for Yukoners and their elected representatives by avoiding the practice of invoking closure and/or filibustering the business called for debate on private members’ day.

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

THAT this House urges the Yukon government to investigate the feasibility of establishing a safe home which will provide care and counselling for mental health outpatients on a 24-hour basis.

I give notice of the following motion:

THAT this House urges the Yukon government, now that the Thomson Centre is available, to reconsider its position on the use of this facility and designate it for mental health and medical detoxification patients since the nursing shortage means that it will be some time before it is used for continuing care.

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

THAT Standing Order 75 and 76 be deleted from the Standing Orders of the Yukon Legislative Assembly in the interest of allowing proper and thorough examination of government legislation and spending measures.

I give notice of the following motion:

THAT this House expresses its support for the Yukon people who are standing in solidarity with the people of Tibet.

I also give notice of the following motion:

THAT it is the opinion of this House that

(1) a recent international study called “Tomorrow Today: How Canada Can Make a World of Difference” ranks Canada 28 out of 30 OECD countries for environmental sustainability;

(2) this report also said that Canada’s performance around energy conservation, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and limiting certain airborne pollutants was near the bottom; and

THAT this House urges the Government of Canada to take immediate action to address its failing efforts on the environmental front, particularly around mitigating climate change.

I give notice of the following motion:

THAT this House urges the Yukon government, as it reviews its contracting policies, to develop and implement a green purchasing policy with focus on local, recycled and energy efficient goods and services.

NOTICES OF MOTION FOR THE PRODUCTION OF PAPERS

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

THAT this House do issue an order for the return of any order-in-council made since November 15, 2007, appointing a member to the Yukon Child Care Board.

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:  School funding

Mr. Mitchell:    I have some questions for the Minister of Education about some of the assertions he made yesterday — assertions that don’t reflect the facts.

The minister claimed yesterday that the budget for public schools had not been cut. Of course, it has been and that is right in the budget documents before us.

The minister tried to claim it was because some money had been transferred to another department. That is a different line in the budget, not the public schools branch, and had nothing to do with the question that had been asked.

The minister also claimed the previous Liberal government cut funding to public schools — again, not the case. Funding for public schools is down. Granted, it is down by a small amount. However, when the government has $108 million in the bank, it makes no sense to be cutting education.

Why is funding for public schools down?

Hon. Mr. Rouble:    I would urge the Leader of the Official Opposition to examine the budget in greater detail and actually look at it and compare it to the previous budget.

If one takes a look at the 2007-08 mains, they will see that the public schools operation and maintenance budget was $77,014,000. This year, the same budget line item is $81,160,000.

This government recognizes education as a priority. We’ve demonstrated this by increasing programming, creating opportunities for partners and other stakeholders to be involved, and by increasing funding.

Investments in the public schools branch have grown from $69 million in 2003 to over $92 million in 2007. That is an increase of 33 percent. Over the same period of time, the number of teachers has grown from 452 to 473 — an increase of five percent. The number of educational assistants has increased from 86 to 111. That’s an increase of 29 percent.

Mr. Speaker, all this while the number of children has dropped from 5,432 in May 2003 to almost 5,000 children we have today — a reduction of eight percent. We’re continuing to make investment in education.

Mr. Mitchell:    If this minister were still in high school, he would be sent to the office for an answer like that. He well knows that the cost of providing the service goes up every year. There are wage increases and other factors that come into it.

The government is sitting on $108 million in the bank, yet it is cutting funds to public schools. The minister has lots of money to send flyers to every household — flyers with spelling mistakes, we might add — that he is cutting funding to public schools.

The minister went to great lengths yesterday saying that is not the case. He tried to say it was because money was transferred to another department. The reality is something different.

This Yukon Party government has actually cut funding to the public schools branch. It is a small reduction but it is also completely unnecessary when the government is sitting on $108 million.

Why has the minister cut funding to public schools?

Hon. Mr. Rouble:    Mr. Speaker, the member opposite should take a look at the numbers and take a look at the budget in much greater detail.

I know he has asked for my assistance on math questions before, and I would be happy to provide him with some more answers.

We have seen the per capita investment. That is what the Government of Yukon is investing in our students. It has increased from $11,157 to over $15,000 per student. There is a significant increase in what we are expending per student; we are hiring more teachers; we are hiring more educational assistants, and tomorrow we will be opening another new school.

Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to education and we will work with our partners in education to ensure that we have the best programs and the best outcomes for our students today and into the future.

Mr. Mitchell:    Last year’s number was $81.2 million; this year it’s $81.1 million. It’s a cut; it’s small, but the budget is definitely going in the wrong direction. Twelve other departments either stayed the same or received increases in this year’s budget.

This minister needs to do a better job at the Cabinet table in standing up for education. He needs to advocate for education when his colleagues want to cut his budget. There’s no reason to be cutting funding to our public schools — no reason at all.

I would encourage the minister to stop making excuses, stop denying there have been any cuts, stop wasting money on flyers with his picture on them and start spending money where it matters most: in our classrooms.

Will he do that? Will he restore the funds?

Hon. Mr. Rouble:    Again we see the opposition tactic of, “If you can’t object to a performance, if you can’t object to the position, you attack the personality.” Well, Mr. Speaker,  I’m not going to go there.

One just has to take a look at the budgets. We’ve seen the Department of Education budget grow from $100 million to $130 million. There have been tremendous investments in education, not only in public schools but also in advanced education with the investments we’re making in Yukon College and the programming there. We are providing assistance for students to go on to post-secondary and for trades and skills training.

This government believes in education for all Yukoners. We believe in making the investments in our children when they’re young, in their youth in their middle years and in our adults throughout their lives.

Question re:  Opposition private members’ business

Mr. McRobb:   Yesterday in this Legislature, the government side again invoked closure on initiatives advanced by opposition members on behalf of Yukoners. The Yukon Party shut down the debate. For a majority government to deploy closure, to force adjournment of debate on matters of public interest, can best be described in one word: arrogant.

The Premier said there was no time to deal with our legislation; however, it was opposition private members’ day so, indeed, there was time and it was the appropriate opportunity.

Then the Premier said our legislation would not be proceeding in this sitting; however, we might choose to recall any bill at our next opportunity on April 30. So my question: why does the Premier believe this bill won’t proceed? Is it because the Yukon Party has decided to ensure it doesn’t? If that’s the case, be forthright.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Speaker, I understand the emotional attachment to apologizing that the Official Opposition has, all things considered, but I think that we were quite clear yesterday. It is the Official Opposition in the last week or so who have been in the public domain, considering the fact that they say that there is not enough time in this sitting to go over all the public business that has been tabled. The question to them then is, why bring forward the Apology Act in this sitting, when indeed it will not pass this sitting, considering all the public business that is on the floor, yet to be debated and addressed.

Mr. McRobb:   Well, it was private members’ day.

Yesterday this government demonstrated another act of arrogance. We in the Official Opposition called forward a second bill — the Net Metering Act — but the result was the same. The government hijacked the agenda. The Energy, Mines and Resources again used all of the time available to talk out the bill. This monopolization or filibuster has increased his speaking time to more than hours on this bill alone. He repeated much of what he said in November when the bill was first introduced, even though his arguments are redundant and easily refuted.

Again, this was progressive legislation put on the floor by members of the Official Opposition, in the interest of Yukoners and at the appropriate opportunity; but again, the Yukon Party blocked it.

So my question: why doesn’t the government allow this bill to proceed? Is it because the Yukon Party has decided to ensure it doesn’t? If so, be forthright.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Speaking of being forthright, why doesn’t the Member for Kluane explain the number of times he was called to order in the debate of the motion previous, on the animal act? The member knows full well it is on the record in Hansard.

I would reverse the question to the Member for Kluane. The government side has conducted business with the opposition in this sitting. Let’s talk about the Smoke-free Places Act that we have jointly pursued in this Assembly and brought to debate on the floor, and is passing.

Let’s talk about the other unanimous agreements we have reached in motions like the Animal Protection Act process yesterday.

Let’s talk about our offer to the Member for Porter Creek South and his bill as tabled to address the human rights legislation in the Yukon, and the unanimous agreement in this House to proceed with the review of the human rights legislation incorporating the Member for Porter Creek South’s bill.

I think the Member for Kluane has another agenda here that has nothing to do with being forthright.

Mr. McRobb:   The government and the Premier don’t have the courage to admit they are blocking this legislation from proceeding. These examples of the misuse of power demonstrate that the legislative reform of this Assembly is long overdue.

The Yukon Party’s own campaign document promised to focus on legislative renewal. Both opposition parties support it. Yukoners have asked for it. The commission has recommended it, and all parties have said they support it, yet it is going nowhere.

The SCREP committee supposedly dealing with it is in gridlock because the Yukon Party has put the brakes on any progress. This is about the future of this Assembly. The presence of participants in this year’s Youth Parliament, who are with us today in the gallery, have reaffirmed this need.

When can Yukoners expect to see the implementation of legislative reform or renewal, as they were promised in 2006 by this Premier?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I don’t want to spoil the Member for Kluane’s day, but this Assembly is about the future of the Yukon. That’s why, on the floor at this sitting, there is a $900-million budget investing in Yukon’s future. That’s why there is great emphasis on the Department of Education in this budget document, with increases to investment in public schools. That’s why the Workers’ Compensation Act is here for debate. That is why the Child and Family Services Act is here for debate. That is why we’ve proceeded with the Smoke-free Places Act. That is why we are pursuing a review of the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment. That’s why we are proceeding unanimously with a review of the human rights legislation in this territory, incorporating the Member for Porter Creek South’s own legislation. That is why the government side has tabled the public business in the manner that we have. It’s all about the future of the Yukon.

Question re:  Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment

Mr. Hardy:   In a strange way, I was quite pleased to hear the Premier confirm what I suspected all along — this government intends to do away with the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment. I am not pleased that he is doing it, but I’m pleased to finally get to the truth of the matter.

Of course, the Premier didn’t come right out and say it in so many words, but let’s look at the evidence.

First, there was a motion from the Yukon Party Member for Klondike that the Environment Act and the Economic Development Act be reviewed in relationship to the council. Then about an hour later, the Premier refused to allow other members of this Assembly to debate a motion calling on him to bring the council up to full strength so that it can fulfill its legal mandate.

Will the Premier now admit that his government intends to do away with the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I can’t respond to the member’s assertions of doing away with anything. That is certainly not the debate I heard yesterday. We discussed the fact that what gave rise to the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment took place almost 20 years ago at a time where the Yukon was certainly not in a position in the evolution of responsible government that it is in today. Today we have mechanisms like YESAA; we have 11 of 14 First Nation land claim and self-government agreements in place; we have processes like land use planning; devolution has occurred; we’re no longer being dictated to by Ottawa when it comes to managing our resources, lands and waters. There are dramatic changes for the better in this territory today in 2008. That’s why we are going to review these two acts and the relationship, role and responsibility of the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment and how it fits in a modern, progressive, much-improved Yukon from that time so long ago.

Mr. Hardy:   I’ve heard it before, Mr. Speaker. Now, I don’t want to trivialize what I consider an extremely important matter, but there is an expression about something that walks like a duck and talks like a duck.

Just before he guillotined debate on our motion yesterday, the Premier made it clear that his government intends to review the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment. That’s what he said, but he only said this after going on at some length about how things have changed since the YCEE was established in the 1980s, and he’s doing it all over again. In other words, according to the Premier, the council has outlived its usefulness and there is evidence in this matter.

Can the Premier explain how devolution of federal authority over lands and resources means there is less need for the Yukon government to listen to the Yukon people about how to ensure that our economy is environmentally sustainable?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I know that the Leader of the Third Party takes great ownership for what transpired in the 1980s. It was a legacy of the Penikett government, a legacy of boards and committees and other instruments to ensure the public’s involvement in decisions that affected them. Nothing has changed today in 2008 in ensuring the public has a role and ensuring the public understands what its government is doing; ensuring there’s full disclosure of matters for the public.

But times have changed; there are new responsibilities, increased responsibilities for the government itself. There are other bodies and mechanisms mandated by law that are also now being implemented in the Yukon. How does all this fit to what happened in 1985 or 1988 or whenever this took place, some two decades ago? It’s a legacy of the Penikett government, along with deficit budgeting.

Mr. Hardy:   I have to agree with the Premier: the NDP did create a legacy of public participation in advising government on what’s important. We will accept that responsibility, but it stands true today as it did 20 years ago. The Premier wants us to believe that a federal screening agency that looks at specific development proposals can take the place of a citizens body that does big-picture research and advises government on sustainable development, and that’s nonsense.

The Premier wants us to believe that First Nation final agreements provide all the consultation he needs when he doesn’t even honour those agreements and has allowed scores of vacancies on renewable resource councils to go unfilled. Instead of offering fragile excuses for scrapping YCEE, why doesn’t the Premier just tell us why his government doesn’t want to hear from informed Yukon citizens on big-picture economic and environmental issues?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   We do hear from Yukoners. We do hear a lot from Yukoners. Essentially that is why this government is situated in the place that it is and governing with a second mandate. It is because we listen to Yukoners, Mr. Speaker. I hope that the members opposite are part of that process of informing their government — although one would only wonder considering the debate over the last two weeks in this House.

I want to assure the member that no decision has been made to eradicate or jettison the council — not at all. In fact, what we offered yesterday is a very progressive, commonsense approach to a matter that rose two decades ago and may not quite fit into today’s Yukon. We are going to review it. That is the intention. Nobody has said that the council will be jettisoned. That is not what took place yesterday and the member knows it. If the member wants to provide input on the matter, he certainly will have an opportunity to do so.

Question re:       Boards and committees, appointments to

Mr. Hardy:   I need to go back to the same issue. There is a very dangerous pattern emerging here. More and more this government appears to be ignoring or even silencing the voice of the Yukon people. Yesterday the Minister of Health and Social Services denied that the Yukon Child Care Board has been allowed to languish into nothingness. Mr. Speaker, according to the Yukon Gazette, the last order-in-council appointing someone to this board was on November 15, 2007. On February 22 of this year, eight of the 10 existing appointments expired.

So can either the minister or the Premier explain: is this an oversight? Is it incompetence? Or is it a deliberate move to deny Yukon people their voice in advising this government?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Speaker, this is getting a little carried away. The member is suggesting that we are actively pursuing a system of government in this territory that would be defined as a dictatorship. That is nonsense.

There is a plethora of boards and committees in this territory with variables in their mandates, roles and responsibilities, and there are multiple processes for how we appoint citizens to these boards and committees. Some are mandated by law that exists in Yukon; some are mandated by the Umbrella Final Agreement; some are just mandated by policy, but there are processes for appointments, which include achieving consensus with First Nations on appointments to boards. It includes going through the process with citizens by advertising, receiving names, ensuring there is some uptake on interested citizens, and even serving on these boards and committees. There are all kinds of issues regarding training so that citizens understand their liability, their role and their responsibility should they assume these positions on boards and committees.

I can assure the member that at virtually every Cabinet meeting there are a number of appointments being made, including today — I believe there were about two pages of appointments to boards and committees.

Mr. Hardy:   It is amazing that YCEE has been three or four years in this state if they talk about it every week.

We have sat in this House and have seen this government pick and choose who we will allow to appear as witnesses. We have seen this government ignore the advice of legally mandated boards under the First Nations’ final agreements. We have heard the Premier tell First Nations that if they don’t like what is happening, they can go to court or start their own systems.

We have heard members opposite put down citizen groups they don’t agree with by referring to them as “special interest groups”. We have seen this government stack boards and committees with party favourites.

Now that the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment has been effectively silenced, what other advisory boards are in the government sights for elimination?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   The member’s dissertation seconds ago had nothing to do with what was said in this House, period, and the member knows it. However, I want to make a subtle point: the member seems fixated on the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment, that it hasn’t done things or what it’s supposed to do in the last couple of years – whatever may be the case.

I want to point out to the member opposite that it hasn’t stopped economic growth in the Yukon. The environment is being well protected under the many mechanisms that we have to assess and process applications for development.

By the way, under this government’s watch, without any direction from the council, we are second only to B.C. in land base under protection. Some 13.2 percent of overall land base is protected here in the territory. I just heard some kibitzing from the Member for Vuntut Gwitchin, and he’s exactly correct: our priority is implementing what our obligations are in land claims, first and foremost.

Mr. Hardy:   Land protection was done under other governments, not this one. Now, on many issues, but especially on the environment and on relations with Yukon First Nations, we are at a crossroads. Decisions that we make now will have a huge impact on the lives of Yukoners for many generations to come.

Now more than ever we need to engage people in a discussion about what the Yukon will look like for our children and grandchildren, and there are people in the stands today — young people — who want to participate in that. This Premier is saying no, no participation. The attitude of this government, in this Assembly and outside, is that it does not want any advice, it will not listen to advice and it will do its best to shut down any view it doesn’t agree with.

Yesterday alone, we saw it twice during motion debate. That is not democracy, Mr. Speaker, that is autocratic rule.

If the Premier won’t listen to Yukon people outside this House, will he at least support the motion we introduced earlier today to get rid of the guillotine Standing Orders that prevent members of this House from giving public business the thorough examination and debate it deserves?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   If the opposition members in the House want to thoroughly debate the public’s business that is on the floor, then I suggest they change their approach to debating so it is more constructive and less of the grandstanding that we’ve experienced.

To suggest that the government doesn’t listen to its public is inconsistent with the facts. Recently, we did present to the Yukon public a plan and vision for the Yukon Territory. It was called an election. As recent as October 2006, Yukoners took a look at that plan and vision and re-elected a Yukon Party government with another majority. I think that’s important here, because it’s a demonstration that we listen to Yukoners and we presented to them a plan and a vision that they deemed to be — in their view — in the best interests of the Yukon Territory, their families and their children.

Question re:  Air quality in government buildings

Mr. Mitchell:    I have a question for the Minister of Health and Social Services. There has been a long-standing concern among nurses, other workers and the general public about the air quality at Whitehorse General Hospital.

It is my understanding that the hospital has had an air-quality survey done and that the report has been submitted to the hospital Board of Trustees. Nurses in particular have been expressing concerns for some time now and they are concerned over the lack of any apparent action.

Will the minister confirm for the House that the survey was done and the report given to the hospital board?

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   I’ll look into that matter for the member opposite. As the member knows — but unfortunately is not reflecting in his comments — the board is a body that runs the corporation. It is a corporation of the government but the board has responsibility for that. Any studies that they may commission report to them. They will then, if appropriate, share that with others, including the minister. I can undertake to look into the member’s question.

Mr. Mitchell:    I appreciate that the minister is going to undertake to do so. I know that the minister meets with the chair of the board to maintain an informed position on what is going on there, so I’ll take it as a yes. It has, in fact, been almost two years since the hospital has been in possession of these findings, yet not a single word about the contents of the report has been made public. We can be assured that the findings are not good news.

The employees believe that there is a problem, Mr. Speaker, and they have the right to know. The patients have a right to know and the public who visit have a right to know — so why the secrecy? If there is a problem then the minister has the obligation to see that the employees and the public are informed. He must also assure himself that measures are being taken to address the problem.

Will the minister table the report so all Yukoners can see for themselves the state of the air quality at the hospital?

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the member, I will undertake to look into his concerns. However, the member is suggesting that the fact an evaluation of air quality was done was somehow a rare matter or unusual. In fact, review of the air quality within government buildings, including within the hospital and many facilities, takes place on an ongoing basis — including this very building that we stand in here. It is a common procedure that is handled by officials.

I remind the member and any employees who are not aware of the fact that any employee of the government, of the hospital corporation, of any other government corporation, and indeed, in the private sector, has the right to contact occupational health and safety branch and request a review of the safety of their workplace — including air quality — at any point in time if they do not feel that those in authority within that workplace are handling the matter appropriately.

With regard to the issue posed by the member of an air quality review of the hospital, I will certainly undertake to look into that. I would indicate to the member that I am quite certain that if there were any issues with that air quality review, they would have been brought immediately to my attention.

Question re:  Power rates

Mr. McRobb:   Yesterday I asked the Energy, Mines and Resources minister about his hands-in-your-pocket approach to electrical bills in the Yukon. We all know that Yukoners have been reaching deeper into their pockets lately to pay for his broken energy promises.

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

This adds up to $400 or $500 more per year for power bills, thanks to the Energy, Mines and Resources minister.

Yesterday he hinted that the government may in fact be rethinking its heavy-handed approach to this issue — one that is costing people a great deal of money.

Will the minister consider postponing his next round of planned power bill increases that are due to kick in July 1?

Hon. Mr. Lang:    In reply to the member opposite, certainly when we extended the rate stabilization plan for another 12 months last year at half of its original figure, we committed to look at it. We have until July to make that decision and being the government we are, we will make that decision in a timely fashion.

Mr. McRobb:   When the minister announced his plan to jack up people’s power bills last year he said to not worry, that by February of 2008 they will go back down. But that did not happen. Is it any wonder Yukoners don’t trust this government? It doesn’t keep its commitments. Its promises are worthless. This government has demonstrated that time and time again, especially the Health and Social Services minister, who has already earned a notorious reputation for making promises and then —

Speaker’s statement

Speaker:   Order please. I would ask the honourable member not to personalize debate. You are singling out individual people as opposed to criticizing the party as a whole.

You have the floor. Please keep that in consideration.

Mr. McRobb:   Thank you for that ruling, Mr. Speaker.

My question is about the Energy, Mines and Resources minister and his broken promises. Will he postpone his current plan to hike power bills another 15 percent on July 1?

Hon. Mr. Lang:    There we have the Liberal Party of the Yukon managing the energy of the Yukon — the party that was responsible for the biggest financial disaster in expansion of our power grid in the history of the Yukon — millions and millions of dollars taken out of taxpayers’ pockets through mismanagement by that party.

We will do the good work of managing the power, the hydro expansion and the GRA that’s coming forward. We are working for Yukoners and Yukoners will get a break on their power bill.

Mr. McRobb:   Such an absurd answer doesn’t even warrant a response.

The Yukon Party government is sitting on a surplus of $108 million, yet it has made a conscious decision to increase power rates by $400 or more per year for every Yukon family. There is no justification for this revenue grab.

Last year, when the minister announced his price gouging, he said it was just temporary, because there was going to soon be a review of all rates, and bills would go back down. That was supposed to be done by February. The minister has not kept his word or lived up to his end of the bargain.

I am asking him to do the right thing. His broken promise is hurting many Yukoners who cannot afford to pay more. Will he show some compassion for the ratepayer and postpone hiking power bills another 15 percent?

Hon. Mr. Lang:    The spokesman for the Liberal Party talking about broken promises — they promised Yukoners, the consumer, a power line for $18 million. That’s the kind of promises you get from the Liberal Party. The cost, by the way, is not even finalized. It’s going to be $10 million or $15 million over the original figure. And that gentleman stands up and talks about managing lower power rates for the Yukon and for the population?

Speaker’s statement

Speaker:   Order please. I would just caution members to not personalize debate. Honourable member, please keep that in mind. You have the floor.

Hon. Mr. Lang:    This side of the government is going to work with Yukoners, not on subsidization, but to lower their power rate by expanding the power consumption — which, by the way, will be foreign to the Liberal Party. We are not going to subsidize; we are going to get more customer base and in that way, do a GRA, and get cheaper rates for all Yukoners on power. We’re doing that as we speak. The power expansion line is something else foreign to the members opposite: it is on time and on budget. So, let’s move ahead.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

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

Motion agreed to

Speaker leaves the Chair

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Chair:   Order please. Committee of the Whole will now come to order. The matter before the Committee is Bill No. 50, Child and Family Services Act. Do members wish to take a brief recess?

All Hon. Members:   Agreed.

Chair:   Committee of the Whole will recess for 15 minutes.

Recess

Chair:   Order please. Committee of the Whole will now come to order. The matter before the Committee is Bill No. 50.

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Point of order

Chair:   Mr. Hardy on a point of order.

Mr. Hardy:   I rise on a point of order to ask that further consideration of Bill No. 50 be set aside until at least next sitting day so that all members can read and analyze the submission by the Ombudsman that was tabled by the Speaker earlier today.

Chair’s ruling

Chair:   That is not a point of order.

Bill No. 50 — Child and Family Services Act — continued

Chair:   We will proceed with Bill No. 50, Child and Family Services Act.

On Clause 10 — continued

Amendment proposed — continued

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   It is a pleasure to rise today and continue in clause-by-clause debate on Bill No. 50, Child and Family Services Act.

When we left debate on Tuesday, we were dealing with a proposed amendment to clause 10 of the act, moved by the Member for McIntyre-Takhini. As I indicated at that time, the member has misinterpreted the clause. The amendment he proposed is redundant; it is in fact encompassed in the introductory section of the clause and the member’s proposed amendment would have the effect of actually weakening that clause rather than achieving what I believe he hoped it would.

The member specifically was addressing the need for housing and financial support for grandparents and extended family. I would like to again remind the Committee that clause 10, which is “Services and programs”, is part of part 2 of the Child and Family Services Act. 

It is all a new clause of the act. All areas within part 2 are new, and are part of the new focus on collaborative steps, on steps to avoid court when possible, through cooperative planning and dispute resolution, and is part of the increased focus on providing services, programs and supports to families in a flexible manner.

The clause provides the ability to promote family integrity and provide support for families and children whether the children are residing at home, residing with extended family, are in an out-of-home care or have returned home. It then lists a number of services and programs that may be included.

As I would note to the members in the clause I read, it clearly identifies that the entire intent of clause 10 is to promote family integrity, provide that support to family and children, and that does include extended family, including grandparents. This is a step that is in addition to the support available to foster parents. This is a step that is available to those who may not formally be foster parents but may, through a guardianship agreement, have the care and custody of the child. Such agreements are voluntary; they may be chosen through the cooperative planning process or through alternative dispute resolution.

They may be chosen for other reasons, but they require the decision and consent of the parents to enter into that agreement to allow someone else to care for their children. That may be through a court process, and it may also be through the alternative dispute resolution cooperative planning or some other means that such an agreement is entered into.

Previously, there was a concern brought forward by the members. They were correct; for those who were not formerly foster parents, there is not always support available in this area. This change to the act — this new clause 10 — provides the ability for that support to be offered to those who are under a guardianship agreement or some other voluntary care arrangement. This will allow those services and supports to be provided by government — including assistance with housing, financial support for activities that the child needs to engage in, and support for necessities of life such as food, clothing and so on.

This is a new portion and addresses the gap that members identified. We concur, and so did the project team and the working group on the Child and Family Services Act that identified this area. This clause will address the matter without the amendment. As I indicated, that amendment would in fact, from a legal perspective, weaken the clause and weaken its ability to provide that support for things including, but not limited to, housing supports and financial support to grandparents and extended family.

I also want to note before concluding my debate on this amendment, that this entire section of the act — the support services to family — is new. It provides for a number of supportive and voluntary services, including cooperative planning processes such as the family conference in planning for a child or support services to be provided to a family. Support services would be the ones identified under this clause that can be now provided in a flexible manner.

Formal agreements to allow for the provision of family support services for in-home supports and for out-of-home care are enabled by this clause and by other parts within this section of the act, which is division 2, under part 2 of the act.

Other areas that this clause enables include special needs agreements to enable a child with special needs to be provided with out-of-home care without requiring a determination that the child is in need of protection. That is elaborated on to a greater extent in the clause that we will be coming to in due course.

In these cases, of course, special needs agreements do allow for parents to retain their role and responsibility for the child.

A key emphasis here, and one reason why clause 10 is necessary in its unamended form, is that the act contains provisions to encourage and facilitate placement of a child with extended family through the use of a formal support agreement. It is exactly through such a formal support agreement that clause 10 will allow family and children’s services branch or a First Nation service authority established under this act to provide supports, including financial support, to that family in a flexible manner — through the formal support agreement referred to.

As well, there are provisions within that this clause enables, which are provided for in more detail in other sections, including enabling a family and a director to enter into a voluntary care agreement to provide out-of-home care services — sorry, I’ll say that clearly, Mr. Chair: out-of-home care services — for a child where there are concerns that the child cannot safely remain in the home. Again, that’s by voluntary agreement.

I hope I have clarified that for the members opposite. As I indicated, the amendment proposed by the Member for McIntyre-Takhini would actually weaken this clause’s ability to provide the support the member was referring to. Since this was earlier in the week, I would suspect that perhaps on further review and greater reflection, the member may have come to the same conclusion and recognized that the act does indeed provide what he was asking for and his amendment would be counterproductive.

Chair:   Is there any further debate on this amendment?

Amendment to Clause 10 negatived

On Clause 10

Clause 10 agreed to

On Clause 11

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   Since I referred to this significantly in general debate, I will not spend a lot of time on clause 11. I will note that clause 11 is to provide agreements for support services for families. I also referred to this when debating the last clause.

It allows the director to make a written agreement with a parent who has custody of a child to provide support services to maintain the child in the home, to prepare for and facilitate a child’s return home when the child is in out-of-home care, and provides the ability to support the child and the family where the child has returned from out-of-home care with any other living arrangement.

Again, this is part of this entire section of the act — the entire new part, which was not in the Children’s Act. The new Child and Family Services Act will provide the ability for far more support to be provided to those families.

Mr. Hardy:   I move that debate be now adjourned.

Chair’s statement

Chair:   That motion cannot be moved presently. You can’t move that debate in Committee of the Whole be adjourned. The motion that the member put forward is not the proper motion. If a motion were to be put forward, it would be to report progress.

Mr. Hardy:   I move that the Chair report progress.

Chair:   It has been moved by Mr. Hardy that the Chair rise and report progress. Do members agree?

Motion negatived

Mr. Mitchell:    I would just look for a little more elaboration or clarification from the minister, if he might, on the wording in clause 11(1), where it refers to providing support services to maintain the child in the home. If the minister could just provide some elaboration on the sorts of services that could be provided to maintain the child in the home and what this might cover — that’s what I’m looking for.

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   The supports the member is asking about could include such things as counselling, respite, care for medical issues not covered under the health care system — such as some of the prescription drugs and other areas, or minor issues. It could include coverage for things such as school supports and equipment, special needs, medical needs, one-time supports, respite, financial supports, counselling, substance abuse treatment, in-home support such as through a family support worker, support through a case worker, parenting programs and traditional parenting programs — those could be covered through this clause.

Services to support children who witness violence, transitional supports for youth — which are actually referred to in greater part under a different clause — supports for youth, including independent living skills training, education, counselling, and it provides the ability for referral for services and support for that, and for community and informal supports.

That’s not an exhaustive list of the types of supports that may be provided, but it’s a bit of a high-level overview of the type of thing that can be provided. Much of this would be clarified to a greater extent, for the information of people to find out what they can get, through regulation or policy — to make them aware of what is available. The key part, which I’m sure the member will recognize, is that, previously, the existing Children’s Act does not provide the legal mechanism to allow the family and children’s services branch to provide the support. This new part would allow family and children’s services branch or a First Nation service authority established under the act to have the legal authority to provide for such services through their policies and programs.

Amendment proposed

Mr. Hardy:   Mr. Speaker, I move

THAT Bill No. 50, entitled Child and Family Services Act, be amended in clause 11(1) at page 21 by adding, immediately after the word “parent” the expression “or other person”.

Chair:   It has been moved by Mr. Hardy

THAT Bill No. 50, entitled Child and Family Services Act, be amended in clause 11(1) at page 21 by adding, immediately after the word “parent” the expression “or other person”.

Mr. Hardy:   The rationale for the amendment is basically to make it more understandable for laypersons. Basically the definition of “parent” covers anyone who has custody, is my understanding. This would make it clear for the layperson reading this clause who does not normally read legislation.

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   I appreciate the member’s intent here; however, the act already covers this. If the definition of “parent” included only mother or father, then the member’s amendment would in fact be of benefit to the legislation. I would refer, with the indulgence of the Chair, to the definition of “parent”, which will provide some clarity of the fact that this amendment is not necessary.

A “parent” means: “(a) a mother or father of a child who has custody of the child; (b) a mother or father who does not have custody of the child but who regularly exercises or attempts to exercise rights of access; (c) a mother or father providing financial support for the child; (d)…” — and this is a key clause —  “a person to whom custody of a child has been granted by a court of competent jurisdiction or by an agreement; …” And that agreement could include the type of volunteer agreement to which I was referring to earlier in debate.

And subclause (e): “a person with whom a child resides and who stands in place of the child’s mother or father;”

So the amendment the Member for Whitehorse Centre has brought forward is not necessary; it is covered under the definition of “parent” and I would point out that this is fully covered within the legislation.

Chair:   Is there any further debate on the amendment?

Amendment to Clause 11 negatived

Chair:   Is there any further debate on clause 11?

Clause 11 agreed to

On Clause 12

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to introduce this again, clause 12 refers to special needs agreements; it is again one of the new flexible arrangements under the act that allows a director — and again, a director in the act refers to either the director of family and children’s services or the director of a First Nation service authority, established pursuant to the act — to make a written agreement with a parent who has custody of a child with special needs for in-home support services or for out-of-home care services. This allows both to be provided and, if there is need for certain services offered by the director, to have the ability to make decisions on behalf of the parent. This clause will also allow the parent to assign care of the child to the director and delegate to the director as much of the parent’s powers and responsibilities respecting the child as is required to give effect to the agreement.

This is a pretty key change in the legislation that was not in the Children’s Act previously. Currently — since this act has not yet been passed — the status quo is that parents generally are in a situation of either having custody of their child or they relinquish custody of their child. This is a new and flexible arrangement that allows them to delegate that decision-making authority to the director without losing their primary guardianship role and responsibility.

I look forward to any questions the members may have.

Chair:   Is there any further debate on clause 12?

Mr. Mitchell:    Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would ask the minister for a little bit of clarification in clause 12(1) with reference to in-home support services. Would this — does this or could this — include financial support as well?

Hon. Mr. Cathers:  Yes, it could include financial support for special needs in-home and, of course, it also provides the ability for out-of-home care, which would potentially include things such as therapeutic activities and so on.

Clause 12 agreed to

On Clause 13

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   I would just introduce this clause by noting that this allows for voluntary care agreements to allow the parent to assign care of the child to a director, and delegate to the director as much of the parent’s powers and responsibilities as is required to give effect to the agreement, without requiring the parent to give up their role — their primary guardianship role — and their ability. This also does not require them to relinquish their ability to cancel such an agreement.

Again, previously the case has been that a child was either in the guardianship of the parent or in the guardianship of the government. This is a new approach and is certainly a significant step forward in the interest of providing the best possible care and support for a child and their family.

Clause 13 agreed to

On Clause 14

Mr. Mitchell:    In clause 14(2), it reads, “The agreement may provide for the director to contribute to the child’s support while the child is in the person’s care.”

What criteria will the director use to determine if assistance is needed and what is the extent of that assistance?

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   Essentially this will be based on assessment by experts in terms of determining both the level of need of the child and the level of need of the family. That could include, of course, the special needs we referred to earlier.

Again, this is the area related to those who may not formally be a foster parent with whom the child is placed, but may be operating under the voluntary care agreements and the voluntary transfer of guardianship by a parent to a person they select or is jointly selected by themselves and other participants in a cooperative planning process, including the First Nation and other members of the community.

This provides the ability for the director to contribute to that child’s support. This is a new area in the act that does require some development in regulations and policy to make it clear and easily accessible for individuals. Simply put, the intent is to achieve the level of assistance required to meet the level of need, particularly for those who may not have the financial means to take on another child and may require some assistance. It has always been the case for those on social assistance that assistance would be provided, but this type of support will primarily be of benefit to middle-class, working-class individuals who would be happy to care for the child of a member of their extended family, or of friends or others in the community, but who do not have the ability to take that on without increased support.

Extended family can be helped with the new and additional demands placed upon them when taking on a relative’s child. The purpose of such supports is to reduce the potential of having the placement break down, as well as to address any special needs a child may have, including those due to physical or cognitive ability or as the result of having lived with abuse and/or neglect and separation.

Amendment proposed

Mr. Hardy:   I move

THAT Bill No. 50, entitled Child and Family Services Act, be amended in clause 14(1) at page 22 by adding, immediately after the expression “a person who is” the expression “a grandparent or”.

Chair:   It has been moved by Mr. Hardy

THAT Bill No. 50, entitled Child and Family Services Act, be amended in clause 14(1) at page 22 by adding, immediately after the expression “a person who is” the expression “a grandparent or”.

Mr. Hardy:   This clarifies that grandparents have priority in the extended family, which is more in line with traditional views in almost all cultures around the world.

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   This amendment is unnecessary and in fact counterproductive. The definition of “extended family” includes, but is not limited to, grandparents. It specifically refers to persons to whom a child is related by blood or through a spousal relationship or through adoption, and includes other persons who have or have had a parent-like relationship with the child.

Why would the Legislature specifically wish to set out in legislation that, regardless of the wishes of the parents or their First Nation or their community, the Legislature wishes to determine here and now that a grandparent will take precedence over an aunt or an uncle? Why would we wish to make that determination?

The legislation allows that flexibility. The determination of who would take custody of that child in this area is based on a voluntary agreement. This is a voluntary agreement from the family member to the individual taking custody of the child.

Clause 14 also allows for supports to those who have been given custody by court. In either case, there is involvement by the parents. There is involvement by the First Nation. There is involvement by other members of extended family who wish to be involved in the cooperative planning process. For us, as the Legislative Assembly, to stand up and dictate to them that grandparents shall take precedence in placement over an aunt or an uncle who has a very close relationship with them would not, in my view, be well-advised. It would be counterproductive and it would restrict their personal freedom.

The act, without this amendment, allows that flexibility to those individuals, through cooperative planning and, of course, through a court decision, after receiving the representations from the individuals. I remind the members there is the requirement for the judge to consider whether cooperative planning has taken place and to set aside a court hearing if that cooperative planning has not occurred.

Mr. Chair, the Member for Whitehorse Centre has brought forward an amendment that does nothing to enhance the rights of the parents or the families. All it does is provide increased dictation by the Legislative Assembly and limitation of the rights of those individuals.

Mr. Hardy:   Mr. Speaker, when a minister gets up there and makes accusations to a member opposite, all they are asking for is a debate that is going to go on all day on one issue. If the minister wants to talk about dictating, this whole act is about dictating. The power of the director is so huge in this act that it is about dictating.

This minister has a tendency to overlook all of that. What happened in the Legislative Assembly by not allowing the First Nations to come as witnesses was dictating by —

Chair’s statement

Chair:   Order please.

Mr. Hardy, the debate is on the amendment to clause 14 that you put forward. I would expect members to debate that amendment only, please.

Mr. Hardy:   Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I will.

I just don’t like being accused of dictating at all.

This is in recognition of the grandparents in every family. In almost every culture around the world, grandparents have a role to play. They play a huge role in raising children and taking on responsibilities. When the parent or parents for reasons of death, or inability to raise the children themselves — it could be financial, it could be emotional, it could be many reasons — the grandparents step in. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, I am a grandparent. I know what I am talking about here. This minister isn’t.

It is already saying “parent”, which immediately — well that is already dictating one group. We are just asking for this in consideration of traditional views of the First Nations, of other cultures around the world — and if he doesn’t believe me, I’ll have a debate about that as well. Around the world grandparents do have recognition, very specifically, in raising or in helping a family. They have a role to play — a very significant role.

This act doesn’t recognize that. We wanted to make sure that the grandparents were recognized.

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   I will be very brief, just noting again that the rights of grandparents are already provided for fully within the definition of “extended family”. This amendment is not necessary to ensure those rights.

I agree with the Member for Whitehorse Centre on one point: the grandparents’ role is a very important and significant one, and in many cases, I will agree with him that it takes paramountcy over other relationships. However, I hope that other members of the Assembly will join me in leaving the flexibility to families to decide whether a grandparent should take that role, or whether it should perhaps be an aunt, an uncle, a cousin or other. We are not disagreeing on the importance of grandparents, but the member’s amendment is not necessary, and I believe it is counterproductive.

Mr. Hardy:   I move that Bill No. 50, entitled Child and Family Services Act, be amended in clause 14(2), at page 22, by deleting the word —

Chair:   Order please.

Mr. Hardy, we are still debating the previous amendment.

Is there any further debate on the amendment we are debating presently?

Amendment to Clause 14 negatived

Chair:   Is there any further debate, Mr. Hardy?

Mr. Hardy:    Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks for correcting me. I was getting a little ahead of myself there. I was excited, I guess.

Amendment proposed

Mr. Hardy:   I move

THAT Bill No. 50, entitled Child and Family Services Act, be amended in clause 14(2) at page 22 by deleting the word “may” and substituting for it the word “shall”.

Chair:   It has been moved by Mr. Hardy

THAT Bill No. 50, entitled Child and Family Services Act, be amended in clause 14(2) at page 22 by deleting the word “may” and substituting for it the word “shall”.

Mr. Hardy:   Basically, the rationale is that it makes it compulsory for the director to make an agreement for financing an extended family’s care for a child.

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   The member is not reflecting on what standard legal language is here. Unless one were to list in legislation or regulation the exact amount of that financial contribution, it would have no effect, whether it said “may” or “shall”, in actually ensuring needs were met.

I don’t want to diminish the member’s concern — I recognize that he is bringing this forward with good intention, but it is not necessary. It would not meet standard legal drafting. This provides sufficient flexibility. The details of how needs will be assessed and what compensation can be provided will all be set out in regulations and/or policy.

If the member is concerned that someone may not get the supports they need, I would remind the member that the entire purpose of this clause of the act — which is a new clause of the act — is to enable the payment for and the assistance through such agreements, when previously the director of family and children’s services did not have the legal authority to make some of these arrangements. There were a limited number that could be provided.

However, the number of support agreements that can be entered into will be significantly expanded by this new legislative provision. The key assessments will be financial ability and need. This will include paying for supports, including services for children, such as medical, school needs, diapers, and special needs. It will allow one-time supports; it will allow payment for respite; it will allow financial supports; it will allow counselling; it will allow substance abuse treatment; it will allow the compensation and provision of in-home supports; it will allow case worker supports; it will allow parenting programs and traditional parenting programs; it will enable services to support children who witness violence, transition supports for youth and referral for services in community and informal supports.

The member’s amendment is not necessary and would be a departure from standard legal drafting and provisions that are in various enabling acts, such as those that enable the payment for medical treatment and other matters. This is well-intentioned but it is not necessary and would not be the standard legal approach to such matters.

Chair:   Is there any further debate on the amendment?

Amendment to Clause 14 negatived

Chair:   Is there any further debate on clause 14?

Clause 14 agreed to

On Clause 15

Mr. Mitchell:    I have a question regarding clause 15(1). In the interest of time I’m not going to read out the clause, but the question obviously refers to this clause. In agreeing, does the parent have to assume additional responsibility beyond what a parent without such an agreement would and does this agreement lessen the responsibility of the director?

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   The simple answer to the member’s question would be no. There was a significant issue heard in public consultations and the joint consultations conducted by the Department of Health and Social Services and by the Council of Yukon First Nations. This clause was particularly driven by wanting to allow the support for the parent to be provided to assist a child through support services aimed at preventing a reoccurrence of an offence under this area. It is also specifically aimed at enabling the involvement of the community in this area, and that would be encompassed by this clause referring to support services. It would allow for community supports and that involvement. That is the basic intent of this. The answer to the member’s concerns is that it would not necessarily place any additional liability on the parents, nor would it lessen the director’s responsibility.

Chair:   Is there any further debate on clause 15?

Clause 15 agreed to

On Clause 16

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   I think this area — agreement for support services for youth — is largely self-evident to members.  What this provides for is for youth between the ages of 16 and 19 who have left their home and the director believes — again, that could be the director of family and children’s services or a First Nation service authority — they cannot be re-established with their family for safety or other reasons, and that they have no other parent or person willing or able to assist them. This may be, particularly for a mature youth, an option that enables supports that otherwise — as members will likely be aware, certain youth over the age of 16 may not be willing to live at a group home or in foster care, and this enables the director to make a written agreement to provide that youth support services and assistance between the ages of 16 and 19 to support their needs. This would address an issue that has been brought up for debate on the floor on previous occasions — the concern that youth may have issues with having a safe place to stay.

This is an additional ability to provide supports to youth who are not willing to access the supports currently in place through being in a group home or through foster care. This provides additional ability to enable those supports. There is some ability already, but this provides an additional legal mechanism to support such youth.

Clause 16 agreed to

On Clause 17

Mr. Mitchell:    This is a very interesting clause in this bill. The minister has made a fair bit of reference to it. It is the transitional clause making it possible to provide transitional support to youth up to but not exceeding their 24^th birthday.

In clause 17(1)(a) and (b) it makes reference to: “A director may make a written agreement with

(a) a youth who is leaving the custody of the director; or

(b) a person who, as a youth, was in the custody of the director;”

I am wondering if the minister could give us some examples of what such an agreement might contain.

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   This area can provide the support services for youth between ages 19 and 24. The section is designed to be fairly flexible in that, but its main intent is to provide the ability in this area to support youth to achieve independence. It’s basically aimed at providing support similar to that which a parent would provide to youth.

As we discussed earlier in debate and as members well know, it’s quite common for kids to reach the age of 18 or 19 and set out into the world on their own, and they think they have the world by the tail and are eager to be out and away from mom and dad. They soon discover they need support with things such as basic skills, the ability to manage financial affairs, tuition — so this includes such things as life skills training, education, counselling, those types of support. They are the key intent of this clause, but the main focus of this is to enable the delivery of programs aimed at assisting youth between the ages of 19 and 24, whether they’re leaving care or have left care, and wish to return for support.

The key objective of this clause is to enable the necessary supports to assist them in ultimately achieving independent living and self-sufficiency.

Mr. Mitchell:    I thank the minister for the explanation. I’m going to ask a follow-up question. For example, when a youth is leaving the care of the director upon reaching the age of 19 and doesn’t have a suitable family home to return to, would this support include assisting the young person in finding suitable housing and in obtaining it?

I’m not specifically asking about paying a portion of the rent, because there are programs that do that, but right now it is very difficult in the Yukon housing market to obtain a lease of any sort for rental housing without some form of reference showing that you have sufficient funds or a job that will support you on an ongoing basis. Someone who has been in the care of the director might not have those sorts of things accumulated in that person’s life. They might need some sort of referral — I’m not going to say guarantee — but some sort of endorsement that would assist them in finding housing. Without housing, everything else tends to fall apart. That is what I’m asking.

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   Yes, that is the type of thing — in fact, some of those supports are already being provided; however, this does enable some new areas. The member is correct in identifying some of the challenges that youth can face in those areas. They may not know how to go out and find a house or what they should be asking for when they are looking at a house, either to buy or to rent or whether it be an apartment or other dwelling. If they are looking at housing, they may not know the questions they should be asking. They may end up then getting into bad financial agreements or being taken advantage of because of that lack awareness or their lack of ability to know where to look for the housing that they need. This does enable some enhancement to the supports already provided to help them find a home, enter into a lease agreement or whatever the case may be. It will enable them to nail down that housing and, of course, as the member noted, payment for such things is provided through other programs should they need assistance with the cost of doing so.

Chair:   Is there any further debate on clause 17?

Clause 17 agreed to

On Clause 18

Clause 18 agreed to

On Clause 19

Clause 19 agreed to

On Clause 20

Clause 20 agreed to

On Clause 21

Mr. Mitchell:   Would this include children who have been exposed to sexually explicit pornography? That is the question.

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   Yes, it could. Much of this could be under the interpretation of the director and, ultimately, of the court.

There are shades of grey, of course, in this area, as the member will know, but it could include being exposed to seeing images that could be deemed emotionally harmful or abusive.

It certainly includes, of course, being encouraged or counselled to engage in prostitution. It would include being forced to engage in activities for child pornography. That would be covered in there.

I’m just looking down my notes here. The next clause of the act provides the requirement for duty to report, which does include child pornography.

However, child abuse and exploitation in this area does provide a fairly broad, encompassing area. As the member will note, in 2(a), it refers to “inappropriately exposed or subjected to”. So, if they are exposed to that “sexual contact, activity or behaviour”, that would also qualify with being forced — I believe that was the member’s question — to watch certain graphic images or to watch graphic acts. It would cover them being forced to engage in activities for the purposes of filming, viewing or other — too distasteful to even discuss, frankly, but those things would all be encompassed by this area.

Mr. Mitchell:    They are difficult to discuss; however, they are in the act and they are there to protect children, and it is just that 21(2)(a) makes specific reference to “exposed or subjected to” sexual contact which, without a definition of sexual contact, includes having been exposed to explicit pornography not only as, God forbid, the subject of, but just being exposed to — that is why I have asked the question, just to clarify.

If the minister assures me that is their view of what the legislation means, that will be sufficient.

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   For legislative purposes, although sexual contact is referenced first, it includes inappropriate exposure or subjection to activity or behaviour that would fall under the broad definition of exploitation.

The member will note also that emotionally harmed is referred to in the clause below, and that includes a pattern of behaviour that is detrimental to the child’s emotional or psychological well-being. So, yes, it is included in that definition and would enable action to be taken upon such activities taking place.

Mr. Hardy:   I do have two questions. I will ask one, and then let the minister answer, and then ask the second one.

It is just about clarification again. Verbally — this talks a lot about physical activity, also viewing physical activity — but what about verbal sexual innuendo or dialogue? Would this also be included?

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   That would fall under the area referred to above under clause 21(f) — emotionally harmed by a person’s conduct. That could be covered — again it becomes words. Of course, as we know, in terms of what defines sexual harassment, sexual exploitation or abuse, it always becomes a very tricky legal matter for determining where the line is, but yes, it could be included in there.

Mr. Hardy:   This is the last one I want clarification on. As everybody says, this is not pleasant stuff to talk about. However, many cultures, again, often do not have separate rooms for every person. You could have a situation where a young person is in the room with their older sibling, who happens to have a boyfriend or girlfriend, and sexual activity happens in that room. How do you judge that one? I just need some clarification on this. Where is that line drawn? We do live in a society that seems to assume that we have lots of rooms in houses, that people have money and there is space.

I grew up in a fairly poor family. The kids grew up together in a couple of rooms, five of us. You do become aware of your sexuality at possibly an earlier age. I know many families who don’t have divisions around this.

I just want some clarification or thoughts from the minister in regard to this and if that has been considered in looking at this whole area.

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   This is one area where the service delivery principles and guiding principles of the act are intended to provide some context. This becomes a very tricky area, as the member noted. It is a fact, of course, particularly in poorer families who don’t have large houses, or in certain cultures or families where skinny-dipping or other activities may not be abnormal, and the intent is not to create a situation that makes everyone a criminal for walking out of the bathroom to their bedroom without wrapping a towel around themselves. Certainly, that would be going too far.

That is the area where the assessment by professionals becomes a difficult matter. If where the line is cannot be agreed in a cooperative planning or alternative dispute resolution manner — if it is the belief of a director that the line has been crossed and agreement cannot be reached in a cooperative planning or alternative dispute resolution process, this is the type of thing that may become a matter for the courts. However, in simple terms, the guiding principles and service delivery process refer to things such as cultural activities and normal activities. This is intended to use that umbrella area, which of course frames the act, to make it clear that this is not supposed to restrict activities that are culturally normal or normal within the context of a healthy family situation.

I’m not sure if that is a clear response to the member, but this is a tricky area of law and the member will know that nationally this can become a very tricky matter in legal issues of where exactly the line falls.

Mr. Hardy:   One more thing for clarification: how has this been considered in relation to the sexual education that is taught in schools?

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   It is dealing with the cultural context of the situation. The intent of this area of the act — this section of the act does not make it illegal for somebody to walk from the bathroom without a towel around them. For families from some cultures it is not abnormal to not always wear clothing or bathing suits at the beach or other things, and that is not intended to be considered now a prohibited activity under the legislation. That becomes where it crosses the line to where it is abusive or where it is inflicting either physical or emotional harm on the child by doing so.

Although it can be a tricky matter, as the members may not be aware, one of the things that is included in this legislation — much of the focus and discussion has been the collaborative process embarked upon, the joint public consultation, the joint policy development, et cetera. However, there have certainly been references by the legal experts and the policy people to look at Canadian legislation and try to ensure that our legislation meets the most modern and appropriate standard in these areas so that it is recognizing challenges other jurisdictions have run into with their legislation, trying to follow best practices and best legislative drafting practices.

I think B.C.’s legislation has been borrowed upon for some of the wording, and the effect is very similar in some of these areas where there were similar desires expressed by the Yukon public.

This area I believe would be similar. I can confirm that for the member if he wishes, but to the best of my recollection, this area borrows from British Columbia’s provisions.

Clause 21 agreed to

On Clause 22

Mr. Mitchell:    I have one question. The duty to report — was this in any way existing in the previous legislation or is this all new?

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   This is all new. It was not in the legislation. I believe the Education Act has a requirement for teachers to report suspected abuse, and the Child Care Act has that as well, but for the public as a whole and others, it was not in existence. We are actually the last jurisdiction in Canada to move forward with this type of measure. It is one of the significant and important reasons why this legislation needs to be modernized and needs to be brought to fruition. It provides that requirement.

In fact, as the member may be aware, teachers and doctors often run into those situations where they are likely to see it. They have actually asked for it, because it creates an ethical question for their members. Should they or should they not report it when it is suspected? If the law says you must do so, then it is a very clear requirement.

This was something that had widespread consensus and widespread support in the public, including First Nations, stakeholders and members of the general public. They agreed that this was a positive step forward.

Mr. Mitchell:    Is there a specific penalty for failure to report under clause 22?

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   Yes, there is a specific reference in clause 156, which is the offences section. A person who commits an offence under this section — failure to report — is liable on summary conviction, so it is determined by a judge. For a first offence it is a fine of up to $10,000 or a term of imprisonment for as long as one year or both. For a subsequent offence the fine is up to $20,000 or a term of imprisonment for as long as two years or both.

Again, that would be a court determination, and standard court practice in such matters is that the maximum is not the norm but is used in extreme situations.

Clause 22 agreed to

On Clause 23

Mr. Mitchell:    This makes reference to receiving a report under clause 22, the clause we just discussed, or information from a peace officer under clause 40(1). A director shall assess the information and investigate the circumstances of the report to determine if the child is in need of protective intervention.

My question: is there any requirement that the director contact the First Nation? If not, why not? Obviously, this is if the child in question or the people in question are members of a First Nation.

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   Clause 27 applies in that case. “Initial contact” is the title of the clause. (1) “A director shall, as soon as practicable after commencing an investigation, make all reasonable efforts to contact the child’s parents and, if the child is a member of a First Nation, the child’s First Nation, to advise them of the investigation.”

Mr. Mitchell:    Just for clarity then, any action under clause 23 automatically triggers clause 27. That’s the explanation?

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   That is correct. Clause 27 applies to all initial contact and makes it clear that they — as soon as an investigation has commenced — must make all reasonable efforts to make that contact.

Mr. Mitchell:    This brings me back to a question I asked during general debate. What constitutes “all reasonable efforts”? Are there any guidelines that exist? Is there case law? Are there specific policies?

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   The First Nation child welfare policy guides what the understanding is — that provides some context and that is in existence right now. That is the one that was updated in 2007 following the consultations, but in advance of the formal act.

It states under section 01.07.04 subsection 2: “First Nations will be included in planning at the earliest time whenever Health and Social Services are providing child welfare services to their members. The First Nation will determine their level of involvement with the family while they are receiving services from Family and Children’s Services.”

So yes, it does create the requirement and provides some context to that. There is understanding between the director of Health and Social Services and the First Nations’ director. They are responsible — or their agents are responsible — for how that contact exists and what the procedure and policy are around that. That can include things such as phone calls, et cetera, but those can change over time, which is why it’s not spelled out in legislation.

Of course, at the time when this act was put in place, e-mail was not a form of communication that was available to most citizens, nor were many of our modern phone communication steps, so the desire in this legislation was not to preclude further forums and the evolution of agreements between family and children services and First Nations, nor to preclude with the First Nation service authority what arrangements might exist between that authority and the First Nation or other First Nations who might be affected.

I hope that has provided some clarity to the member. This is basically in general practices, policies and procedures between the department and First Nations. It is based on what is considered to be the normal understanding.

Mr. Mitchell:    I do thank the minister for that explanation. I actually do have that clause in front of me, both the guiding principles, the policies and the procedures, thanks to the information we were provided at the departmental briefing.

I am not sure that 01.07.04 subsection 2 — it says — as the minister has read — “… will be included in planning at the earliest time whenever Health and Social Services are providing child welfare services to their members.” But it doesn’t speak, in any way, to methods or efforts that need to be made.

Similarly, initial contact, under “Procedure”, 01.07.05(4), “The First Nation will be contacted as soon as possible after commencing an investigation and assessment.”

I am asking this specific question because I have been asked it by First Nations. The example that was provided to me was that if this all occurred over Easter or a Christmas holiday period, would it simply be voice mail that was left in a First Nation’s office where nobody might be picking up that voice mail for the next three or four days?

Is there anything more specific that exists somewhere else that I may not have in front of me, in terms of the level of effort to make sure that actual contact with the First Nation has been made, rather than voice mail left, or e-mail left, or a letter mailed but not necessarily being received in a timely manner?

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   The procedure for that is one that, in this type of thing, is operational, understanding that the policy first and foremost was agreed to by the First Nation health directors in discussion with department staff. The procedure is that the First Nation health director ensures that department staff have their contact information or the contact information of their designate, whoever is appropriate at the time, and alternate contact information. So, that is done. They of course are concerned about this and they take the steps to ensure that, if they are going to be at a location that is not within their standard contact information, that it is provided to their counterpart or the individual they work with within family and children’s services branch.

Further information for the member: in noting that there are procedures identified further on about the requirement to send a letter to the chief or the identified designate and to the regional social worker confirming date of contact, nature of child welfare involvement, there is clarity around providing the information by telephone to the First Nation health and social services director or their designate with the name and number of the Whitehorse social worker, and for providing the offer to them and a time to invite them to the planning process involving the family — as well as the requirement to include them in all planning conferences and meetings, the first of which is required by policy to be held within the first two weeks of the involvement.

Amendment proposed

Mr. Hardy:   Mr. Speaker, I move the following motion:

THAT Bill No. 50, entitled Child and Family Services Act, be amended in clause 23 at page 27 by adding, immediately following subclause (1), the following:

“(2) The director shall make all reasonable efforts, if the child is a member of a First Nation, to involve the child’s First Nation in the assessment and investigation of a report of whether the child is in need of protective intervention.”, and by renumbering the remaining subclauses accordingly.

Chair:   It has been moved by Mr. Hardy

THAT Bill No. 50, entitled Child and Family Services Act, be amended in clause 23 at page 27 by adding immediately following subclause (1), the following:

“(2) The director shall make all reasonable efforts, if the child is a member of a First Nation, to involve the child’s First Nation in the assessment and investigation of a report of whether the child is in need of protective intervention.”, and by renumbering the remaining subclauses accordingly.

Mr. Hardy:   Very simply, the reason this one has been brought forward very simply is this makes it necessary for a director to involve First Nations before setting up the process for apprehension from the start. The key word here is “involve” where, if you look at clause 27(1), which had been referred to already before I brought this motion forward, it just says to “advise”. I don’t think that is what we have been hearing from the First Nations. They want to be involved. It is easy to advise, and then continue with your investigation.

From our perspective, and from any of the First Nations we have talked to, involvement is crucial, especially at the beginning of any kind of investigation. The minister refers to 27(1) so much in regard to this; we feel that 23(1) should have more clarification right in that clause.

As I say, there is a huge difference between “advise” and “involve”.

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   The member should also review other sections of the act to understand this. The service delivery principles, the guiding principles, and the section I referred to, already addresses this.

I would refer him to 2(j) of the guiding principles: “First Nations should be involved as early as practicable in decision-making processes regarding a child who is a member of the First Nation.”

This is already addressed. The other problem with the member’s motion he has made to amend it is that the member is not understanding the fact that assessments occur at different stages in the process, and the effect of the member’s proposed amendment would in fact create a situation whereby, when a call is made — a report to the director of family and children’s services or to a First Nation service authority, should one exist — the first step would be the assessment of whether the call merits follow-up and an investigation into the matter.

There are some that are obviously spurious at the start, and those assessments are of course made by trained professionals. The member’s amendment would require the involvement in all such matters and it would create an additional burden on the First Nation governments when you have a situation that the person receiving the report makes a determination that it does not merit an investigation. It certainly does not merit causing trouble to other individuals, and I remind the member that the people who work in this area take very seriously any report and investigate any situation. If there is any question as to whether an investigation is required, they take every reasonable and prudent step to follow up and protect the safety of children.

Again, I would refer the member to the guiding principles and to clause 27(1). It makes it clear that the First Nation is required to be informed and that they are required to be involved in the decision-making processes at the earliest opportunity.

This amendment is not necessary, and the one line within the member’s clause would in fact create an operational problem, both for family and children’s services branch and for First Nations. As well, it would create a problem for any First Nation service authority that may be established.

Mr. Hardy: