Source: https://yukonassembly.ca/sites/default/files/hansard/30-2-92.html
Timestamp: 2020-02-21 19:26:57
Document Index: 81919913

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', 'art 4', 'art 5', 'art 6', 'art 6', 'art 7', 'art 7', 'arts 2', 'art 5', 'arts 2', 'arts 1', 'arts 1']

30th Legislature, Session 2, Tuesday, November 27, 2001 - 1:00 p.m.
Tuesday, November 27, 2001 - 1:00 p.m.
Speaker: Before proceeding with the Order Paper I would like to inform the House that, over the past months, I have been approached by members of the public and some members of the House with requests that the number of prayers available to the Speaker to open each day's sitting be expanded.
The prayer we are most familiar with, which begins, "O Great Spirit," was brought to this House by Sam Johnston, Speaker of this House from 1985 to 1992. That prayer took the place of one that had been offered during the early 1980s by then Speaker Don Taylor.
In response to the request for additional prayers, two new prayers have been developed. I would like to thank Sister Edith and Reverend Desmond Carroll for their assistance with these prayers. It's not my intention to cease using the prayers we now are accustomed to but rather, beginning tomorrow, these new prayers will be used in addition to the existing prayers.
Speaker: We will now proceed with the Order Paper.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I have for tabling the Yukon Child Care Board annual report, April 2000 to March 31, 2001.
Mr. Fairclough: I have for tabling a number of amendments to improve the Parks and Land Certainty Act.
THAT it is the opinion of this House that the Yukon Medical Association no longer has confidence in the Department of Justice to properly administer the Yukon Medical Council; and
THAT this House urges the Government of the Yukon to:
(1) make the Registrar of the Yukon Medical Council a doctor rather than have the Registrar continue to be an employee of the consumer and commercial services branch of the Department of Justice;
(2) ensure, through proper funding arrangements, that the Yukon Medical Council can operate at arm's length from government;
(3) locate the Yukon Medical Council office in a separate facility from the consumer and commercial services branch;
(4) make the Yukon Medical Council staff accountable to the Registrar;
(5) ensure that the lawyer for the Yukon Medical Council is separate from the lawyer for the inquiry board;
(6) pay council members in a similar manner to council members in other jurisdictions; and
(7) create a process to resolve administrative disputes through an independent arbitrator.
THAT it is the opinion of this House that there currently exists a disparity in the application of municipal block funding due to significant changes in municipal populations, particularly in Faro; and
THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to ensure the fair and equitable calculation of comprehensive municipal grants based on the most recent population estimates.
MOTION OF URGENT AND PRESSING NECESSITY NO. 4
(Standing Order No. 28)
Adjournment of legislative sitting
Mr. Fentie: Mr. Speaker, before Question Period and pursuant to Standing Order 28(1) and (2), I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity to seek the unanimous consent of the Assembly to debate the following motion. I give notice of the following motion:
(1) it is the right and duty of opposition members of the Legislative Assembly to act on behalf of all Yukon people by carefully scrutinizing the legislative proposals and spending plans of the government of the day;
(2) it is the responsibility of the Minister of Finance to explain and defend the government's spending priorities to the satisfaction of Yukon people through their elected representatives in the Legislative Assembly;
(3) this responsibility should not be assigned to another minister without clear and compelling reasons for doing so;
(4) during the sitting now in progress, the Minister of Finance is seeking legislative authority for the expenditure of over $172-million worth of taxpayers' money to support her government's activities;
(5) under the proposed capital budget for 2002-03, a significant amount of the spending authority being requested has been allocated to departments that will no longer exist in the 2002-03 fiscal year; and
THAT, in the interests of public accountability, this House orders the Speaker to adjourn the current sitting of the Yukon Legislative Assembly at the conclusion of Committee consideration of Bill No. 46 until such time as the Minister of Finance is in a position to give her full care and attention to the important matter of explaining and defending her government's capital spending proposals for the fiscal year 2002-03.
With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, that I must speak to the necessity of calling this motion, how is this House able to debate a budget bill for the next fiscal year, when we are being asked to debate department spending authority that will not exist? That poses a major problem. Furthermore, it's evident, through the Premier's renewal process, that there will be new departments created come the fiscal year 2002-03 that will require spending authority themselves. Therefore -
Speaker: Order please. The Member for Faro, on a point of order.
Mr. McLachlan: Mr. Speaker, the motion has been introduced by the official opposition House leader, and there has been no call for debate on the motion. There is an opportunity to vote.
Some Hon. Member: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker: Member for Watson Lake, on the point of order.
Mr. Fentie: If the government House leader would read the rules, he would see clearly that I have to explain the necessity of the moving of my motion, and that is what I'm doing.
Speaker: Order please. I believe that section 28(1) is exactly as the Member for Watson Lake said - explained by the mover. It is the Chair's belief that we must allow the Member for Watson Lake to give that explanation. Please continue.
Mr. Fentie: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, we will be trying to give spending authority in the next fiscal year to departments that don't even exist today. Obviously this budget is an ill-prepared Finance bill, and the Premier and minister responsible for this budget should be defending it, and that is not the case.
On behalf of the Yukon public, we feel that it is in the best interests of the Yukon public and this Assembly that we adjourn this proceeding once Bill No. 46 has been concluded, until the Premier is ready, willing and able to defend this budget bill, which is obviously misguided and ill-prepared, given the fact that we are being requested to provide spending authority for departments that will not exist this spring. That is evident by the Premier's own press releases of two days ago.
Speaker: The Member for Watson Lake has requested unanimous consent to move a motion pursuant to section 28 of our Standing Orders. Does the Member for Watson Lake have unanimous consent?
Speaker: Unanimous consent has not been granted.
We will proceed with Question Period.
Question re: Yukon Health and Social Services Council, participation in
Mr. Keenan: Today I have a question for the Minister of Health and Social Services. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that it's a question which disturbs me to ask, and it disturbs me because of the conflicting messages this minister has given - both in this House and outside this House.
Why did the minister give directions that a duly appointed member of the Health and Social Services Council was not to attend meetings of that council at certain times of the year?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I did not give direction to anyone not to attend any meetings at any time during my term.
Mr. Keenan: Well, the minister has publicly stated that the chair and the vice-chair of the council initiated this matter, and he just went along with it. Well, the minister is wrong - absolutely wrong.
The chair has publicly told more than one reporter, and on tape, that the direction came straight from the minister. Over and over again, this minister has given out information that conflicts with information that is on the public record. Over and over again, he has given out information that conflicts with things that he himself has said. The question to the minister is this: why does the minister think it's okay to discriminate against someone on the basis of their political affiliation and their source of income when the Human Rights Act clearly states that it is not okay?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Again, Mr. Speaker, the member is always quoting from wherever he gets his information and, by the very fact of doing that here in this House, that member tends to bring what I think is incorrect information. If that's the intent of the member opposite, then I'm telling the member opposite very clearly that I did not direct anybody not to attend any meeting, or any meetings thereof. And if the member believes what he sees or what he reads wherever he gets his information from, then that's his problem. It's not mine. I know what I did.
Mr. Keenan: Well, Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that he's in trouble on this one and that's why the minister keeps trying to muddy the waters and deflect the attention from the real issue. That's exactly what the minister is attempting to do.
The minister denied a member of the Health and Social Services Council the right to represent her area of expertise on that council because of her political affiliation and her source of income. As the minister likes to say, "Them's the facts".
Now, if a human rights complaint is filed and the minister is found to be in the wrong, will the minister do the honourable thing and resign his position?
Mr. McLachlan: The Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes is postulating and seeking an opinion when he prefaces his question with the preposition "if". The minister does not have to comment on nor answer hypothetical questions.
Speaker: It's true that the minister does not have to answer hypothetical questions or any question, but I had so many things going on here that I'm not exactly sure what the correct steps would be for me to take from here because, although I was listening to the words in one sense, I had some other things on the go here, and the Chair is not certain what avenue to take from here on.
Order please. In dealing with past practices in the House, it's not uncommon for questions to begin with an "if" or for questions to be hypothetical. I reiterate what I said before, that it's the choice of the minister whether the minister answers the question or chooses not to answer the question.
So, I'm really not prepared to rule whether there's a point of order there or not. But, in my view, there is no point of order. I will ask - the Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes, I believe your question was complete. Was it complete?
I have the clock shut off. I will start the clock and give the minister an opportunity to reply.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, I have to correct the Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes. I'm always correcting the Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes, because of the facts that are presented here.
I at no time asked any member of any committee to withdraw their participation in a committee. I have a letter that was sent to me by the Health and Social Services Council that states in there very clearly why a particular person withdrew their name from serving on the council. I had nothing to do with writing the letter. It comes from the Health and Social Services Council, not from me.
So, for the member opposite to state that I asked this person to withdraw, that is not correct. I do not do those things. Members on boards are put there to do a job, to advise and to support. What they do is what they do; I don't interfere with what they do. I accept their advice and I use it to build for the future.
Question re: Yukon Medical Association negotiations
Mr. Keenan: I have another question for the Minister of Health. I've got to say it was quite a relief this morning to hear on the morning news that the minister doesn't consider himself to be a dictator. The minister said that was in spite of what most people's opinions really are. Now, I find that kind of reassuring.
I still have a few questions about the minister's confrontational attitude toward community groups. Just yesterday the minister said he had a wonderful time with the Yukon doctors last Friday. The president of the YMA suggests that the minister had hired a negotiator, and this is a quote, "to bludgeon or to club the physicians into submission." Now that is a direct quote and I know that the minister doesn't like to hear them. So, I would like to ask the minister this: why did the minister choose to pick a fight with the Yukon doctors by hiring a controversial negotiator to represent the territorial government in the current contract talks? Can the minister explain that, please?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I am always amused by how the member picks out words - "bludgeon". That is violent and I don't think that is appropriate for the House. The obvious factor is, Mr. Speaker, that I did not speak those words. When I went to that meeting, I gave the doctors an overview of what health care is like in Canada. I had a good meeting. I stayed and listened to the president of the Canadian Medical Association present his view and he was concurring with some of the things that I had said. So why the member opposite believes we are into a battle line, obviously I don't know. Negotiations will bring about, hopefully, a solution to contract situations that we are now in. Are those always going to be amicable? Negotiations aren't. Governments in the past brought in negotiators for all kinds of negotiations and so we are just doing the same thing. There is nothing wrong with that. That's typical of what we call trying to settle issues that are outstanding, so there is nothing wrong in it.
Mr. Keenan: Well, Mr. Speaker, the minister says he's amused. Well, Mr. Speaker, I can say that this side of the House, and generally most Yukoners I've been speaking to, are not amused. They're not amused at all with this minister's attitude.
Now, it was earlier in this sitting that the minister made a very feeble attempt - a very feeble attempt - to justify a private sector option for a CT scanner, and he said that the previous New Democrat government didn't do its homework. But the Hospital Corporation, in spite of what the minister had said, made it very clear that it had done its homework and was asking the previous government to buy a CT scanner which, at that time, was a state-of-the-art CT scanner.
So I'd like to ask this minister this: why did the minister pick a fight with the Hospital Corporation in his attempt to score some very cheap political points about the previous government? Can the minister explain that, please?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Quite typically, Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is all over the map. "Most Yukoners" - I'm really amazed that this particular member has so much contact with "most Yukoners." I would say that one or two people the member opposite spoke to might have given him some views. They didn't come from our office, I can tell you that.
And private sector - private sector, Mr. Speaker, again, the NDP, the national NDP, talks about renewal, talks about changing. I guess the members opposite don't even know what that means. They don't try anything different. You just keep doing the same old thing, because hopefully you think it's still going to work.
Homework - I know the members opposite love that word, "homework," because most times they don't do it. That exactly is true, Mr. Speaker. They did not do their homework on the CT scanner that was to be purchased. It would have been a one-slice CT scanner they would have purchased. Now we're purchasing a four-slice CT scanner - state-of-the-art. That's the reason why we did our homework. To pick a fight? No, we're not out picking fights, Mr. Speaker. We're out to do it right for Yukoners, because we know that we, as taxpayers, are going to have to pay for it.
Mr. Keenan: Talk about the same old, same old, same old. I mean, fighting with doctors, fighting with the Hospital Corporation. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that the beat does go on. Just today the Yukon Childcare Association sent the minister a very lengthy letter outlining a number of their concerns.
Now, this minister promised last year - and this is a promise made in this House - that he would put money in the pockets of daycare workers, but he reneged on that promise. He absolutely reneged.
I would like to ask this minister: why is this minister picking a fight with the Yukon child care workers by ignoring their concerns and breaking his word about increasing their wages? That's the doctors, the Hospital Corporation, and now the Yukon child care workers. Can the minister explain that, please?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I guess, for the member opposite, just to show that when I quote, I actually quote from the paper here, written in the Whitehorse Star. It's called "Costly lawyer to head talks with doctors." What the president of the B.C. Medical Association says very clearly in here - and, by the way, this person did ask a question when I was there about the so-called negotiator from B.C. She says it here very clearly: "And he obviously does a good job for the government."
Now, that's why we want a negotiator, Mr. Speaker, because they do good jobs. You pay for it; you get a good job done.
I can see the trend that the member opposite is trying to move along - that we've picked fights with everybody. Because we raise issues, because we just don't bend to every wish and every person who comes along, obviously there are going to be differences of opinion.
The letter that the member opposite speaks about, I just received this morning. I just finished reading it, so I haven't responded to it, Mr. Speaker. I will be responding to it. For the member opposite to suggest that we're always looking for fights, that is in the member's eyes, not in our eyes. If we don't agree with someone or someone doesn't agree with us, I suppose the members opposite can embellish it as a fight, but it isn't. They are points of differences, and I think that's fair.
Question re: Yukon College budget
Mr. Jenkins: I have a question today for the Minister of Education. Now, Mr. Speaker, this minister has developed a notorious reputation as a "slasher". He attempted to cut the budget of the Whitehorse Public Library, but was forced to beat a hasty retreat in the face of hostile public opinion. But he did succeed in cutting the budgets for rural libraries. And now he wants to cut $1 million out of the budget of Yukon College.
All these cuts are being proposed by a government that started the fiscal year with a $99-million surplus. This cruel cut is coming at a time when many Yukoners are attempting to upgrade their education, in an attempt to improve their chances of finding a job in an economy that this minister, in particular, has helped to devastate.
The minister can waste taxpayers' money touring Yukon campgrounds, and he can find millions of dollars to fund his own personal priorities, such as building a new Grey Mountain School, but he has to slash $1 million -
Speaker: Order please. Order please. Will the member please get to the question?
Mr. Jenkins: I'd like to know why the minister is picking on Yukon College and slashing $1 million from its budget.
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: My colleague, the Minister of Health and Social Services, was right on the money, Mr. Speaker. The fact is that the people across have to use violent vernacular to get their point across - continually. The Minister of Health and Social Services is correct when he says that we don't need to be using that kind of language in the House.
There are a number of factors I'd like to get - the member managed to get a number of things across in his question, but then he always does. The fact of the matter is that we have cut no funding from Yukon College - none, not a penny. The fact of the matter is that Yukon College - better than government departments - got a three-year guarantee on its funding levels, which is a longer term - way longer - than any government department gets.
Another fact is that the College gets $11 million annually to operate.
Mr. Jenkins: Well, let's compare what the minister has done to Yukon College to how the minister botched the Education Act review with Yukon First Nations. At least he later the courtesy to sit down with First Nation leadership to discuss their concerns with his actions. In view of the fact that this Liberal government has the largest surplus ever in the history of the Yukon, will the minister reconsider his $1-million cut and agree to meet with the Yukon College Board to discuss how additional funding can be provided and best utilized to create a skilled workforce here in the Yukon, or has the minister just given up on advanced education in the Yukon?
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Of course, the Member for Klondike only gets part of the fact, and even the part of the fact that he does get is not factual at all.
Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, I met with the College Board about three weeks ago, and I met with the College Board again this Saturday for a full two-hour session. I outlined again to the board directly that it is not - it is not - a cut from their budget; it is a cut in training funds, and I have already announced that to the House.
The Member for Klondike is very good at talking about a $99-million surplus. The fact is that that was at the beginning of the fiscal year. At the end of the fiscal year, there will only be $51 million, Mr. Speaker.
There is currently $2 million in 14 community and industry trust funds. The money is still there, Mr. Speaker. There has been no reduction in those existing funds. The training boards decide what training is offered and who teaches the courses. This is a decision made by the community and made by industry. Government is not involved in that. Yukon College is not involved with that. We have made no cut to the budget of Yukon College. They receive $11 million annually to operate.
Mr. Jenkins: Well, I'm pleased to hear that the Minister of Education doesn't believe that $51 million at the end of the next fiscal year isn't a significant amount of money, Mr. Speaker; but let's contrast that to what the previous Yukon Party government successfully did. They channelled training trust funds through Yukon College to train Yukon workers for employment in mining, road construction, and many other industries, whereas the current Liberal government has decimated those industries.
Will this minister at least develop a training trust fund to train park wardens at Yukon College, as this is now the only industry the Liberal government appears to be interested in fostering? Will the minister at least do that?
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Speaker, the fact is we have not cut the budget from Yukon College. The College currently has a three-year guarantee of its funding level at $11 million annually. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, the previous government did not hand over training trust fund monies to the College to administer. And there's a specific reason for that. It is up to the communities; it is up to industry.
There are many qualified educators in the territory. Each training fund board uses the person or the group they feel is best qualified to provide the training. Quite frankly, I'm beginning to believe that the College wants a monopoly on this training. That is very inappropriate, Mr. Speaker, because these training trust funds go to the communities directly, they go to industry. It is those folks who can best identify the needs. There is no doubt, though, that the College has the capability to train, but it should be up to the communities and industry to best decide who they feel is best to train their needs.
Question re: Training trust funds
Mr. Fairclough: I have a follow-up question to the Minister of Education. The capital budget that was presented to this House is slashing training trust funds by 72 percent. The minister can't deny that - it is on paper. On November 20, I asked the minister about the impact of cutting the training trust funds. At that time, the minister did not have answers and did not know very much about training trust funds, and it appears that he has been briefed since a week ago.
Now, Yukon College is preparing for the worst, because the Minister of Education refused to restore funding to training trust funds. This means that there is $1 million less for colleges, which has an impact on all the community colleges and, most importantly, it means job cuts.
So, will the minister reverse this decision, which will have such a serious impact on the Yukon economy, and restore the funding to the training trust funds?
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: During the budget debate in October, I had indicated to the House a reduction in community training trust fund support. I do realize that this may have some effect on training contracts going directly to Yukon College, but there is still $2 million in 14 training funds available to Yukon people. There are also other training funds available from sources such as the federal government training initiative, aimed directly at First Nations, and I would encourage the College to approach that fund as well.
Mr. Fairclough: I don't believe the College wants a monopoly on this at all. As a matter of fact, I think they're working fairly closely with the communities. I know that the minister believes in the training trust funds. Here is a quote from him: "It's a very successful program within advanced education." That was a quote from the Minister of Education at the time.
I don't believe that the minister even knew that Management Board was going to cut the training trust funds. I don't believe that at all. Mr. Speaker, these funds provide employment at the College for many instructors. They also provide training opportunities for youth and those in need of job training. They also help them to acquire skills they need to move out of low-paying jobs.
Mr. Speaker, since the minister claims to support training trust funds, will he do the right thing and reverse that decision? It does have an impact on communities, and it does have an impact on Yukon College. Will he reverse his decision?
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: It's true that Yukon College receives contracts from organizations supported by community training funds. But neither this territorial government, nor any previous one, has ever given community or training trust funds directly to Yukon College to be used at the College's discretion.
The previous government felt, as does this government, that the best needs are identified by communities and by industry, and that is why the training funds are directed toward those individuals. There is, in 14 funds, over $2 million still available for training should the College approach those groups, as well as the federal government's training initiatives aimed at First Nations. So there are funds available.
Mr. Fairclough: I hope the minister will continue to read the briefing notes, and read a little further into them, so that he can be up to speed with the training trust funds that are in all the communities in the Yukon Territory - that are in community campuses, college campuses in the communities.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the training trust funds provide support to community groups, and they work on the number in the workforce sector. They also allow them to enhance and develop the required skills to have a productive workforce. I'm sure the minister can understand that.
These community programs include basic literacy, trade skills and a variety of other community-focused programs. So, when will this minister stop turning his back on Yukon communities and restore this essential funding immediately?
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: It's not this government that is turning its back on communities or industry. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, it is the member opposite who has just stated that categorically. The fact of the matter is that we have not cut the College budget at all. It remains at $11 million. There are still training funds available, as administered by community groups, by industry. We feel it is most appropriate that those people select who they choose - what individual, what institution - to provide that training. That is their option. That is their authority, Mr. Speaker. We don't have that.
What we feel is happening now - the discussion in this House - is that, even though the College has its own budget, what the College wants to do is take money away from the communities and industry. The training funds do not belong to the College outright. Those training funds belong to industries and communities directly, which best decide the training they want and who they want to teach courses.
Question re: Grey Mountain Primary School rebuild
Mrs. Peter: I have a question for the Minister of Education.
There are 78 students at Grey Mountain Primary School. This is a fact. It's confirmed by the 2001 enrolment study. There are 236 students at Selkirk Elementary and that is a fact. Selkirk Elementary has room for another 150 students, but the minister is building a new Grey Mountain School for purely political purposes. What is wrong with that picture, Mr. Speaker?
Does the minister not agree that the school enrolment numbers call into question his decision to rebuild Grey Mountain School?
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that this government does what it says it will do. During the election, we had indicated to the community that we would replace Grey Mountain School and that's exactly what we're doing.
The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that Grey Mountain School is a collection of portable trailers that are 35 years old and have way outlasted their lifespan. Quite frankly, these portables have a history of rotting carpets, musty smells, poor ventilation and heating, inadequate classroom space, and a number of other issues.
The members opposite have pointed toward this government on those conditions happening in schools in their communities. We feel it is only right to follow through, as we have in those communities, and replace the Grey Mountain School.
Question re: Health care, private
Mr. Keenan: I have a question for the Minister of Health and Social Services, if I may.
On Friday, the minister told Yukon doctors that baby-boomers and seniors are able and willing to pay for private health care. Now, the minister took a similar position last year on the pioneer utility grant, which is a seniors program, so I'd like to ask this minister to table all of the correspondence that the minister has received from the seniors or the baby-boomers saying that they want to pay for their own health care.
Would the minister do that?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I would like to stay positive about this but, obviously, the member opposite doesn't read many newspapers from across Canada or listen to the news that is often highlighting and underlining the concerns of health care across Canada. It's in those issues, Mr. Speaker, that we're hearing and seeing what is becoming a reality.
And, when I held a number of focus groups last January, those were some of the issues that were brought out. They weren't written. I mean, they were ideas. That's what they are, Mr. Speaker. And it's not for us. We're not going down the privatization route. I'm just saying that out there in Canada, the rest of Canada, there's a lot of talk about it. And for us to pretend and insulate ourselves from that reality would be rather, I think, one-sided, and I think, hopefully, we're going to be open to what's coming down the pipe here in the next number of years, and that's one of the issues that's being talked about.
Mr. Keenan: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Education just said we're going to do what we've got to do because we said it. I think that that's what I find terribly scary here, is that we have the Minister of Health standing on his feet, saying that we're going to go there, but we're not sure if we're going to go there, but I know we're going to go there.
Well, the minister didn't answer the question. The minister knows that there is no correspondence and that he is groping for ideas, and that has been proven right here on the floor of this House. Now, this minister is on record, suggesting that a private CT clinic, from which the government could purchase services, is not a privatization.
I think that the only thing that is really clear here is that the minister is trying to move the Yukon away from a public health care system into a private health care system, and I would like to ask this minister: will the minister stop flirting with the process and leave it alone until the reports come down through due process? Will the minister do that?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I am really amused. Their party, their national party, is looking at renewal - trying to change, trying to look at the future, and here the member opposite is saying, "Oh no, let's stay back with the dinosaurs, let's not think of anything outside of the box, let's stay with what we have." I am aghast that the members opposite - there is nothing lost in dialogue, in discussion, in debate.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, the member says, "Say it." That is what we have been saying, that there are other ways of trying to deliver health care. It is all over us; it is all around us. It is very important that we have the debate, not suddenly, when a report comes down, but basically well before it so we don't - we are not surprised.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: The member opposite keeps interrupting. I didn't interrupt him when he was speaking. I would hope he would give me the respect not to interrupt. It is obvious that the member opposite doesn't like what he is hearing, but that is democracy, Mr. Speaker.
Let's look at the future. I know the member opposite hates the future, but I'm sorry, it's coming. Whether we like it or not every minute of the day is the future, and the more discussion we have about health care, the better off we are going to be as Yukoners.
Speaker: Excuse me. According to my time, the time for Question Period has elapsed. Am I correct? Okay.
Mr. McLachlan: Pursuant to Standing Order 14.2(7), I would like to inform the House that the government private members on this side of the House, in the very true spirit of moving debate along in this Legislature, unlike members on the opposite side of the House, do not wish to identify any items to be called on Wednesday, November 28, 2001, under the heading Government Private Members.
Further, Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that, during the business of Committee of the Whole, it is my intention to introduce a motion for the Committee to hear witnesses from the Yukon Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board to appear here on Wednesday, November 28.
Mr. McLachlan: I move that the Speaker do now leave the Chair and that the House resolve into Committee of the Whole.
Mr. McLachlan: I move
THAT Arthur Mitchell, alternate chair of the Yukon Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board, and Tony Armstrong, president and chief executive officer of the Yukon Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board, appear as witnesses before Committee of the Whole from 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November 28, to discuss matters relating to the Yukon Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board.
Chair: It has been moved by Mr. McLachlan
THAT Arthur Mitchell, alternate chair of the Yukon Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board, and Tony Armstrong, president and chief executive officer of the Yukon Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board, appear as witnesses before Committee of the Whole from 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November 28, 2001, to discuss matters relating to the Yukon Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board.
Committee of the Whole Motion No. 3 agreed to
Chair: Committee of the Whole will recess until 2:05.
Bill No. 46 - Parks and Land Certainty Act - continued
Chair: We will continue on line-by-line debate of Bill No. 46, Parks and Land Certainty Act.
On Clause 13 - continued
Chair: Is there any further debate? Mr. Jenkins, I believe you had the floor.
Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Chair, when we left general debate yesterday on the Parks and Land Certainty Act or, as it has become more commonly known, parks and land uncertainty act, we were on clause 13 and the Yukon land - "Land to be included in a park shall be Yukon land." And we got hung up on the interpretation and definition as to what this entailed and what this included. The minister was going to go back and research and provide some answers today, and hopefully they will be forthcoming.
Mr. Chair, given that this act that we have before us is shown to have required a considerable number of changes and amendments that have been brought forward by the minister responsible, it probably only stands to reason that we can expect to see another amendment in clause 13 coming from this minister. Maybe, maybe not. We don't know, at this juncture.
We are very, very concerned that this act does nothing for providing certainty with Yukon lands and parks. In fact, it goes the other way - given that there is no end to the process, and the minister himself can designate whatever is going to become a park, all we have done is further destroy investor confidence in Yukon with this direction that's being taken by this current Liberal government, Mr. Chair.
In fact, it's coming home to roost, currently, with some of the new press releases that this government is currently issuing, Mr. Chair. The latest one from the Minister of Economic Development to offset the Minister of Renewable Resources is that the Government of Yukon is going to pay the transportation costs for Yukoners to gain employment in the oil and gas field in southern Canada.
Now, here we're paying Yukoners to go and work somewhere else, when all it's going to take, Mr. Chair, is for the Minister of Renewable Resources to address the shortcomings in bills such as this one we have before us, specifically this Parks and Land Certainty Act, and move forward - provide investor confidence.
Let us know where we're going to head and let us know what the cap is going to be on all of these initiatives. The door is wide open and this minister is failing to recognize that he has an obligation not to just a few Yukoners, but to all Yukoners, Mr. Chair.
We learned today that the Minister of Renewable Resources, in his capacity as Minister of Education, is slashing the training trust funds and the funds going to Yukon College by some millions of dollars. Mr. Chair, I know you're grasping for the relevance of this to clause 13, but when you tie it all back, it is all relevant. All of these decisions that the minister is making are coming about as consequences of their decision as a government to move forward on these ill-developed bills that we are seeing more and more of currently - some of them are even taking away the rights of Yukoners under other federal legislation.
There are a number of amendments that have been proposed by the official opposition. We have seen a number of amendments coming forward from the Minister of Renewable Resources on this act. I would very much like to hear what the Minister of Renewable Resources has to say with respect to clause 13, because his inability to answer questions on that section yesterday just prolonged debate for quite an extensive period of time, and that is a sad state of affairs.
So, Mr. Chair, without further ado, could the minister please provide the information requested of him yesterday on this clause 13?
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Well, I'd like to first respond to the member's comment with respect to my colleague in Economic Development about shipping people out of the territory. The member opposite is now saying it's not relevant. Well, Mr. Chair, he brought up the subject, so I only feel responsible to provide an answer to him. This is what he is looking for - answers. I want to respectfully acknowledge his opinions, I want to respectfully be able to respond to questions he puts forward, and it is my hope today that I can answer all of the member's questions to the best of my ability.
With respect to why the government is funding rich oil and gas companies to transport Yukoners to job sites outside the territory, the answer is that we are still expecting these drilling companies to pick up the normal cost of transportation to the work site. This fund is intended to assist drilling companies to offset transportation costs that are considered excessive or beyond the industry norm. Because of the lower than expected number of drill rigs operating in the north this winter, industry indicated that they had a need for employees, but more so in the south. We believe that, in certain circumstances, transportation costs to southern rigs can be higher than to rigs in the north.
Our government, First Nation governments, industry and training institutions collaborated to successfully train 29 Yukon residents last summer through the Aurora College drill training in Inuvik. We consider this money well-spent if we assist the students to obtain entry-level positions working on rigs this winter.
The member opposite also suggested that I was cutting, in my capacity as Minister of Education, the College budget. During Question Period, Mr. Chair, I had indicated that we are not cutting the College budget. Well, as I had indicated yesterday, I will, attempt to provide additional information with respect to clause 13. Clause 13 reads, "Land to be included in a park shall be Yukon land."
Mr. Chair, the purpose of this section is to be clear that a park can only be established on Yukon land. This also means that private lands - private lands, and this is creating certainty. This means that private lands, federal land or settlement lands cannot be included in a park under this act. It's providing certainty for people who own lands already because the land cannot become part of a park arbitrarily. Under this act, all lands in a park must be Yukon lands. That means that if settlement lands, private, federal or personal land fall within boundaries, they do not form part of the park, and this act does not apply to those lands. They don't; this act will not apply. Through final agreements, we may have parks, habitat protection areas or other designations. This parks and land certainty legislation is intended only to apply to special management areas that are designated under the final agreement as Yukon parks, as well as parks established in the future.
Examples of parks being established pursuant to final agreements include the Tombstone Natural Environment Park and the Fishing Branch Ecological Reserve. Any park established that surrounds First Nation settlement lands will not include, or result in, a change to the status of that settlement land now or in the future. Under some final agreements, special management areas are established that are not parks and are not established pursuant to this legislation. Some special management areas, such as the Nordenskiold wetland habitat protection area, are established as habitat protection areas under the Wildlife Act. In this particular case, the Parks and Land Certainty Act does not apply and settlement land is a part of the special management area.
So, I hope, Mr. Chair, that I have provided further qualification to what Yukon land is.
Mr. Fairclough: Mr. Chair, I was hoping that the minister would bring more clarity to this section 13 and amend it and provide clarity for the general public, not just to say that the lands in a park will be Yukon lands. It's much more complicated than that, and the minister, even with his explanation, is not leaving a clear message to any other ministers following, or anyone else in the department, in taking this wording as it is read in the act.
It's unfortunate, and I'm hoping to see more written comments back from this minister on this particular line. It's only one sentence, and it does say that land included in a park shall be Yukon land. I don't believe that to be the case, to be true, especially with the fact that First Nations do have land claim agreements ratified and they alone can develop parks on their land, should they choose.
The member opposite has just given a list of what parks are. They are not the parks that people have in mind. It could be simple things like habitat protection, goal 1 and goal 2 areas. There is a lot that should have clarification with that one-liner, and I was hoping the minister would have taken the day that he had from yesterday and come back with an amendment to that line. Is the minister at all considering an amendment to clause 13, under "Yukon land"?
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: No, I am not, Mr. Chair, but in the wording section, part 1, under "Interpretation", there is a definition of what Yukon land is, and I will read it for the record. "'Yukon land' means land in the Yukon that is vested in Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada but the right of the beneficial use or the proceeds of which is appropriated to the Government of the Yukon and is subject to the control of the Legislature;". This section, I believe, clearly provides a definition of "Yukon land". The land must be transferred. It has to be transferred from the federal government to Yukon prior to the designation of the park under this act. So this further clarifies in the definitions what Yukon land is.
Mr. Fairclough: As we went through the different sections within the Parks and Land Certainty Act to where we are - we are only on clause 13, and there are over 100 different clauses in here - I asked the member to bring clarity to the whole land claims issue.
When we say that land to be included in parks shall be Yukon land, I know the member refers to the final agreements that are already ratified but does not speak at all to those areas that do not have final agreements. I am concerned about that, because it can circumvent the whole negotiation process just through the minister's office. That's where my concern is, and I was hoping the minister could take it back and bring more details to us on this side of the House.
I have no more questions on clause 13.
Chair: Is there any further debate on clause 13?
Chair: Acquisition of land, clause 14 - is there any questions or discussion on clause 14?
Mr. Fairclough: Mr. Chair, just before we go on, I tabled a number of amendments today. To speed up the process, I'm hoping the minister would have had a look at them - there weren't all that many - and advise whether or not he'd consider making some changes, as suggested by this side of the House in this act.
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, I need some technical assistance from the centre table on this. I'm not clear whether the member opposite just wants us to accept these amendments carte blanche or if we address them when we come to that line. I'm not quite sure.
Chair: You have to address them when you come to the line. I believe the question was a general question that was asked. For any clarification of that, the Chair can't do that for you. You would have to ask Mr. Fairclough exactly what he means.
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, could I ask for further clarification from the member opposite, then? Is he speaking about a specific amendment, or what is the question?
Mr. Fairclough: Very simply put, Mr. Chair, we had tabled some amendments to the act, and I was hoping the minister could have looked at them and considered them, so the government side would do the amending. I gave the information out; the minister has seen it, and if the choice is to ignore it, then that's the choice.
Mr. Fentie: I'll try and help the minister out on this. We have tabled a number of amendments to put them on the record. Should the government side choose to use one or any or all of those amendments is entirely up to them. It is simply a position brought forward by the official opposition to help strengthen the act and improve it. The rest is up to the government side. We intend to expedite the debate in this Legislature.
Chair: Mr. Fentie, for clarification - there is no point of order.
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: To simply answer, in working with the drafters of this bill, it is fairly significant when an amendment is proposed. There are considerations about what that amendment's impact will have on other sections or clauses. So, respectfully then, the member opposite is asking for a specific answer on the suggestions. I will have to say no at this time.
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: If the members opposite would like an overview of park planning, clauses 18 through 26, I would be pleased to provide a summary of intent on these clauses if they wish.
Mr. Fairclough: I would just like a brief explanation from the minister on this clause. I believe that, given the definition of a park, with the many different types of parks there are in there, there can be some development that can take place. This particular clause basically says that you go outside the park boundaries and drill diagonally, and I can't see - if there is development that can take place - and there could be logging and so on, different types of development in a park or a protected area, whether it's habitat protection without significantly altering that habitat that this type of thing can take place. I'm just wondering why it's in there, and is this true, then, for all parks?
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: This is specifically referenced to goal 1 type parks where there is no industrial development appropriate within a goal 1 area.
Mr. Fairclough: Maybe the minister can give me a quick reference to where it does say goal 1, because this particular clause 35 doesn't say it and that's why I asked the question.
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, part 4 applies to all parks, including goal 1.
Mr. Fairclough: Clause 35 applies to all parks - wetlands, habitat protection, all parks. Is that correct? The minister just said it was for goal 1 parks, but now it's all parks, right? Could you just say it for the record?
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Yes, Mr. Chair.
Chair: Any further debate on clause 35?
Chair: Part 5, regulations.
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, we're getting into the regulatory aspects of this act, so I'd like to provide a brief outline of intent. The regulation-making powers in the existing act are largely carried over into the new act; however, the act clarifies that regulations can be made for the purpose of carrying out the act according to its intent.
The act also specifies additional matters, in some cases related to YPAS and settlement agreements, including regulations respecting the following: selection of boundaries for future parks; composition of planning teams and other advisory bodies; public participation in the selection of park boundaries; activities in parks which do not require a park permit; regulation or prohibition of use of vehicles, aircraft, boats and other conveyances in the parks; access to historic sites, historic objects and burial sites; research in parks; mitigation and restoration obligations under park permits; security for park permits and issuance of leases, easements and licences of occupation to park permit holders.
Regulations under the act may apply to single parks, parts of parks or entire classes or types of parks. They can also be limited for indefinite periods of time. The Yukon government is not required to develop these regulations, though it is expected that some of these regulations will form part of the general regulations.
Chair: Part 6, offences.
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: A brief description of the intent of part 6: this part of the act defines "offences". The act requires park permit holders to exercise all reasonable care to ensure that their employees do not violate the act. Existing provisions in the campground regulations respecting public nuisance are transferred to the act itself. The act protects natural resources in parks by prohibiting their disturbance or removal without a permit. The act also makes it an offence to enter on to closed roads, trails, or portions of parks that have been closed by the minister. The act makes it an offence to consume liquor in a park, except in designated sites with a park permit, in a dwelling, including mobile homes or tents, or other sites designated by regulation. The act makes it an offence to litter in parks unless it is in accordance with a park permit or in any manner described in regulation.
Park officers will continue to be appointed by the minister to enforce the act. Members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and conservation officers appointed under the Wildlife Act, will also be able to exercise the powers of park officers. Park officers carrying out their duties under the Parks and Land Certainty Act will have the powers and protections of a peace officer.
Chair: Part 7, administration and enforcement
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Again with the permission of the House, I would like to briefly outline the administration and enforcement, part 7, clauses 64 through 69.
This section addresses the powers of parks officers to investigate offences and the penalties that can be imposed on persons who violate the act. Most of the provisions of the existing act are carried over to the new act. Park officers' powers, under the act - including powers of investigation, prosecution, dealing with emergencies, eviction and arrest - will continue largely unchanged from the current act. Park officers will still have reasonable grounds for arresting alleged violators or evicting persons from parks. Park officers will be required to obtain warrants for searches and seizure of private property, except in limited circumstances. These sections can be reviewed by lawyers to ensure that they are consistent with the Canadian Charter. The act allows more significant penalties to be imposed on persons convicted of violating the act. For individuals, the maximum fine will be increased to $50,000 or imprisonment for not more than two years. For other violations, the maximum fine will be increased to $100,000. The fine can be imposed for each day that an offence is committed.
The act also gives courts powers to impose other penalties or requirements on persons convicted under the act, and these include the following: ordering the person to refrain from continued violation of the act; ordering the person to restore damage done to parks or park facilities, infrastructure and resources; ordering the person to make restitution for damages caused to others; cancellations of park permits; imposing an additional fine up to double any profits made as a result of the violation of the act to make sure that violators cannot profit from their actions; ordering publications of the details of the case; ordering the person to compensate government for costs incurred in restoring damages to parks; imposing other conditions to ensure proper conduct in parks; and requiring the person to post a bond to ensure compliance in the future.
The act clarifies the responsibilities of companies for the acts of their employees, deeming an act of an employee to be the responsibility of the employer. In addition, directors and officers of companies can be held personally liable for acts of the company if they direct, authorize, assent to, acquiesce or participate in an offence under this act. Prosecutions for violations under the act may only be commenced within two years of the date of the violation or of the date on which the violation was discovered. The fact that a person's acts constitute violations of the act will not affect any other legal remedies that may be available for those acts. The minister can seek an injunction preventing continuing violations of the act, even if a prosecution is underway. If someone damages natural resources or facilities in a park, the minister can have the damages repaired and then sue the person to recover the cost of the repairs. If the resources or the facilities are irreparably damaged, the minister can sue on behalf of the Yukon government for damages suffered as a result.
Mr. Fairclough: I would just like an explanation on this, Mr. Chair. The minister has the power to open and close parks, and access to parks is through roads and trails. A trail, I would think, as it is described in this section here has to fall under the Highways Act.
I was wondering about access to - I know this has to comply with the management plan, which would take into consideration other uses in or around or on the other side of a park. It could be access trails, say, for traditional use for First Nation people on foot trails or waterways, water access, or even roads. And if a road is closed, it could be potentially closing off access to a First Nation fish camp, for example - that type of thing.
Where in this act or in this clause does it say and allow that type of thing to continue? I know it's throughout the act, but where in this particular section?
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: With respect to the power to open or close parks roads and trails, Mr. Chair, this is a very limited imposition upon the limited capability of the minister in that it's not to be more than 21 days. In some cases, it may be necessary to close parts of a park or to restrict travel into a park, specifically for park management purposes or for safety, or in cases of fire. This section gives the minister short-term authority for closing roads or trails in parks, which are not designated as highways under the Highways Act.
If longer-term authority is needed, the minister of parks would have to contact the Minister of Community and Transportation Services and request a longer closure.
Mr. Fairclough: Mr. Chair, maybe the minister can explain to us where in his explanation he said that some of the trails are not contained under the Highways Act, but where are they contained within this act?
Mr. Keenan: If I could just maybe explain - I asked my leader to bring this forward because the minister just twigged something in my brain. I have gone through many years of land claims negotiations, as have others in the room, and never once have I ever heard - I have always heard, and it was always maintained, that roads and trails always fall under the Highways Act and are always contained there for public scrutiny - for lack of a better word. It's a public road, and I was just wondering how we go about deviating from that. It's a deviation I have never seen before.
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: In trying to understand the question, there are some roads and trails that are not listed under the provisions of the Highways Act, and these trails would be specified within a park as not being covered by the Highways Act. I think it's important to consider, as well, that it would be primarily for public safety, like in Kluane, where trails are closed because of bear problems or threats to health and safety of individuals. So, it would be under those circumstances that closures would apply.
Mr. Keenan: Mr. Chair, is there a special provision, or what type of mechanism - because we might be making a park, or what we're talking about here, over top of an existing public road. What is the mechanism that is going to take out the rights of the public to travel on that public road? Because it could be a public road, and now we're going to have to have a mechanism to make it a non-public road. I understand why the minister is doing it. I absolutely understand why the minister is doing it, but it kind of has my curiosity up here now as to why and how. So, what mechanism is there for the minister?
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: I think I'm coming to a better understanding, Mr. Chair. I know, in the case of Tombstone, of course there is a major road that goes through Tombstone and there was special provision for a corridor to go through the park, allowing access - a utility corridor, more or less - and, of course, the Dempster Highway follows through.
Mr. Keenan: This is nothing really to hold up debate on the rest of the clauses. If the minister would - I could sit with the minister privately and explain what my reason is. But I am very much interested in knowing the rationale and how the mechanics of it would work. I put in 10 years negotiating - I am an experienced negotiator and I have put in 10 years of negotiating on the other side, and I certainly wish that I had known that we could make that type of mechanism, then, because it was pounded into me that, "No, it cannot be done in that manner." So, I am very interested - if the minister would accept that, I could talk to the minister at a private moment. Is that all right?
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: I would be more than willing to sit down with the member opposite and provide a rationale for this situation and bring along technical personnel who would be able to help us out in understanding.
Clause 80 agreed to
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, I do have an amendment to propose. I move
THAT Bill No. 46, entitled Parks and Land Certainty Act, be amended in clause 101 on page 37 by deleting clause 101 and substituting the following for it:
"101 The following section is added immediately after section 34 of the Environment Act:
"34.1 Sections 30 to 33 do not apply to an order of the Commissioner in Executive Council made under parts 2 and 3 of the Parks and Land Certainty Act."
Chair: It has been moved by Mr. Eftoda
THAT Bill No. 46, entitled Parks and Land Certainty Act, be amended in clause 101 on page 37 by deleting clause 101 and substituting the following for it.
Mr. Fairclough: I'm curious as to why this amendment is brought forward here. I would like to ask the minister if this is an amendment to the act, or is it an amendment to the Environment Act? Which act are we amending here?
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, this amendment is restricted to the creation of parks and the management planning of parks. This act provides for public participation and decisions leading up to the creation of a park and the preparation of a management plan. The Environment Act provisions would duplicate the new act's requirements. Regulations passed under part 5 of the act would still be subject to the public review requirements of the Environment Act. Does that help?
Mr. Fairclough: Is the minister saying this is an amendment to the Environment Act?
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: I hope I can provide a clear explanation of why this is being done. Currently under the Environment Act, there is a provision that consultation occur if there is a change to regulations under the Parks Act. What this does is remove that obligation, to mitigate duplications of consultative processes.
Mr. Fairclough: Is this an amendment to the Environment Act?
Mr. Fairclough: Well, Mr. Chair, this is a problem then, because we're being asked to pass a bill, the Parks and Land Certainty Act, and not to amend the Environment Act, which we would have to get into to look at the different effects of amendments to sections in the Environment Act.
So how can we, in this House, pass amendments to the Environment Act, which we are not even debating here? I would suggest that this section is out of order, and the minister needs to take it and bring it back to this House. It is out of order.
Mr. Chair, I ask for your guidance on this.
Chair: Order please. Very good point, Mr. Fairclough, but this is a consequential amendment as part of an act that has to be affecting another act. For example, another thing that has been done in this act that's along the same line is the repeal of the Parks Act. So, consequential amendments to enable legislation are allowed in the House and this is within order. Procedurally, this is okay.
Mr. Fairclough: Well, I'm not particularly clear on your ruling. I have to take your word for it, because you are making the ruling here. But the argument that I can make to this is that part of this whole thing is that we are changing the Parks Act into the Parks and Land Certainty Act. We haven't said that we were going to dig into any other acts so that the Parks and Land Certainty Act can fall into conformity with other acts. In order to do that, we normally would get into amendments to the act. It could be a minor amendment such as this, and that's what should have taken place.
So, when I said this is not right in the way it's presented to this House, I believe that to be the case. I think that the minister could have come forward and maybe he can retract this and come forward with amendments to the Environment Act.
Chair: Thank you, Mr. Fairclough. As far as the Chair is concerned, it is in order. Mr. Fairclough, if you do have precedents or previous cases that you can show me, that's the only way that I could have an example of where it has happened. But we have discussed it here, and this is actually a normal course of action. I would need stronger evidence that you feel this is wrong, rather than - you can move an amendment if you like, but other than that, I will have to go with the fact that this seems to be the norm.
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: I would be more than willing to sit down with the member and provide a clarification on this. I do agree with the ruling of the Chair in that what this is enabling to happen is that the Environment Act does not affect - what this describes is that the Environment Act does not impact on the Parks and Land Certainty Act with respect to consultations. That doesn't mean that consultations will not occur under the Environment Act, but the consultation processes within the Parks Act will be exempt from the impact of the Environment Act.
So, therefore, the Chair is right. This also reflects an order of the Commissioner in Executive Council made under parts 2 and 3 of the Parks and Land Certainty Act. I do believe that I do understand the Chair's ruling in that there is an automatic repeal of sections that are in another piece of legislation, that exempt the Parks and Land Certainty Act from the effects of that legislation to mitigate duplications of effort.
Mr. Fairclough: I would have thought that maybe the minister would have brought amendments to the Environment Act in order for this act to flow smoothly, as he did with the Wildlife Act, and that is reflective of the changes that are made in the Parks and Land Certainty Act. We are talking about one act and making amendments to the other.
So that is wrong according to the procedures of this House, from what I can understand. I don't believe that we can be in a discussion on one act and make amendments to another. That is why I asked the member opposite to come back with amendments to the Environment Act to make it conform with the Parks and Land Certainty Act.
I believe that this is not - well, I am basically in a sense challenging the Chair, because I feel differently about how the processes in this House works because we are talking about one act and making amendments to the other.
I know it's not a big deal, but the Wildlife Act is also being amended to take care of this very situation. So I would like to ask maybe the minister what effect it would have to withdraw this section now and come back with that minor amendment in the spring to the Environment Act?
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, I believe the appropriate term is called a "consequential amendment," and that impacts on the Environment Act. The Chair has made a ruling with respect to this clause, and I respect the Chair's ruling on it.
Mr. Fairclough: Well, Mr. Chair, is that the process we follow in Committee of the Whole when we make amendments? Is that what I can expect down the road, that we're talking about one act, and we can make amendments to the other?
Chair: I'm just going to consult, just to give you some examples, Mr. Fairclough. I'll give you some examples. I just should explain that why I never took issue with you challenging the Chair is because there were no procedural rules broken. So essentially you're stating an opinion, and I'm stating an opinion back, saying that there are no rules being broken by this. And you're saying that this shouldn't happen. There is no problem or conflict between us, and so you can continue to say that, because there really are no rules being broken. Whether it should or should not happen is based on precedents, and we're about to find some precedents for you.
Mr. Fairclough, to give an example - and we've just done this by opening a book. We've got the Statutes of the Yukon open to 1998, and we've opened it to Estate Administration Act, and this is just an example, but this happens all the time. Under consequential amendments to the Estate Administration Act, they amended the Children's Act, the Dependants Relief Act, the Intestate Succession Act, the Trustee Act, the Judicature Act. So all I can say is that, in one bill, six acts were amended. So it has happened in the past, and it is actually accepted practice.
Shall we continue? Is there any further discussion on the amendment?
Clause 101 agreed to as amended
Schedule agreed to
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, I move that you report Bill No. 46, Yukon Parks and Land Certainty Act, out of Committee with amendment.
Chair: I thank the House for the expeditious manner in which you dealt with business. The Chair will call a recess of approximately 10 minutes to allow officials to prepare for the next bill. We will return with the Wildlife Act after this.
Bill No. 48 - Wildlife Act
Chair: Committee of the Whole will consider Bill No. 48, entitled Wildlife Act. Is there any general debate?
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: It is a pleasure for me to introduce phase 1 of the amendments to the Wildlife Act. From February 5 to April 5, the discussion paper was available at all Renewable Resources regional offices and at 10 Burns Road, the main desk of the Yukon government administration building, at First Nation offices throughout the Yukon, and at most of the key stakeholder group offices - for example, the Yukon Fish and Wildlife Management Board, YTA and RRC offices.
Seventy-five key stakeholder groups and individuals received copies of the discussion paper and were invited to provide comments. The stakeholders included conservation interests, such as Yukon Conservation Society, CPAWS, Porcupine Caribou Management Board, all 14 Yukon First Nations, as well as the Tetlit Gwich'in and the Inuvialuit, and industry groups such as Yukon Outfitters Association, the Yukon Trappers Association, the Wilderness Tourism Association of Yukon, relevant federal departments such as CWS, DIAND and Renewable Resources, all Yukon government departments, the relevant land claims-related bodies, all MLAs, and the umbrella groups for fisheries and hunters.
A press conference called by me at the beginning of February announced the start of the 60-day public consultation period. Print ads, radio spots and rolling ads were also used to solicit responses to the discussion paper. Department staff worked with the Yukon Fish and Wildlife Management Board staff in a cooperative arrangement for the duration of the project. The board had input to the discussion paper, summary reports and drafting instructions to legal counsel.
Meetings with various groups were held on an as-requested basis. Staff met with five of seven RRCs, the Yukon Fish and Game Association, and the Yukon Outfitters Association. Staff also held briefings with the Yukon Fish and Wildlife Management Board and sought direction from the board on the matters in the discussion paper. The board hosted public meetings on new ideas that came out of the public consultation process.
Mr. Fairclough: Well, I am glad to see that the minister at least took these amendments to the Wildlife Act out to the general public for consultation. I know that, because of that, there is not going to be as much discussion that takes place, because communities did have an opportunity to look at what the amendments were. I was hoping that the same type of attitude taken with the Wildlife Act could have been taken with the Parks and Land Certainty Act, and it is unfortunate that it did not take place in that manner.
We don't have much at all in regard to these amendments. I understand where they are coming from and why government is bringing them forward to the floor of this Legislature. I do want to make note, though, that we did do our homework on this. I know that a lot of this has taken place because of other things outside of the House and courtrooms and those types of things that influence changes to the Wildlife Act. I can remember a time when we were in government and we did amendments to the Wildlife Act, and the Liberal government picked away on many of the small changes that were there and, really, I believe, at that time, did not fully understand what is in the Wildlife Act. I hope that has changed over the past little while, and I would like to get on with getting right into the sections of the Wildlife Act.
Mr. Jenkins: With respect to the Wildlife Act, I am going to be looking for a number of amendments in this act with respect to the personal liability concerns, that they're covered in the outline for the purposes of this act. It's kind of a selling down the river - or the pipeline - of our rights that exist in other bills that appear to be counterproductive in this Wildlife Act that we have before us. I guess that's spelled off for the purpose of this act, that these parts do not apply. I have some grave concerns with those sections, and I'll be looking forward to amendments. I noticed that the minister has already tabled 11 changes to the Wildlife Act.
Mr. Chair, that gives rise to the question: if it takes 11 amendments when the act is just going into discussion in general debate, just how thorough was the analysis that the minister undertook of this act? Just how thorough and comprehensive was the re-write? It lends itself open to a lot of questions. Given the performance we saw by this minister in the Parks and Land Certainty Act, we are faced with the same dilemma here. It would probably be prudent to go back to the table or the drawing board and bring forward an act with all these amendments in it and have a thorough and complete analysis undertaken of the act before we move forward.
Mr. Chair, I really don't have any other areas that I'd like to delve into but will be interested in line-by-line and will be interested in seeing how frequently the minister wants to have individuals controlled by this act, have the rights that are granted to them under acts removed from them for the purposes of this act. I do have some grave and serious concerns in that regard.
Seeing no further general debate, we will proceed directly to line-by-line.
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, referring to one of the amendments the Member for Klondike has suggested is not necessary - really what a significant number of the amendments are referring to is translation into French. This is one of those cases. The amendment that I am proposing is:
THAT Bill No. 48, entitled Wildlife Act, be amended on the cover page and in the title on page 1 on the French side only by -
Chair: Order please. Title is the last area we cover, so you'll want to do that as your last amendment, Mr. Eftoda.
On clause 1, is there any debate?
Mr. Fairclough: Maybe the minister can just explain how this affects First Nation people. You have an age limit on here and how it affects First Nation people's aboriginal rights.
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: This could apply to First Nation children outside the purview of final agreements.
Mr. Fairclough: Okay, I guess just to be clear, First Nation people have the right to hunt in traditional territories. You are saying that, for that First Nation, it is outside of that traditional territory if not agreed to by another First Nation.
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: I believe it is with respect to the final land agreement, not the traditional territory.
Mr. Fairclough: This would be a difference in what the understanding is to final agreements. I was wondering if the member could give clarity to this because the First Nation that I belong to - they can hunt in their traditional territory, not only on their settlement lands. If it is agreed to by another First Nation, they can do the same in that First Nation traditional territory, so I would like to have some clarity on this. I know the minister is nodding his head, so -
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: The member is correct.
Mr. Fairclough: I'd like to know whether clause	13(1) applies to hunting cabins and fish camps, and this type of thing.
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Quite frankly, it would. If the fish camp or hunting camp is a building, then it is considered a residence.
Mr. Fairclough: I guess, Mr. Chair, that can be looked at in a couple of different ways. Part-time residence, which a lot of people have as cabins, say, on lakes and so on, and full-time residence - some people consider themselves a resident of their fish camp, for example, or the hunting cabin they have way out far away from other residents and towns and so on. I'm just wondering what that really means to those people who do have cabins and go out to their hunting cabins, because what it is saying is that you cannot hunt within one kilometre of that cabin. Is that correct? I'm also referring to the trappers who do have many trapline cabins throughout the whole territory.
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: My understanding, Mr. Chair, is that the owner is not restricted to hunting within the kilometre. It mainly applies for safety and health reasons of individuals moving into an area and then discharging within a kilometre of a dwelling.
Mr. Fairclough: Is this a change from the Wildlife Act, or has that always been in there?
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Yes, Mr. Chair, it is similar to the former clause, referenced to clause 9(1) of the old act.
Mr. Fairclough: Can I ask the minister what has changed in that? Is it the distance that we're talking about in this amendment? Is that the change?
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Yes. It has been slightly changed to reflect hunting, fish camps or hunting cabins as well, with respect to the owner.
Mr. Fairclough: Mr. Chair, I'm trying to make some sense of it. I know that in communities we even have community cabins that people go and use for bison hunting, for example. I'm sure that if somebody saw a bison that was close by, they would take it out, whether or not the owner could be a corporation or a First Nation, that type of thing. I'm not fully satisfied with how this is written up. It seemed to be more restrictive than how it has been in the past.
I'm interested to see what the penalty is in regard to being found guilty of hunting within one kilometre of this, because most people, when they go out hunting, set up their camps - and these are established camps. They could be portable. They could be trailer units and that type of thing. I know it may be challenged in regard to calling it a residence, but I'm wondering what comments were made by the general public to make this change. Was it strictly on the safety issue or was it brought up at all by the general public to have this change, this more restrictive regulation put in place?
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: I'll see if I can provide clarification this way. Under the old act, Mr. Chair, in clause 9(1), "No person shall hunt wildlife within one kilometre of an occupied dwelling on private land unless he has the permission of the occupant to do so." The member opposite is quite right in indicating that there are dwellings on non-private land - First Nation land.
So, what we have done is to recognize that there are safety factors with respect to those dwellings as well, so that, without the permission of the occupant or owner, there can be no hunting within a kilometre radius of that dwelling. So, it is respecting trappers, fishing camps, and dwellings that are not contained on private land. Does that help out?
Mr. Jenkins: Sounds pretty good in theory, but in practice, Mr. Chair, it's something else. In the previous act, the term used was "dwelling". If you look in the preamble, "dwelling" is defined. A dwelling house has the same meaning as it does in the Criminal Code of Canada. So, we know full well what a dwelling is.
But under the revised provisions of this 13(1), "A person shall not hunt or trap wildlife within one kilometre of a building which is a residence...". Now, "residence" hasn't been defined. I can understand the minister bringing in changes to grasp trappers' cabins, fish camps and the like. I don't have any quarrel with those as a safety issue. But let's preclude any avenue of recourse - let's define, in a clearly definitive manner, what is referred to here as "a building which is a residence".
We could go around this room and ask everyone here what they consider to be a building which is a residence, and we would come up with a different definition from everyone here, I'm sure. Whereas the old Wildlife Act clearly stated that a residence has the same meaning as in the Criminal Code of Canada. There is some finality and certainty to it.
Why do we want to leave the door swinging? Why is the minister choosing to do that?
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Because it's responsible to provide a definition in the new Wildlife Act. The old act did not define "dwelling".
Mr. Jenkins: Yes, "dwelling" is defined, but a building that is a residence is not defined.
If you change the word to "dwelling" - fine. But the way this clause reads is, "A person shall not hunt or trap wildlife within one kilometre of a building which is a residence". Why don't you change it to "dwelling as defined by the Criminal Code of Canada"?
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: The reason for this may become clearer later on. As I understand, Mr. Chair, a dwelling encompasses far more than a building that is a residence. So that's why it was defined this way.
Mr. Jenkins: Could the minister please enlighten me as to where the definition of "a building that is a residence" is defined in this act or anywhere else in legislation here in the Yukon?
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: I don't believe it is, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Chair, wouldn't it be best to provide some certainty around this issue?
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: I do believe that this defines certainty, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Jenkins: Is the minister prepared to include in the act a definition that clearly defines a building that is a residence? Will the minister do that?
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: The recommendation from the member opposite would impose greater restriction, because what this clause is attempting to do, as the member of the official opposition was asking, is to be more inclusive and to be more flexible. So that is why we are using "building which is a residence", which allows greater flexibility in respect to other types of land use.
Mr. Jenkins: So, to avoid any uncertainty surrounding this issue, will the minister include a definition of a building that is a residence? Yes or no?
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: No, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Jenkins: All we want to do is spend a lot of time before the courts determining what a building is that is a residence. Is that what the minister is saying? Because it could ultimately come down to that and, given the track record of the Department of Renewable Resources and the Wildlife Act, and their track record before the courts as to definitions of specifics, this is totally unfair. What is needed is clear and concise legislation with definitions that serve the purpose and intent of the act.
Now, I have no quarrel with approving section 13(1) as it is before the Legislature, but the issue is: let's include a clear definition of a "building which is a residence".
Either that or change "building which is a residence" to "a dwelling house," because "a dwelling house" is defined in the beginning as the same meaning as in the Criminal Code of Canada. So we all know what a dwelling house is, but we all do not know what a building which is a residence is, Mr. Chair. Therein lies a pitfall and a tremendous problem, Mr. Chair.
Now, would the minister consider a friendly amendment there, change it himself or include a definition of "a building which is a residence"? Which way would he prefer to go?
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: The suggestion by the member opposite, Mr. Chair, is that he would like to see "dwelling house" applied here, but "dwelling house" is much more than what would be appropriate in consideration of how people move around or areas that are not on private lands. As I just explained to the leader of the official opposition, what we wanted to also avoid were issues like temporary tent camps, also avoiding temporary hunting camps. So this was the term that best applied, allowing the greatest flexibility for people occupying residences on non-private land.
Mr. Jenkins: So, what is wrong, given the minister's response to the question, Mr. Chair? What is wrong with defining a "building which is a residence"? Why can't that be done?
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: I'll try this one for the Member for Klondike. When the drafters were putting this together, Mr. Chair, they attempted to allow flexibility, to build flexibility into this clause. The reason they used "building" was because it would mean a permanent structure, and they used the word "residence" as a type of use of the building. So, when you put the two together, it provides the flexibility while defining building and use.
Mr. Jenkins: Well, Mr. Chair, just stand back and have a look at this act, and look at it from an enforcement angle. Also, look at it from the angle that, eventually, a number of these terms are going to be challenged before the courts. It is best if we provide certainty surrounding the respective terms that we use, and we're not.
A building is defined as a permanent structure. Fine. If you extrapolate that, Mr. Chair, it means that somebody has to be the taxing authority and it has to be an improvement; an appropriate permit is taken out. But that is not the case with a lot of these cabins, because fish camps are established under a separate piece of legislation, as are trappers' cabins.
So, the buildings wouldn't have a taxing authority. Some do, because they have grown to be quite substantial, Mr. Chair.
When these matters come before the courts, it's best if the judges who have to rule on these matters have a clear definition, not only of what the intent was, but what the actual definition of these structures is. And that is lacking, Mr. Chair.
Why would the minister want to leave that situation up in the air? Now, he can provide certainty by going two ways - by changing a building that is a residence to a dwelling unit, as defined by the Criminal Code of Canada, o, conversely, provide a clear, concise definition of a building that is a residence. There are two ways to go, but I'm sure the minister is going to exude confidence and not take into consideration either way and, down the road - I don't know when - this is going to be the subject of a court challenge. Once again, the minister's department is going to end up in a lose-lose situation, in all probability. One can't tell with certainty what happens when a matter goes before the courts, but the confidence the minister is exuding in this matter - it's probably always best described as the feeling you get before you fully understand the situation.
I would encourage the minister to see if he can get his head around this issue, because it is a very important issue. These little technical areas have been the subject of much consideration, and which the court has ruled upon in the previous Wildlife Act.
Now, if he wants to leave it wide open, I disagree with the minister. I would encourage him to bring back a clear, concise definition of a building that is a dwelling unit. We will probably have a chance to amend this. The minister can leave the door open for a challenge but, be that as it may, I guess that's why we have so many lawyers around the Yukon - because of the poor way that a lot of this legislation is drafted.
Mr. Chair, it's just one of another of many, many issues. But I would encourage the minister to just stand back and look at this, and look at the issue, because it might seem to be very, very minor, but it's of critical importance, and this same situation arises in a number of places throughout this act, Mr. Chair.
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: I do hear what the member is saying, and I do respect and appreciate the advice based on his opinion but, in this case, I believe that the information contained within this clause is adequate, and I do say that with all due respect.
Mr. Fairclough: I am wondering if the minister can give us, by way of written material, a little more explanation as to what the "one kilometre" really means. I have had people ask me this question in the past.
If you are hunting one kilometre away and you don't know that there is a residence, you can always plead that case. But if you're following an animal and it's within a half-kilometre of a cabin or a building and you are further out than that, are you actually violating this rule?
I am wondering if the member could send me, by written information, a little more detail on that.
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Yes, I will, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Fairclough: I would like some explanation, maybe in more detail, if the member can provide that in regard to this clause. It says, "A person shall not use a vehicle to chase, drive, flush, exhaust or fatigue wildlife - ." I know that many people do hunt on the river by boats and if they violate this by simply landing their boat and it is perceived as driving or flushing an animal out of the water to the shore, then they could be charged with violating this section of the act. I would like to have more explanation given to me to clarify this particular clause.
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: This clause does not refer to a boat.
Mr. Fairclough: Mr. Chair, I just read where it does refer to a boat, and I want to make sure and that is why I asked the question on this, but it did say in particular "a boat", and it is not under this section. What vehicles does it apply to then if it is not a boat? Four wheelers, snowmobiles - can I get an explanation of that?
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: In "Definitions," Mr. Chair, it indicates that "'vehicle' includes an aircraft and any trailer or other contrivance drawn by a vehicle, but does not include a boat, unless the boat is on a trailer or other contrivance drawn by a vehicle."
Mr. Fairclough: Well, Mr. Chair, I find this one a bit peculiar. When we're talking about wasted meat in one of the sections here, under 32(3)(a), if meat or fish or whatever is being fed to dogs, then this is considered a waste of meat. Is that what this section says?
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Basically, this is the same as the old act, Mr. Chair. It does not refer to fish, but in the old act it was deemed to be a waste of meat if you used wild game.
Mr. Fairclough: I have never heard this, or maybe I have overlooked this in the old Wildlife Act, but how does this apply to trappers? Are they exempt from this? A lot of them use wild meat to feed their animals and this is truly in violation of the act should they have done that.
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: It is the same as the old act, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Fairclough: Mr. Chair, does the minister have a list or a definition of what is reasonably suited for human consumption in regard to meat?
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, this is the same as the old act. It was not requiring an amendment. So, because it wasn't being amended, then it was just left the way it was.
Mr. Fairclough: I don't want to go any further into this section. This is something new that has come forward from the general public as to what is safe to eat and, in the wording here, "suitable for human consumption". We have had many arguments and many tests have been done on what people thought was rotten meat, had it sent out and it has been brought back, saying that it is edible, it can be eaten. This is a matter that I think many would like to see cleared up. It is new. It has been brought forward in the last couple of years actually. I would like to have a clear definition from the minister on what is "reasonably suitable for human consumption" in regard to meat. I know there are no changes from the previous act. I just need that clarification for those who ask me.
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Can I provide that in writing to the member opposite?
Mr. Keenan: I understand the situation that the minister is in here, and I just want to point out to the minister: does the minister have anything in the act? I have made a cursory read of the act. Of course it's not mine, and so I take the chance to offer my opinion to the minister. You won't have much problem for a person like myself leaving any meat in the field. As a matter of fact, we take everything except just a little pile at the end of it there, so that's not really a problem. But there are culturally significant practices that I practice with an animal every time I take an animal, or that animal gives its life to my family and me. That includes taking some of the choicest pieces, like the tip of the heart of the animal - I cut it off and offer that back, and it's usually put into a tree with a small blessing, thanking people, and it is there for the birds and the animals to gather and share. Is anywhere within this act that would protect those cultural practices?
I know that in the land claims there is language for that protection, but is there anything in here, or can it be mirrored?
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: I do believe that if it is contained within the final agreement, then that takes precedence over this act. That would be respected under the final agreement, yes.
Mr. Keenan: Not to belabour that because I respect the minister's answer, but I would like to find a communication tool - if the minister could - to convey to the game wardens to let them know that that is paramount. I see the minister nodding his head, and I take that as an agreement.
Mr. Jenkins: I was wondering, Mr. Chair, just how enforceable this provision is. If you take this verbatim, it says, in 32(3), "A person shall be deemed to have allowed meat to be wasted where he or she allows any portion of a game bird, big game animal, or small game animal that is reasonably suitable for human consumption to be (a) fed to dogs or other domestic animals, or to wildlife in captivity".
You know, I can have a moose roast for dinner at night, and Fifi or Fido at the end of the table can have the scraps, which happens on a regular basis. Just how far does the minister want to go on this initiative? According to the terms we have here, you can't even feed table scraps to domestic animals.
I have stated a position. Is that, in fact, the case, Mr. Chair - that you can't even feed table scraps of game animals to domestic animals?
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: I think, with all due respect to the humour being presented in the House by the member opposite, there is a reasonableness that must be maintained. I am sure that the member opposite's paranoia would not be carried to feeding Fido or Fifi off the end of his dinner table.
Mr. Jenkins: But the case can be made, given the severity of the act here and the clear definition, that that could indeed be the case. Could the minister confirm that? Or will he categorically state that there will be no prosecution by his department for wild game being served to domesticated animals on a casual or regular basis when the meat is consumed in the course of a normal household consumption? Just what is the position?
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Well, it looks like the member is going off on a real tangent this time, and I think there have to be some responsibilities and reasonableness to implementing. I think it is clear - as he has just indicated - the clarity of this clause. I believe that clarity is well-contained within the clause.
Mr. Jenkins: But the minister wouldn't preclude the department entertaining the prosecution of someone who fed the table meats of wild game to their domesticated animals. That is very much the case, Mr. Chair, and unless the minister responds saying that they will not, I guess the other end applies.
Mr. Fairclough: I just wanted to point out this is where I thought the clause in the previous one had applied to boats, and I just wanted to point that out. I'm not asking for anything from the minister.
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: I would at this time, Mr. Chair, like to introduce an amendment to the House
THAT Bill No. 48, entitled Wildlife Act, be amended in clause 38 on page 17 by deleting subsection 38(6) and renumbering the subsequent sections accordingly.
THAT Bill No. 48, entitled Wildlife Act, be amended in clause 38 on page 17 by deleting subsection 38(6) and renumbering the subsequent subsections accordingly.
Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Chair, individuals I have spoken with have some concerns with this section. Now, I don't know if this satisfies the concerns that they have raised but, under the current Wildlife Act, if a concession holder wishes to carry on their business through an eligible corporation, the minister is required to issue the outfitter a certificate to the corporation. Under the current act, there is nothing in the act that raises any grounds to suggest that such a corporation would be different from that of any other corporation or to suggest that such a corporation would not have and enjoy all the advantages and benefits accruing to all corporations.
Now, I'm hoping that that allays this concern and this fear, but I'm given to understand that the same cannot be said about this new act. Under the current act, an operating certificate, which is the same as an outfitter's certificate, can only be issued to the outfitter - or the concession holder - who must be an individual. The act then goes on to provide that, where the outfitter wishes to carry on the business through an eligible corporation, he must obtain a permit from the minister to be issued to the outfitter and to the corporation that authorizes the two of them, i.e. both the outfitter and the corporation, in the name of the corporation, to offer and provide guiding services.
So, in the new act, it's much more complicated and it's rather, I guess we can call it, a convoluted process. Currently, only two grants are required: a concession grant issued to the outfitter and a certificate issued to the corporation. What is being suggested here is a three-step process: a concession grant issued to the outfitter, a certificate issued to the outfitter, and a permit issued to the outfitter and to the corporation.
Now, does this allay that fear totally, and does it bring it back into the realm that existed prior to the introduction of this new act? Could the minister confirm which way he's heading?
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, there was a lot of discussion. We've had many meetings - the department has had many meetings with the Yukon Outfitters Association and with their chief executive officer. This has been a concern of theirs - this whole clause. The new Wildlife Act section 38 prescribes that both the concession and operating certificate shall be held in the name of an individual to ensure personal accountability and responsibility for compliance with this act.
A new permit described in section 38(3) will enable outfitters to continue to use corporations in operating their businesses and provide the corporate shield to facilitate tax planning, financing and risk management with respect to civil liability.
The department does not believe that the proposed new permit for the outfitting corporation, the issue under section 38(3), increases an outfitter's risk of being held personally liable in a civil action by a third party. After hearing this concern from the Yukon Outfitters Association, during the week of November 19 to 23, the department retained expert tax counsel to ensure the proposed legislation will not have unintended effects of increasing an outfitter's tax liability.
The department was pleased that the opinion of expert tax counsel confirms the department's view that neither the small business deduction nor capital gains exemption are adversely affected by the legislation as drafted. So, this was as a result of discussions that occurred between the Outfitters Association and the department, and included counsel in the final decision making.
Mr. Jenkins: So, as it stands now, do we have a two-step process, as it was previously, or do we have a three-step process? My read of this amendment is that it is still a three-step process. Why should we have a three-step process? Could the minister outline the advantages?
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: There is still a permit issued upon request. By removing clause 38(6), it provides greater clarity to the whole clause.
Mr. Jenkins: Could I just ask the minister to go back over where they received the tax opinion from? I know that when our firm of accountants want a tax opinion, they make representation to the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency for a pre-determination of a taxation issue. Is that the course of action the minister and his officials have taken, or have they just gone to an accounting firm and asked, "How would you make this determination?" Which way did they pursue?
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, I'm not personally involved in this aspect of technical review. I would be more than willing to get back to the member in writing on the discussions that did occur, if he would be willing to accept that.
Mr. Jenkins: Well, Mr. Chair, this is a very, very important issue - the taxation issue - given that the only real source of revenue in the outfitting business is really the provision of guiding services. The Income Tax Act in Canada doesn't - I guess you can say that it doesn't really follow any natural scheme or logic and common sense. It really just targets the real earner of the taxable income for the purpose of imposing income tax liability and conferring income tax shelters.
So the liability would be vested with the holder of the permit. The holder of the certificate is the only one who has the real right to be the wage earner. Now we have a three-step process, and the new act requires a certificate to be issued and that there be the name of both the outfitter and the corporation, to authorize the outfitter and the corporation to provide the revenue-earning services in the name of the corporation. It is quite a process, and I don't think the minister has really grappled with the severity of the legislation that he is bringing forward and how it impacts on the guiding business. Could I have a further understanding of it from the minister's vantage point as to why he has accepted these changes without any major discussion on changes?
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: It involved the representative from the Yukon Outfitters Association, who is also a lawyer, Mr. Chair. I would certainly encourage the member opposite to provide or to confer with the CEO of the Yukon Outfitters Association to be able to relate the impact of this amendment on this section of the act by removing clause 38(6) from the act. He will find out that it does meet the concerns and issues brought forward by the Outfitters Association. As I had indicated, those meetings occurred as late as the 23rd, Mr. Chair. I would advise the member opposite to follow through on the facts and recognize that a leading tax counsel at a nationally recognized tax law firm in Calgary was contacted on the details of this clause to satisfy the discussions that occurred with the Yukon Outfitters Association.
The time being 4:30, we'll take a 15-minute recess.
We will continue with clause-by-clause debate.
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: In providing a full answer on this whole clause, I will follow through by saying that this is an amended version of clause 39(1) of the old act. An outfitting business is essentially providing a guide to a person for hunting big game animals. In clause 38(2), this is new and makes an exception for special guides and people with big game guiding permits. A "special guide" is a Yukoner who takes a non-resident friend out hunting in the territory where there is no monetary gain involved. A big game guiding permit is created to allow guiding in areas not covered by an outfitting concession area. This type of permit would be used, for example, if there were a trophy hunt in a sanctuary to raise money for a conservation fund. Before such a hunt could occur, regulation changes would be required.
In clause 38(3), this is a new permit. The outfitter provisions of the new act reflect two principles: (1) to ensure personal accountability and responsibility for compliance with the act; and (2) to provide flexibility for outfitters to use corporations in operating their businesses. And I think this is reflecting back on the question previously asked by the Member for Klondike.
This new permit will enable outfitters to continue to use corporations if they want to do so. The outfitter or the outfitting corporation requires a permit to offer to provide guides. The permit is to be issued by the minister.
Subsection (4) is also new and identifies what is meant by "eligible corporation". When permitting for outfitting activities is being discussed, this permit was created so that an outfitter can run their outfitting business through a corporation.
Only an individual can hold an operating certificate, though. In subclause (5), this is again new and basically addresses the use of business names. At the request of the Outfitters Association, subclause (6) has been removed. That is the reason for the amendment. In subclause (7), if for some reason the outfitter does not have an operating certificate or a concession that is valid, the corporation cannot provide a guide. Further, the outfitter cannot provide a guide outside the permitted seasons for outfitting.
In the final subclause, this section is new and sets out the personal responsibility and liability of the outfitter for the actions of the corporation. This reinforces the themes of building an outfitting industry on the principles of (1) personal accountability and responsibility of concession holders; and (2) it is providing flexibility in how outfitters organize their individual corporations.
This whole clause was structured in consultation with the Outfitters Association's CEO. So, we are reflecting directly what we have heard through consultation, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Chair, I'm aware that there was much more discussion ensuing around this issue than what the minister has laid out on the floor of this Legislature. I'm also aware that the original two-step process has been now expanded to a three-step process, the purpose being to circumvent or negate the set-up of a corporation that would hold the guiding area and undertake the business. Basically, what the government is doing under the auspices of this act is transferring any liability and total responsibility to an individual from a corporation and attempting to suggest that the tax implications of the corporation structure will still exist. But, for the purposes of this act, the liability will flow directly to the individual who is the owner or director of this corporation.
Now, there are much simpler ways of doing it than are set out here, Mr. Chair and, at the end of the day, all we're going to accomplish under this legal framework is making wonderful opportunities for the law fraternity here in the Yukon to challenge many, many aspects of this act.
There are probably a number of lawyers currently out there who are ready to take a run at this, but Mr. Chair, you can't have it both ways. For the purpose of the act, the liability flows to the director or the owner, but the tax implications and ramifications the minister suggested will still be vested with the corporation. You can't have it both ways. It has got to either be a corporate structure or a proprietorship, which is the other way to operate a guiding concession - a sole proprietorship or something of that nature.
It's very interesting why this government is taking the direction they are, Mr. Chair. The taxation concerns that have been raised and brought to the minister's attention are very valid and serious concerns, because it's only going to take a matter of a short period of time for Revenue Canada to twig to the fact that the corporate structure over guiding is only there for what purpose, other than taxation? It used to be there to shield liability. That's not the case any longer.
So when the sole purpose of the corporate structure is not to shield taxes but to avoid taxes, Revenue Canada takes a very dim view of that approach. In fact, they will be descending with full force and weight on those individuals who operate these concessions, Mr. Chair.
I don't concur with what the minister has said. In fact, I disagree. In fact, I believe, once again, the minister's direction to the drafters of this act is such that it is going to come back to be one of the most contentious pieces of legislation in the Yukon, with the courts wandering all over the place looking for clear and concise definitions that do not exist, and looking for clear and decisive interpretations. The government is saying, "For the purpose of taxation, this is the way we look at the situation; for the purpose of the act, this is the way we look at it; for the purpose of liability that flows directly to the owner or the prime permit holder." You can't have it all those different ways. It can only be one way in law. That's usually the simplest way and the most direct way.
What I'm going to suggest to the minister is that he stick with a two-step simple approach and issue the certificate to an eligible corporation, and dispense with the extra layer of red tape, Mr. Chair. There is a complexity to it, there is a risk and there's an uncertainty associated with it, with a permit on top of a certificate. It doesn't have to be that way.
I would encourage the minister, Mr. Chair, to take the KISS approach. It works.
Clause 38 agreed to as amended
Mr. Fentie: A non-resident shall not hunt a big game animal unless the non-resident is accompanied by a guide provided by an outfitter - how does this reflect on transboundary First Nations?
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: If they are hunting under an aboriginal right, then they are not affected by this clause.
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, I do have a proposed amendment to this clause.
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: I move that Bill No. 48, entitled Wildlife Act, be amended in clause 41 on page 19 by adding the following subsection:
"(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in the circumstances prescribed by the regulations."
Chair: It has been moved by Mr. Eftoda that Bill No. 48, entitled Wildlife Act, be amended in clause 41 on page 19 by adding the following subsection:
Mr. Fentie: You know, Mr. Chair, it certainly brings to mind a question here when it comes to this legislation, as it did with the Parks and Land Certainty Act. We're amending stuff on the floor of this Legislature that says clearly that the original drafting of this legislation was not thought through by the minister. Now the minister is forced into amending the legislation he has brought to the floor of this House, which points to the fact that there is a lot of possibility and a likelihood that this legislation is much more flawed than we even can ascertain at this time, given the number of amendments that are coming forward. Furthermore, the French translation wasn't even completed. This is appearing more and more like very hastily drafted legislation that is going to get this territory into trouble.
Can I ask the minister why he is proceeding with this when he has this many amendments to bring forward at this late stage of this particular piece of legislation?
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, as I indicated when I tabled the amendments, most of the amendments are referring to corrections required through French translation. After this act was drafted, there was the opportunity for it to be reviewed by individuals of the public, and this is another amendment that was specifically requested by the Yukon Outfitters Association.
So, on one hand, the member opposite is accusing us of not following through on consultation. Well, Mr. Chair, this is one of those instances where we have followed through on a recommendation of an organization directly affected by this act.
With respect to the complexity of the previous act and what was continuously getting the government into trouble, it was being challenged in the courts and publicly chastized by judges trying to work and interpret the act. So, reorganizing and restructuring, after 25 years - I would commend the drafters for sorting it out in such a fashion that it now follows a logical progression, that it understands and puts into simple language the regulation and administrative aspects from the old act into the phase 1 aspect of this act.
As a matter of fact, the member opposite has, in second reading, agreed with this act. He stated in the House that he felt it was necessary that we do restructure it. He also acknowledged, a year ago, when it was indicated that we would be approaching the restructuring of the act in a three-phase manner and, again, the opposition thought it was a very good idea.
Even after the act is drafted as this act is now, there are some minor requirements to amend. I don't concur with the member opposite's assumption that the act apparently - As I understand it, this is a normal procedure and this happens when attempting to capture what was in the old act into a new format. So this amendment is the direct result of consultations with the public and it does provide in regulation certain circumstances that apply to clause 41(1).
Mr. Fentie: Well, we don't dispute the fact that the need to change the Wildlife Act was there. I think what I am pointing out is that normally consultation would have been done beforehand. When you have to make amendments like this, it is evident that the minister didn't do his job and allowed a hastily crafted act to come to the floor of this Legislature. The whole point of consultation is to solve these problems before the legislation comes to the floor of the Legislature.
We are quite concerned, given how the minister has blown the Parks and Land Certainty Act to create major-league land use conflict. We in the opposition simply want to be sure that this particular legislation, which impacts a great many Yukoners, is not as flawed as his previous piece of legislation that he was attempting to amend here on the floor of the Legislature. With that, we are prepared to carry forward.
Clause 41 agreed to as amended
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Proposed amendment
THAT Bill No. 48, entitled Wildlife Act, be amended in clause 72 on page 31 by deleting subsection 72(3) and substituting for it the following:
"(3) The term for which an outfitting concession may be issued is 10 years, except as provided for in sections 73 and 75.
"(4) The term for which a trapping concession may be issued is five years, except as provided for in sections 73 and 75."
Is there any discussion on clause 72?
Clause 72 agreed to as amended
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: I have a proposed amendment. I move
THAT Bill No. 48, entitled Wildlife Act, be amended in clause 73 on page 31 by deleting paragraph 73(4)(b) and substituting for it the following:
"(b) if the minister determines it is appropriate in the circumstances,
(i) issue an outfitting concession for the full term of 10 years in which case section 74 applies to the outfitting concession so issued, or
(ii) issue a trapping concession for a full term of five years in which case section 74 applies to the trapping concession so issued."
Chair: It has been moved by Mr. Eftoda that Bill No. 48, entitled Wildlife Act, be amended in clause 73 on page 31 by deleting paragraph 73(4)(b) and substituting for it the following:
Does the amendment carry?
Mr. Fentie: After reviewing the amendments and listening to the minister's response as this relates to the French translation, we are prepared to move that the remaining amendments in clauses 73, 74 and 75 can be deemed read and carried, so that we can expedite the business of the House.
Unanimous consent re: deeming amendments to clauses 73, 74 and 75 to be read and agreed to as amended
Chair: For us to do this, the amendments must be included in Hansard, so that there is a record of the proceedings, but this certainly can happen under the rules of the House. We need unanimous consent from the members of the House to have these amendments deemed read and carried and also included in Hansard. Do we have unanimous consent?
Chair: There is unanimous consent. The amendments can be deemed read and carried and clauses 73, 74 and 75 passed as amended.
Amendments to clauses 73, 74 and 75 deemed agreed to
Text of amendments to Bill No. 48 inserted
THAT Bill No. 48, entitled Wildlife Act, be amended in clause 74 on page 32 by deleting subsection 74(3) and substituting for it the following:
"(3) For the purposes of determining the expiry date of an outfitting concession or a trapping concession issued or re-issued for a term of more than one year, the concession shall be deemed to be issued or re-issued on April 1 of the year in which the issuance or re-issuance is made."
THAT Bill No. 48, entitled Wildlife Act, be amended in clause 74 on page 32 by deleting subsection 74(2) and substituting for it the following:
"(2) Upon receipt of an application under subsection (1), the minister may
(a) re-issue the outfitting concession for another term of 10 years, or for a lesser period as determined by the minister under subsection 75(1); or
(b) re-issue the trapping concession for another term of five years, or for a lesser period as determined by the minister under subsection 75(1)."
THAT Bill No. 48, entitled Wildlife Act, be amended in clause 75 on page 32 by deleting in subsection 75(1) the expression "The minister may re-issue an outfitting concession or a trapping concession for a term of less than five years, or refuse to re-issue the trapping concession or outfitting concession in whole or in part, where" and substituting for it the following:
"The minister may re-issue an outfitting concession for a term of less than 10years or a trapping concession for a term of less than five years, or refuse to re-issue an outfitting concession or trapping concession in whole or in part, if".
THAT Bill No. 48, entitled Wildlife Act, be amended in clause 75 on page 33 by deleting in subsection 75(3) the expression "Prior to re-issuing an outfitting concession or trapping concession for less than five years under subsection 74(2)," and substituting for it the following:
"Prior to re-issuing an outfitting concession for less than 10 years or a trapping concession for less than five years under subsection 74(2),".
Clauses 73, 74 and 75 deemed to have been read and agreed to as amended
Mr. Fentie: Mr. Chair, we are prepared to move that clauses 76 to 219 of the Wildlife Act, be deemed read and carried.
Chair: It has been moved by Mr. Fentie that clauses 76 to 219 of Bill No. 48, entitled Wildlife Act, be deemed read and carried.
Unanimous consent re deeming clauses 76 to 219 of Bill No. 48 being read and agreed to
Chair: We need unanimous consent. Do we have unanimous consent?
Clauses 76 to 219 deemed to have been read and agreed to
Chair: Since we have not been dividing clauses out, we will now go to clause 220.
On Clause 220
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: I move
THAT Bill Number 48, entitled Wildlife Act, be amended in paragraph 220(c) on page 90 in the English version only by deleting paragraph 220(c) and substituting for it the following:
"(c) the requirements for that particular species or population of wildlife for subsistence usage;"
Chair: It has been moved by the hon. Mr. Eftoda
Is there any discussion on the proposed amendment?
Mr. Fentie: Explanation on the change here.
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: The rationale for that is that (b) and (c) are repeated. It is purely a typographical error, so if you read (b) and (c) you will see that they are identical, and we are removing one of those.
Chair: Shall the amendment carry?
Clause 220 agreed to as amended
On Clause 221
Clause 221 agreed to
On Clause 222
Clause 222 agreed to
On Clause 223
Clause 223 agreed to
On Clause 224
Clause 224 agreed to
On Clause 225
Clause 225 agreed to
On Clause 226
Clause 226 agreed to
Clause 227 agreed to
On Clause 228
Clause 228 agreed to
On Clause 229
Clause 229 agreed to
On Clause 230
Clause 230 agreed to
On Clause 231
Clause 231 agreed to
On Clause 232
Clause 232 agreed to
On Clause 233
Clause 233 agreed to
On Clause 234
Clause 234 agreed to
On Clause 235
Clause 235 agreed to
Clause 236 agreed to
Clause 237 agreed to
On Clause 238
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the Member for Watson Lake for reminding us that there is an amendment there, so I will read the amendment.
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: I move:
THAT Bill No. 48, entitled Wildlife Act, be amended in clause 238 on page 101 by deleting clause 238 and substituting for it the following:
"238 The following section is added immediately after section 34 of the Environment Act
34.2 Sections 30 to 33 do not apply to the regulation of the Commissioner in Executive Council made under parts 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 13 of the Wildlife Act."
Mr. Chair, the rationale for this amendment is for the same reason that we had the similar amendment in the Parks and Land Certainty Act.
Mr. Fentie: A matter of clarity: the minister states the amendment for clause 238 on page 101. On our copy of the legislation, we are at page 95. Are we missing six pages?
Chair: You're right. I have noticed that.
Mr. Fentie: Ah ha. Another amendment coming, Mr. Chair.
Chair: I can substitute that. It's not going to change the law. So, I'll read this as changed.
It has been moved by Mr. Eftoda
THAT Bill No. 48, entitled Wildlife Act, be amended in clause 238 on page 95 by deleting clause 238 and substituting for it the following:
"238 The following section is added immediately after section 34 of the Environment Act.
34.2 Sections 30 to 33 do not apply to a regulation of the Commissioner in Executive Council made under parts 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 13 of the Wildlife Act."
Clause 238 agreed to as amended
On Clause 239
Clause 239 agreed to
THAT Bill No. 48, entitled Wildlife Act, be amended on the cover page and in the title on page 1 on the French side only by deleting the title Loi modifiant la Loi sur la faune and substituting for it the following title: Loi sur la faune.
Mr. Fentie: On this side of the House, we just simply could not understand what the minister was saying and, before we agree the amendment be deemed read and carried -
Chair: I still have the formality to do.
Title agreed to as amended
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: I want to thank the members opposite for attempting to understand what I was saying in the French translation, and I want to thank most wholeheartedly the Chair for showing me up. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I move that you report Bill No. 48, entitled Wildlife Act, out of Committee with amendment.
Chair: It has been moved by Mr. Eftoda that Bill No. 48, Wildlife Act, be reported out of Committee with amendment.
Chair: We'll take a five-minute recess to allow staff to change as we go to the Education Staff Relations Act.
Bill No. 47 - Education Staff Relations Act
Chair: We will start debate on Bill No. 47, entitled Education Staff Relations Act. Is there any general debate?
Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Chair, in general debate we are in support of the act as presented. The only area that we are concerned with is that substitute teachers are not included. Why is this glaring omission not being recognized and dealt with?
Mr. Fentie: Mr. Chair, though it's seldom that the NDP and the Yukon Party have a meeting of the minds, I have to concur with the leader of the third party. I think the act, in its entirety, is acceptable. It certainly is needed, given our recent history with the teachers and what the minister has gone through in the first-ever teachers' strike. We would hope that this would help to alleviate that.
But we too have concerns about substitute teachers and what their status is. If the minister could provide some indication about what is happening with substitute teachers, I think we can collectively move this along rapidly and clear this bill.
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: I do appreciate the questions on this issue from members opposite. Substitute teachers are employed on an as-needed basis for a short period of time, usually due to illness to replace teachers or paraprofessionals such as tutors, educational assistants and aboriginal language teachers. Substitute teachers are not cheap labour. Certified teachers who act as substitutes are paid $30.35 an hour. Non-certified substitute teachers are paid $18.89 an hour. The difference in pay is because certified substitute teachers provide a learning experience to students as opposed to non-certified teachers who basically provide supervision of classes.
It is worthy to note here that, after 10 consecutive days on the same assignment, substitute teachers are paid the same rate as bargaining unit members. Bargaining unit status of Yukon subs cannot be easily compared to the rest of Canada for the following reasons: in most jurisdictions, substitute teachers have to work between three and six months before being granted temporary employment status. Certified substitute teachers who receive a term assignment of over 30 days - for example, 30 plus one - become temporary teachers and become members of the bargaining unit.
Most jurisdictions require that substitutes be certified teachers and, in fact, they have to go through a job competition to be placed in the substitute teacher pool. In Yukon, there is no competitive process. Candidates are simply placed on an eligibility list and undergo a criminal record check. The ease of being a substitute teacher in Yukon is reflected in the statistics. From January to June 2001, 517 people were on the substitute list. Of these, 79 did not work, 64 worked for the equivalent of one month or more, and there were about three to four substitute teachers who worked almost on a daily basis.
Many uncertified teachers sub as educational assistants but are in the generic substitute teacher category. The statistics show that, while substitute teaching may be a supplementary form of income, very few work enough hours that substitute teaching can be considered a career or primary income source. They could be placed in a current bargaining unit or they would be required to undergo an organization drive, in which an interested union could participate. It would have to be determined if they would be placed in the YTA bargaining unit or in a different unit with a separate collective agreement. The latter decision would cause dissension between the YTA and whatever union were to represent the substitute teachers.
There are 654 YTA members - 517 teachers, 107 EAs and tutors and 31 aboriginal language teachers.
Unionizing 517 substitute teachers would create the largest bargaining unit of education employees in the Yukon. In effect, subs would have far more influence over bargaining outcomes than is justified by their employment relationship. Unionizing subs would create tensions in the YTA. The additional workload would strain the resources of YTA. There would be a daunting administrative challenge for the Public Service Commission as all subs would be covered by employer policies. In addition, subs would have access to the grievance procedure, meaning employees with the weakest employment relationship would overburden the grievance and litigation process.
The Yukon cannot mandate all the substitutes to be certified teachers as rural communities would not have qualified candidates. Costs would increase significantly, with little or no value added for the students.
Unionizing the substitutes would increase the bureaucracy in the Education department. Collective bargaining would be very difficult as subs would also be seeking greater parity with the mainstream of the YTA.
The issue of substitutes is complex. All stakeholders would have to be consulted with to see what changes there should be in the employment of substitute teachers. Other than ideological concerns, legitimate changes can be made through the regulations. The Public Service Commission has committed to continue discussions with the Yukon Teachers Association to seek answers to this complicated issue.
Mr. Fentie: Well, it seems to me that substitute teachers are vital. They're extremely important because, if a teacher falls ill or whatever other circumstances that may develop, what do we do? We need substitute teachers. I understand what the minister's trying to get to. However, is there not some way that we can encompass substitute teachers in the legislation to ensure that, at some point in the future, we won't run into a major problem by simply not having anybody willing to substitute? Is there any way the minister can commit to looking into how we can encompass substitute teachers along with temporaries and native language teachers and all the rest?
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: I appreciate the constructive criticism provided by the Member for Watson Lake. As I had indicated, though, I had just addressed the issue with respect that discussion will be taking place with the Yukon Teachers Association. I believe that this is the most appropriate way to go, recognizing the existing union.
Mr. Fentie: Well, I would urge the minister to try and find ways that we can manage the situation, given its complexity.
Another question for the minister: given the fact that he has just listed off who falls under the bargaining unit, which includes native language teachers - is that correct?
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: That's correct, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Fentie: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Is there any remuneration or benefits that native language teachers receive that are directly related to the bargaining unit and its negotiations with the employer?
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, I don't quite understand the question. They are part of the collective bargaining unit now, so they are acknowledged under the rates within the bargaining unit.
Mr. Fentie: Mr. Chair, along with the third party, we in the official opposition are prepared to deem this act read and carried to expedite the business of the House.
Chair: Mr. Fentie, before we do that, we'd also have to have the amendments deemed read and carried, as we had done earlier, with them going into Hansard. Would that be appropriate?
Chair: They're all in French.
Mr. Jenkins: That's fine.
Mr. Fentie: So, we have the French translation?
Unanimous consent re clauses 1 to 125 of Bill No. 47 being deemed read and agreed to
Chair: It has been moved by Mr. Fentie - we'll need unanimous consent here - that Bill No. 47, Education Staff Relations Act, be deemed read and carried with all of the amendments to be read into Hansard and deemed read and carried.
Chair: Do we have unanimous consent?
Text of amendments to Bill No. 47 inserted
THAT Bill No. 47, entitled Education Staff Relations Act, be amended in subclause 96(1) on page 54 in the French version only by deleting, in paragraph 96(1)(b), the expression rendues ou publiées and substituting for it the expression reV ues.
THAT Bill No. 47, entitled Education Staff Relations Act, be amended in clause 1 on page 1 in the French version only by deleting the definition of arbitrage d'un grief and substituting for it the following: "arbitrage d'un grief - Processus menant au règlement d'un grief en vertu de l'article 64. 'adjudication'."
THAT Bill No. 47, entitled Education Staff Relations Act, be amended in subclause 65(7) on page 39 in the French version only by deleting the preamble of subsection 65(7) and substituting for it the following: "(7) Lorsqu'un grief ne portant pas sur l'interprétation ou l'application d'une disposition d'une convention collective ou d'une décision arbitrale est renvoyé à l'arbitrage, l'arbitre doit:"
THAT Bill No. 47, entitled Education Staff Relations Act, be amended in subclause 95(2) on page 53 in the French version only by deleting subsection 95(2) and substituting for it the following: "La demande de révision ou d'annulation d'une décision ou d'une ordonnance peut être faite par l'employeur en collaboration avec l'agent négociateur ou toute partie concernée par la décision ou l'ordonnance, par dépôt d'un avis de la demande avant l'expiration d'un délai de dix jours suivant celui où la décision ou l'ordonnance a été d'abord transmise à l'employeur, à l'agent négociateur ou à cette autre partie par l'arbitre des griefs ou la Commission ou avant l'expiration du délai plus long que la Cour suprême ou l'un de ses juges peut fixer avant ou après l'expiration du délai de dix jours."
THAT Bill No. 47, entitled Education Staff Relations Act, be amended in subclause 96(1) on page 54 in the French version only by deleting paragraph 96(1)(a) and substituting for it the following: "(a) sont réputées avoir été reV ues le quatrième jour qui suit celui de leur mise à la poste, si elles sont envoyées par courrier recommandé à la dernière adresse connue de l'employeur, de l'agent négociateur ou d'une personne;".
Clauses 1 to 125 agreed to as amended
Hon. Mr. Eftoda: I move that Bill No. 47, entitled Education Staff Relations Act, be reported out of Committee with amendment.
Chair: It has been moved by Mr. Eftoda that Bill No. 47, entitled Education Staff Relations Act, be reported out of Committee with amendment.
Chair: I thought they were going to do a Monty Python and make you read every one of these.
I now call Committee of the Whole to order. We will proceed to Bill No. 39, An Act to Amend the Jury Act.
Bill No. 39 - An Act to Amend the Jury Act
Hon. Ms. Buckway: Just to remind people of the rationale behind this act, in 1998, changes in the Elections Act denied the sheriff access to the territorial voters list, and this was the primary source list used by the sheriff to create jury lists. Since the change to the Elections Act, the sheriff has been restricted to creating jury lists from telephone directories, property tax rolls and other limited sources. The sheriff needs more up-to-date and wide-reaching sources of information to compile jury lists.
The most exhaustive information available is what the sheriff needs access to. Even when the sheriff was able to use the territorial voters list, it was not a satisfactory source, as that is normally compiled every four years and does not contain the names of all individuals eligible to serve on a jury. The sheriff is bound by a constitutional requirement to compile jury lists that are representative of the population. Jury lists created from a comprehensive source will provide the courts with more assurance that a selected jury is representative of the population.
Given the limited jury pool in the Yukon, this amendment would allow the sheriff access to the most up-to-date and extensive information available.
Mr. Chair, I wouldn't like to see our sheriff doing what sheriffs in Moncton, New Brunswick, did, who headed out to a mall to shop for jurors last week. I would like our sheriff to have access to up-to-date government records in order to establish a panel of potential jurors, and this panel must be comprised of eligible citizens who can be randomly selected and are representative of the population at large.
All the information the sheriff needs is name, address and date of birth. Date of birth is needed to confirm that a potential juror is of the age of majority - 18 - as per section 4 of the Jury Act.
Mr. Chair, we went through this information in the previous session, so if the members opposite have questions, I will attempt to answer them.
Mr. Fentie: The official opposition doesn't support this bill whatsoever. There's no rationale to use the information kept by the Department of Health in this territory for the sheriff at all. In fact, there are ample examples where things like social insurance numbers, which were previously used for health care, were disallowed. There are all kinds of examples - when Revenue Canada asked if more information could be given out on any personal matter, people are entitled to say no, they don't want any more information given out.
Quite frankly, this territory has never had a problem compiling jurors. We have a phone book, and I think the sheriff can compile a list of potential jurors right off the phone book without accessing information that he simply does not need to have access to.
So, we do not support this bill whatsoever, and would urge the minister to stand down this legislation. It's not needed.
Hon. Ms. Buckway: The information that the sheriff requires is name, address and date of birth. The sheriff already has access to the Yukon health care insurance recipient list, in order to serve people with documents. Access to this list for the sole purpose of compiling a jury list would not give the sheriff any more information than name, address and date of birth. He'll only be allowed limited access to these records for those three things - name, address and date of birth of prospective jurors from the source documents, which would include the Yukon health care insurance recipient list.
Many other jurisdictions allow this, Mr. Chair. It should not be a difficulty, and I would hope that the members opposite can see their way clear to support it in order that the sheriff can have access to an up-to-date and reliable source list of prospective jurors, so that our ability to ensure fair and representative jury selection is not compromised.
Mr. Fentie: Well, Mr. Chair, we in the opposition simply cannot buy that argument because it doesn't hold any water. Other jurisdictions do many things. That doesn't mean the Yukon has to follow suit. Alberta is moving to two-tier health care. That doesn't mean that the Yukon has to follow that approach. I think that there is very little need for this legislation. There are certainly ways for the sheriff to compile an eligible jurors list without delving into further personal information. I would point out, Mr. Chair, that Yukoners, though small in number, are very, very keen on ensuring that they protect their privacy.
Now, Mr. Chair, it is suspect here as to whether that privacy is going to be protected to the fullest extent that Yukoners want to see happen, and I point out again that there is already a ready-made list that the sheriff can access to begin working on compiling an eligible jurors list. It's the phone book. Let's use that and get this legislation off the floor. It's simply not a required piece of legislation.
Hon. Ms. Buckway: The telephone book is not comprehensive and may not be up to date. The sheriff already has access to the Yukon health care insurance recipient list for other purposes. The sheriff does not have access to all the fields in that database. All he needs access to is name, address and date of birth, Mr. Chair. That is all.
Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Chair, I rise in absolute disgust at the minister's opinion that this is not a bad act, that in fact it's a good act that's going to serve the purpose of justice. It's also quite an invasion of privacy - an invasion of privacy that has been dealt with previously.
Now, the purpose of generating Yukon health care information is for the sole purpose of health care. The minister went on to say that the sheriff currently has access to the recipient list. I'd like to know how that happened, Mr. Chair.
I can remember, Mr. Chair, when Yukon health care was first initiated in the Yukon and the social insurance numbers of all recipients were the basis of registration under Yukon health care. That was found to be an invasion of privacy, and Yukon health care was instructed to not use SIN numbers, to generate their own numbers, and they subsequently did so as a consequence of this invasion of privacy.
Mr. Chair, we have to look at the voters list here in the Yukon. The voters list is what the sheriff has used previously - in some respects for jury purposes. Once again, that was deemed to be an inappropriate use of the voters list, and they were precluded from using the voters list for the purposes of assembling a jury. The voters list was not assembled for that purpose.
Now, let's examine the information that the minister is requesting from the Yukon health care statistics - name, date of birth and residence. Sounds simple and unobtrusive enough, but let's recognize that a voters list - if you want to look at the surface of it - would be more appropriate, in that you have to be able to be on a voters list to serve on a jury.
There are a lot of individuals covered by Yukon health care who cannot vote here in the Yukon or any other place in Canada. They are either citizens of another country or have landed immigrant status, yet are covered by Yukon health care. So how are we going to deal with this area? We have to go further into the database to determine whether they can indeed vote or be allowed to vote here in Canada.
With every corner you turn, there is a further invasion into the privacy of Yukoners under this proposed Jury Act - because I believe that is an invasion of privacy.
I deem it to be very, very poor legislation, unnecessary legislation, unwarranted legislation, and the minister is just buying into a departmental request without doing her job, Mr. Chair. Her job is to ask a series of questions as to why it is needed, and to ask questions of others. The obvious question that comes to mind: if the voters list were deemed to be an appropriate source of information for the sheriff, why would Yukon health care be better, and why was the sheriff denied access to the voters list?
Mr. Chair, the voters list exists on many databases. You can go on the Net and pick it up from any one of a number of parties, and it includes riding, name and address. It doesn't include date of birth, mind you, but to be on a voters list you have to be of a certain age; to be covered by Yukon health care, you do not. In fact, you do not even have to be a voter to be covered by Yukon health care.
You can have any one of a number of status here in the Yukon that the minister has failed to recognize, Mr. Chair. She has just gone willy-nilly along the road of accepting the information laid before her, without any respect for the privacy of Yukoners.
Now, I am sure at the end of the day this act, given the tremendous majority that this Liberal government has currently under this mandate - that will change under subsequent mandates, Mr. Chair - that there is going to be a challenge. Why not avoid this challenge? Take the high road. Take a professional approach as a minister, rather than just accepting, verbatim, the information given to her desk or provided to her desk that indicates that this is necessary.
Now, the suggestion was to use the phone book. That is probably a very good suggestion. There is one section in the phone book that is probably not well assembled and not well put together, and that is the government blue pages, so they would have to avoid that section. But, seeing that government can't vote, it doesn't really matter. What we are really looking at is individuals who have the right to vote under current legislation and who can serve on a jury.
Now, I've seen juries assembled outside of Whitehorse and in Whitehorse, and it's sometimes difficult, sometimes it's not, but it takes some initiative on the part of the Minister of Justice to protect the privacy of Yukoners. Mr. Chair, the privacy of Yukoners is protected by federal legislation. Why not avoid a challenge?
Chair: It has been moved by Mr. Jenkins that we do now report progress.
Mr. McLachlan: Mr. Chair, I move that the Speaker do now resume the Chair.
Mr. McLarnon: Mr. Speaker, Committee of the Whole has considered Bill No. 46, entitled Parks and Land Certainty Act, and directed me to report it with amendment.
Committee of the Whole has considered Bill No. 48, entitled Wildlife Act, and directed me to report it with amendment.
Committee of the Whole has considered Bill No. 47, entitled Education Staff Relations Act, and directed me to report it with amendment.
Committee of the Whole has considered Bill No. 39, An Act to Amend the Jury Act, and directed me to report progress on it.
The following Sessional Papers were tabled November 27, 2001
01-2-112
Yukon Child Care Board 2000-01 Annual Report (Roberts)
01-2-113
Parks and Land Certainty Act: proposed amendments (Fairclough)