Whitehorse, Yukon
Wednesday, May 29, 1991 - 1:30 p.m.
Speaker: I will now call the House to order. At this time, we will proceed with Prayers.
Prayers
DAILY ROUTINE
Tribute to Frank Ursich, Retiring Sergeant-at-Arms
Speaker: Prior to proceeding with the daily routine, I would like to take a moment to put on the record our appreciation for the work Frank Ursich has done as Sergeant-at-Arms. As Members are aware, Mr. Ursich is retiring at the conclusion of this session.
He began as our Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms in 1979, and was appointed Sergeant-at-Arms in November of 1987. From the Chair, I would like to thank him for all the service he has provided. I would also wish him and his wife, Peg, all the best in their retirement years and trust that they will drop in to see us every now and then.
Hon. Mr. Penikett: I wonder if I could take a minute to join you in your tribute to our retiring Sergeant-at-Arms. As all Members know, Frank Ursich was a veteran who had served our country, and he served this Legislature well, lending dignity to proceedings that did not always demonstrate it. Much as I strive to be a fashion plate, I know I could never, ever get my gloves as white or my shoes as black as Frank was able to get his. That is something to emulate.
We do appreciate the work done by the officers of the House and I want to express thanks on behalf of all Members on this side of the House for the time and the valuable service that Frank Ursich has given us.
Mr. Lang: I would also like to thank, on behalf of Members on this side of the House, Frank, and wish Peg and Frank Ursich all of the best in the their retirement. As we all know, Frank and Peg have provided many services to the community, especially in the sports community where Frank was very prominent in softball. His presence in the House, as the Government Leader has indicated, has helped calm the debates at times. We do appreciate the work that the officers of the House do.
Mr. Speaker, you indicated that you would like to see Peg and Frank drop in to see us now and again in their retirement. As I indicated the other day, I hope, and I am sure all other Members hope that sometime we will be able to drop in to see them during the winter months, down south in the Lower 48. As I indicated the other day when Frank was here, we will be there one day, knocking on his door.
I want to join with the Government Leader and all other Members in sending our best regards for a very happy retirement.
Applause
Speaker: We will proceed with the Order Paper.
Introduction of Visitors.
Are there any Returns or Documents for Tabling?
TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I have one legislative return.
Hon. Mr. Penikett: I have for tabling a legislative return.
Hon. Mr. Webster: I have for tabling a number of legislative returns, as well as some information on contracts as requested in Written Question No. 4.
Hon. Ms. Hayden: I have for tabling some information on contracts that has been requested.
Hon. Ms. Joe: I have for tabling one legislative return.
Speaker: Are there any Reports of Committees?
Petitions.
PETITIONS
Petition No. 9
Mr. Nordling: I have a petition for tabling that has been circulated over the past few weeks by the Yukon Humane Society. The reason the petition was circulated was to let the Minister know that not only the society but the public as well would like to see a new animal protection legislation. Promises made by the Minister and his department last year in February and May mislead the Humane Society, the public and the House into thinking that a decision had been made. We were lead to believe that new legislation would be presented and that it was a priority and would be introduced this spring.
This petition contains over 1,000 names and there are still more to come in from the rural areas.
The petition reads as follows: “To the Yukon Legislative Assembly:
Whereas the criminal code is now the law used for prosecution of animal cruelty within our courts and is deficient; therefore, we the undersigned ask the Yukon Legislative Assembly to enact new animal protection legislation and urge priority be given to this matter."
Speaker: Introduction of Bills.
Notices of Motion for the Production of Papers.
Are there any Notices of Motion?
Are there any Statements by Ministers?
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
Inaugural Meeting of the Northern Forum
Hon. Mr. Penikett: I want to inform the House this afternoon of plans to participate in the inaugural meeting of the Northern Forum, to be held in Anchorage May 30 and 31, 1991.
Honourable Members will recall that I spoke to the House during the last sitting about the plans to create this permanent forum, which will involve regional governments, aboriginal peoples, and other groups from circumpolar nations.
This forum was endorsed by our government and other governments in Canada, the United States, Scandinavia, and the Soviet Union who attended the Northern Regions Conference in Anchorage last fall.
Since then, the State of Alaska, which was charged with organizing the first meeting, has developed proposals for the structure and organization of the forum. Governor Walter Hickel has invited circumpolar representatives back to Anchorage to consider these proposals.
As I have suggested, the meeting will be organizational and will involve a discussion of membership and bylaws of this circumpolar forum. Projects that could be undertaken by this new organization on a priority basis will also be considered.
The meeting will be attended by representatives from Scandinavia, the Soviet Union, Japan, Korea and China, as well as the Northwest Territories, the Province of Alberta and the State of Washington.
This representation reflects the range of interest in the Northern Forum. I believe that it bodes well for the future of a regional council that can bring together peoples who live in the circumpolar region to discuss common interests and work toward common solutions.
As I indicated to the House last fall, the forum will complement an Arctic council of circumpolar nations, which has been proposed by Canada and will be formally presented at a meeting in Rovanemi, Finland next month.
The challenges and opportunities facing northerners are vast. They range from environmental and economic concerns to technological, social and cultural matters. A Northern Forum of circircumpolar peoples, with links to an Arctic council involving national governments, will be a valuable way of sharing northern ideas and experiences for our common benefit.
I look forward to a productive meeting that will launch the Northern Forum in Anchorage tomorrow, and I will report back to the House on its continuing efforts to bring together circumpolar peoples to work for our common future.
Speaker: This then brings us to Question Period.
QUESTION PERIOD
Question re: Land claims, overlapping
Mr. Phelps: I have some questions for the Minister responsible for land claim negotiations with regard to overlapping claims and specifically the claim by the Gwich’in tribal council in the Northwest Territories over land in northern Yukon. This morning we heard that the federal government had agreed to give the Gwich’in council of the Northwest Territories control over 600 square miles in the Yukon, and this agreement would be finalized in Yellowknife next week. I am wondering if the Minister can confirm this.
Hon. Mr. Penikett: Given the news reports, let me say that I am not at all surprised by the Leader of the Official Opposition’s question. Let me say as clearly as I possibly can that the Yukon territorial government has not agreed to the Tetlin Gwich’in receiving 600 miles of land in the Yukon, nor were we present at any meeting where such an agreement was made.
Mr. Phelps: Can the Minister tell us where we go from here?
Hon. Mr. Penikett: I understand that a spokesperson for the Gwich’in tribal council has made comments in the media that would seem to indicate that his group has made a bilateral agreement with the federal government involving neither the Government of the Yukon Territory nor the First Nations of this area. If that is the case, we would take profound offense to that development. As the Leader of the Official Opposition knows, I have already communicated to the federal Minister, in the strongest possible terms, our view that negotiations for....
Speaker: Order please, would the Minister please conclude his answer.
Hon. Mr. Penikett: ...First Nations must be done at the negotiating table with the Yukon government a full party. We are prepared to negotiate in good faith, but we are not prepared to stand idly by and see the federal government make arrangements with a non-resident group for land in the Yukon without our being there.
Mr. Phelps: Has our government confirmed that this deal has been made behind our backs, with regard to this large area in the Yukon?
Hon. Mr. Penikett: To assure the Member on that score, let me say that we have had no communication from the federal government that such an arrangement has been made. On a number of occasions, the federal Minister has indicated that he is supportive of the claim of the Tetlin Gwich’in. Although I have not seen the actual text of the remarks, I understand that a representative of the federal Minister - a senior official of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs - has issued a statement that tends to contradict Mr. Hagen’s view and tends to confirm the view that this is a matter that ought to be dealt with at the negotiating table, not in a bilateral deal.
Question re: Land claims, overlapping
Mr. Phelps: Such a bilateral agreement would start to unravel any chance of settlement of the Yukon claim, in our view, partly because key areas of the Yukon are presently under claim by extra-territorial native groups, as well as Yukon Indians.
Can the Minister advise us whether or not the federal Cabinet has adopted a new policy different from the one that was in effect during the 1984 negotiations? Have they come out with a firm policy regarding overlapping claims? Do we know what their policy is?
Hon. Mr. Penikett: Having heard from many Yukoners on this question, I know that there would be great anger felt in this territory if, after 18 years of negotiations here, the only groups that received satisfaction to their claims were non-resident groups. That would produce a very strong negative reaction in this community, which would compromise negotiations here and severely damage relations with all the groups with whom we want to negotiate in good faith.
The Leader of the Official Opposition asked a question about federal policy. As he knows, a new federal policy emerged following a review by Mr. Coolican of the approach to overlap negotiations. From previous exchanges in this House, the Leader of the Official Opposition knows that policy did supersede the one that was in effect in 1984.
What we do not know are the exact terms of the negotiating mandate of the federal government, because, on a number of occasions, we have...
Speaker: Order, please. Will the Minister please conclude his answer.
Hon. Mr. Penikett: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely important subject, and I am trying to provide the House with as full information as possible.
We have received at times contradictory information or signals from the federal negotiators in the Northwest Territories and the federal negotiators here as to exactly what the federal mandate is on this question.
Mr. Phelps: As the Minister knows, I have written to the federal Minister responsible, Mr. Siddon, putting forward our views that, in no uncertain terms, land should not be granted as part of the settlement to extra-territorial Indian groups for claims within Yukon - in other words, supporting the previous policy and the policy that this government had adopted.
I wonder if the Minister would undertake to keep us abreast of the battle plan of this government should it appear that this first treacherous step is about to be taken by the federal government, namely, to undermine our claim by granting a bilateral agreement for land in the Yukon to an extra-territorial group.
Hon. Mr. Penikett: I thank the Member for the question. I have previously indicated to him in private that I am prepared to provide briefs to him about negotiations on this question, and I am prepared to make an undertaking today, in this House, to continue to do so at his convenience.
Question re: McPherson subdivision school
Mr. Devries: I have a question for the Minister of Education and Government Services regarding the proposed MacPherson school. I would like to know the anticipated capacity of the proposed school, according to the latest plans - which seem to change once in a while.
Hon. Mr. McDonald: The north highway school is anticipated to house approximately 150 students, ranging from kindergarten to grade six.
Mr. Devries: Could the Minister tell us the number of students identified in the attendance area? Will all the students within that area be able to attend the McPherson school when it is completed?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: As I am sure the Member knows, the Department of Education’s policy is to bus students both to Catholic schools and to the French immersion program and to the l’Ecole Emilie Tremblay school. With the exception of those students, all students who come from the north Alaska Highway area and the Mayo Road area, who fall within the grade ranges K to 6, would attend this school.
Mr. Devries: I understand an additional two rooms were recommended originally and concern has been expressed that some of the rural students will be shuffled to various Whitehorse schools due to this facility not being large enough. Will the Minister assure this House that this will not happen?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I have not heard the concern from any quarter that the school currently being designed for the north highway area is too small. I believe the design incorporated some room for expansion; consequently, I would be exceedingly surprised - and so would the department - if the school to be built proved to be too small to handle the students who are currently anticipated to come from the north Alaska Highway and the Mayo Road areas.
Question re: Fish hatchery
Mr. Phillips: I have a question for the Minister of Economic Development regarding the Whitehorse fish hatchery. Our debating whether or not the hatchery will remain open the following year seems to be an annual occurrence.
Last year, this uncertainty was going to be solved when the Yukon Development Corporation took over the hatchery. The operation of the facility was saved last year by the economic development agreement, the Yukon Development Corporation and the Yukon conservation strategy fish program.
The Department of Renewable Resources said that the funds received last year would allow time for the federal Minister of Fisheries to declare the facility a mitigative hatchery. That way, Yukon Development Corporation could operate the hatchery in the future. I understand that earlier this spring the federal Minister declared the hatchery a mitigative facility.
Will the Minister give a commitment to this House that this facility will be open again this year?
Hon. Mr. Byblow: For a minute I thought I might get a question period shutout for a rare occasion.
I am somewhat familiar with the issue the Member raises. It is a little bit more complicated than giving a blanket assurance of continued operation. Yukon Energy Corporation will provide every form of assistance that is necessary and that is similar to what was provided last year to maintain the facility at the fish ladder.
I understand that the federal Minister is considering assigning the hatchery the status of designated hatchery, in which case funding would flow under the Fisheries Act. That has not occurred yet. We hope that it will occur. In the meantime we are prepared to support continued operation of the facility as we did last year.
Mr. Phillips: I have a letter from the Minister of Fisheries, addressed to another federal MP, that said that he met with Mr. Webster earlier this year and at that time he had provided Mr. Webster with a letter that gives a formal designation to the Whitehorse rapids fish hatchery as a mitigation measure.
Is the Minister now saying that the fish hatchery is no longer going to be declared a mitigation hatchery and that it is now going to be operated by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans as a standard fish hatchery?
Hon. Mr. Byblow: I am not clear on the separation between recognition of the hatchery as a designated site for mitigative action versus the designation of the site as being earmarked for mitigative action. We have not had an official designation of the hatchery under the Fisheries Act.
That only affects the problem of funding under the Fisheries Act. In the meantime, the hatchery will remain open and will be operated by Fisheries, and we will provide assistance similar to last year. If necessary, we will seek additional required funding under the EDA. We have not had the hatchery officially designated, as required under the Fisheries Act.
Mr. Phillips: In the first week of June, 250,000 fry from that hatchery are going to be released into Michie Creek and other Yukon waters. On June 6, at the Whitehorse Fish Ladder, 50,000 fry are going to be released and, on June 8, 50,000 more tagged chinook will be released in Wolf Creek. This hatchery is very important to the Wolf Creek and Yukon River system.
The Minister has left us with a bit of confusion here. He said the Department of Fisheries will run the hatchery. Last year, the Department of Fisheries did not run the hatchery. Last year, the Fish and Game Association ran the hatchery.
Speaker: Order please. Would the Member please get to the supplementary question.
Mr. Phillips: The Yukon Fish and Game Association ran the hatchery for the Yukon Development Corporation. Is the Minister saying that is going to change next year, that the hatchery will be open, but the Yukon Development Corporation will have nothing to do with it, but it will be the Department of Fisheries that will be operating that hatchery?
Hon. Mr. Byblow: I believe I did create some confusion. Let me clarify the situation. The best world would be for the site to be properly designated under the Fisheries Act as a site for mitigative action. That would permit the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to operate the hatchery and have the funds to do it. That is my understanding.
The Member is correct that the Fish and Game Association managed it last year, when Fisheries and Oceans withdrew its funding. The Member probably recalls much better than I the complicated arrangements that were put in place last year to maintain the facility.
My information to the Member is that the Yukon Development Corporation will commit itself to providing a similar form of assistance as last year to permit the same form of management as last year but, ultimately, we are anticipating ...
Speaker: Order please. Would the Minister please conclude his answer.
Hon. Mr. Byblow: ... DFO to properly designate the site under the Fisheries Act, and it will then be funded as required.
Question re: Faro strike, social assistance for workers
Mr. Lang: Yesterday, the Member for Riverdale North asked for information with respect to a new policy that had been adopted by the Government of Yukon. The policy I am referring to is the policy that was adopted on April 2, where the government stated that it was prepared to pay, through the social assistance program, people who are on strike. Yesterday, we finally received a copy of the document. I should note that we asked questions of the Minister on May 8 and 9 about contingency plans for the strike situation in Faro. The Minister never indicated to this House that they had accepted the policy that social assistance would be paid to people, under certain circumstances, on strike.
I want to ask the Minister why she did not announce this, as the government normally would, but hid this major policy change from the general public.
Hon. Ms. Hayden: I trust the question was asked of me. This policy was not created specifically for the strike in Faro. As I indicated yesterday - or I thought I had - all of the policies of the department have been undergoing review, and the review of this particular policy began sometime in the early part of this year. I know it is hard to believe that it was coincidential that it happened on April 2, 1991, but there it is. It is part of an overall review of policies in health and social services. I was aware that we had a temporary-hardship policy, but there has been a temporary-hardship policy within the overall policies since 1980, and it is available. Perhaps it has not been named that specific name, but it has been there since 1980 and is available to all people in the territory.
Mr. Lang: With all due respect to the House, it really is hard to believe the response we received. When there is a major policy decision made by this government, it is normal government policy to announce it to the general public. I asked the Minister specifically why she kept this policy hidden. The taxpayer now assumes the primary responsibility, through the social assistance program, for paying those people on strike as opposed to the primary responsibility being that of the union, which was the policy in 1980.
I want to know from the Minister why she did not announce it. Why did we have to play cloak and daggers to this point and finally ask for it? I want to know why she did not announce it as general policy?
Hon. Ms. Hayden: As I said, this is not a new policy. Had it been some new policy, it certainly would have been announced. As I read from the old 1980 policy, it talks about exceptional circumstances where a union or individual is unable to prevent eviction. If no other sources of income or assets are available, social assistance staff, through their supervisor, will submit details of the case to the Deputy Minister for a decision, then they are allowed to pay rent. When the strike began and the request came from the social worker, permission was given to administer the special hardship policy. This is not new; it has been used throughout this year for transients who have come into the territory.
Mr. Lang: How can the Minister, in all sincerity, stand in her place and tell us there is nothing new between the policy of 1980 and the policy of 1991? I would recommend she read both policies and compare them. It definitely takes the responsibility for payment from the union, any union, and gives it to the taxpayers.
Speaker: Order please.
Mr. Lang: I want to ask the Minister why she did not announce this major significant policy change to the general public? Why did she keep it hidden?
Hon. Ms. Hayden: The original policy dealt with social assistance benefits payable when the usual source of income is suspended by reason of a strike or a lock-out. The revised policy maintains this criteria; it is simply shortened, clarified and made easier to read. It goes from about five pages down to two.
It is available to everybody in the territory. It has been available...
Some Hon. Member: It took three weeks to get it.
Hon. Ms. Hayden: Yes, it did take me that long to get it, I agree with that. But, I was not hiding it from the Members.
Question re: Faro strike
Mrs. Firth: It is a coincidence that on April 2 this new policy was developed, and then on April 5 the workers went out on strike at Faro. It is also interesting that this four-page, old policy, which says the onus is on the union to take care of people on strike, has been changed to this one page that says people in industrial disputes are not eligible for social assistance. Then this new policy is added, which says persons involved in industrial disputes are eligible for social assistance.
That is a major change. Essentially, it causes the public purse to pay for people who are on strike. That is what is happening at Faro - 15 families, and more coming. I hear the lineup gets longer every day.
Let us deal with facts. To save the Minister from standing up and telling us we are squeezing the strikers, we are doing all sorts of bad things and do not care about people in need, that is not the case. I will save her the time of saying that. We just want to deal with the policy question and the issue of the government’s policy.
I would like to ask the Minister: who was responsible for developing this new policy? Was it the Minister’s department; did she do it in conjunction with the union in Faro; was it done in conjunction with the Member for Faro; did Cabinet do it?
Speaker: Order, please. Would the Member please get to the question?
Mrs. Firth: I am in the middle of a question, Mr. Speaker. I am asking who developed this new policy? Whose idea was it?
Hon. Ms. Hayden: The Member can take as many potshots as she likes at me; that is fair game. But when one begins to impute the integrity of the department, I find that not acceptable. As I understand it, this policy was being worked on when I became Minister. It was not a brand-new policy - I had to laugh when I saw the date, April 2, I have to admit. There is nothing in our policy that says that because a union worker is on strike and is about to be evicted or has no food, they cannot receive funds. This policy was developed through the department, as are all other policies - reviewed, revamped, redone, turned into plain English.
Mrs. Firth: The Minister is really being melodramatic. These people are not going without food and shelter. They have strike pay. No one is questioning the integrity of her department. I am asking her to defend her policy. Who made the policy? That is what we want to know. We are concerned about the policy’s fairness and that it is being implemented fairly. That is all. Would the Minister just tell us how this policy was arrived at. Why was this change in policy necessary?
Hon. Ms. Hayden: I know that it was not changed just for the strike, but when and how it was changed I will have to take as notice.
For the information of the Member, strike pay runs somewhere, I am told, between $80 and $100 a week. If you have a family with children and rent to pay, food and school supplies to buy, you need help. There have been families that have received food vouchers or rent vouchers in Faro and other communities in this territory under the hardship policy.
Mrs. Firth: It is interesting that the Minister is responsible for the department, yet she does not know when or why the change was made. She has not answered that for us today. The policy is very vague. We do not know whether or not the policy is being implemented fairly.
The Minister gasps. We have people calling us saying that they are not getting this and others are. We are interested in the issue of fairness. Who makes the final decision as to who is eligible and who is not? The policy is extremely vague.
Hon. Ms. Hayden: The temporary hardship policy is determined on a case-by-case basis with the social worker who is in charge. The department has a two-tiered appeal process that is available to all people of the territory. People may go through that process if they feel they are being treated unfairly.
I have only heard of one instance of someone who made an application and it was felt they were not dealing squarely with the department. The social worker on site makes the decision, but there certainly is an appeal process.
Question re: Faro strike, social assistance for workers
Mr. Phelps: The Minister responsible for Economic Development has recently said, time and time again in this House, that YTG cannot get involved in trying to solve the strike at Faro, because it cannot interfere. At the same time, when the strike was commencing, we suddenly have a change in policy whereby this government is going to pay the strikers welfare. It is a new policy that just happens to be announced when this strike is commencing.
I submit that the Minister cannot run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. Will the Minister tell us whether or not he feels this is interference in the strike: paying money to the strikers?
Hon. Mr. Penikett: I do enjoy it when the Leader of the Official Opposition gets up and asks questions, demonstrating great, synthetic emotion.
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)
Hon. Mr. Penikett: If we get five-sentence preambles, we cannot respond to them quickly.
I enjoy it when the Member for Riverdale South says they do not oppose the policy, but everything we have heard today indicates there is a fundamental anti-union attitude by the Members opposite. It is very interesting.
For the record, the two policies are as follows. In 1980, it says the director may authorize social assistance benefits for persons whose usual source of income from employment is suspended by reason of a strike or a lock-out, provided there is no other source of income, funds or assets available.
The 1991 policy says ...
Speaker: Order please. Would the Minister please conclude his answer.
Hon. Mr. Penikett: ... that in cases of undue hardship, strikers may be assisted under the temporary hardship policy. I would like the Members opposite to tell me in what substantial way do these two policies differ? Let us quit cowering over there, hiding behind the bushes. What is their position? Are they opposed to workers, who are on strike, who do not have the rent or enough money for food, receiving social assistance?
Speaker: Order please.
Mr. Phelps: Speaking about cowering and hiding behind bushes, the Government Leader jumped up to defend his learned colleague, who, it appears, is not too eager to enter the debate.
Why was this new policy announced at the time that the strike began?
Hon. Mr. Penikett: Given the normal criticism about how slowly government works, I am sure the Member will know the answer to that himself. The Minister has already said that the proclamation was a coincidence; it was a policy that had been under development for months.
Unless the Member is prepared to say otherwise, I believe she is obliged to accept the word of the Minister on that question.
If the Members are saying that they do not believe it, let them stand on their feet and say so. Do not let them do as they sometimes do, where they impute motives to Members or allege, by implication, that there is some wrongdoing without coming right out and saying so.
This policy does not substantially differ from the policy in 1980...
Speaker: Order, please. Would the Minister please conclude his answer.
Hon. Mr. Penikett: It is interesting that the Conservative Party in Opposition is now prepared to disavow a policy that they took when they were in government.
Mr. Phelps: It is an interesting point of logic that the Minister wants to try and have this House cling to and believe.
If there is no change in the policy, why did they announce a new policy when the strike began?
Hon. Mr. Penikett: The Minister has already explained that it is not a new policy. She explained that the policy is being cleaned up, clarified and the language improved.
If we made a policy statement every time the language in a policy statement was improved, the House would have to be sitting a great long time.
The Member opposite is still managing to hide in the weeds. I would like to know from him, are they disavowing the policies that they had in 1980? Are they saying that the people who happen to be involved in industrial dispute should face eviction and not be able to feed their families? Is that the position of the Conservative Party in 1991?
Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh.
Speaker: Order, please.
Question re: Alcoholism treatment
Mr. Nordling: The government side seems quite sensitive about this policy of theirs.
I have a question for the Minister of Health and Social Services. On May 16, 1991, I asked the Minister about services for young people who are hooked on alcohol and drugs. On May 22, 1991, I received a response in the form of a legislative return, stating that with respect to treatment, an alcohol and drug services counsellor goes to Na Dli every two weeks. There is an awareness group and ADS provides individual counselling.
My understanding is that this teen group is dormant, and the therapy at ADS has a four-month waiting period. In essence, if you are a young person and need treatment, the thing to do is to get committed to Na Dli and see a counsellor every two weeks.
I would like to ask the Minister if she considers this level of treatment adequate and if she does not, what is she doing about it?
Hon. Ms. Hayden: I am also concerned about the waiting list at ADS. Two auxiliary staff are being recruited, and I hope that they have been hired by this time. I do not know that yet for sure; I have not asked recently. I am told that there is considerable hope that those two additional employees will help to alleviate the waiting list and allow the staff more time to provide the services that are needed in this territory.
Mr. Nordling: I would like to ask the Minister if she or her department have any plans for a residential treatment centre for young people in the Yukon?
Hon. Ms. Hayden: If the Member is speaking about a residential alcohol treatment centre, there are no plans that I am aware of.
Mr. Nordling: To assist the Minister, there is the Crossroads alcohol treatment facility, but they do not take young people, and right now we are sending these young people outside of the Yukon.
A residential treatment centre here in the Yukon is warranted and would be helpful. Without proper treatment and counselling, young offenders end up incarcerated here in the Yukon. According to a March 1990 report, called “Young Offender Custodial Key Indicator Report”, the Yukon incarcerates young people at a rate that is five times the national average. I would like to know if the Minister is aware of that and if her department is investigating the possibility of doing anything about that.
Hon. Ms. Hayden: I, too, read the statistics in the story in the paper. I am dismayed by them. I asked some questions about them.
To put it into context, we are talking about 21 young people. This is still 21 too many, as far as I am concerned. Statistically, this is appallingly high. We certainly are looking at talking to First Nations and seeing what kind of programs can be put in place and doing some ongoing work along this line.
I agree that these are not statistics we want to see in this territory.
Speaker: The time for Question Period is now lapsed.
Unanimous consent to proceed directly to Government Business and to debate Motion No. 1 under Motions Respecting Committee Reports
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Pursuant to the discussions held between the House Leaders, I would request the unanimous consent of the House to go immediately into government business, rather than proceeding with Private Member’s business.
Further, I would request unanimous consent to deal with Committee Report Motion No. 1 sometime later today.
Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
All Hon. Members: Agreed
Speaker: Unanimous consent has been granted. We will now proceed with Orders of the Day.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I move that the Speaker do now leave the Chair and that the House resolve into Committee of the Whole.
Speaker: It has been moved by the Hon. Government House Leader that the Speaker do now leave the Chair and that the House resolve into Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to
Speaker leaves the Chair
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Deputy Chair: Committee of the Whole will now come to order.
We will now take a break.
Recess
Deputy Chair: I will call Committee of the Whole.
Bill No. 20 - Environment Act - continued
Deputy Chair: We will continue with Bill No. 20, starting with clause 111.
On Clause 111
Hon. Mr. Webster: Just before we begin clause-by-clause debate this afternoon, we should review the status of some of the clauses we stood over to see if we have agreement among all Members: clauses 14, 15, 72, 81, 99(2) and 110 have been stood over. I suggest that we deal with these stood-over clauses following the next break.
Amendment proposed
I move
THAT Bill No. 20, entitled Environment Act, be amended in clause 111 at page 53 by:
substituting the following for the definition of land:
“land” in sections 114 and 117 does not include land, the right to the beneficial use and proceeds of which remains with the Government of Canada".
Hon. Mr. Webster: This special definition of “land” ensures that we are not assuming the liability for existing contaminated sites on federal land.
Mr. Lang: I want to voice a concern that I have here. I noticed when going through the act that private landowners are required to do the necessary work under order by the Minister.
I know of one case - and perhaps the Minister knows of it as well - just outside of city limits where PCB contamination was found. It was a situation where an individual had purchased land and, unbeknownst to him, it was contaminated with PCBs. About two or three years ago, it was found that it had been contaminated. This contamination took place prior to the individual purchasing the land.
In a case such as that, where does the responsibility lie, because the individual in question did know that the land was contaminated?
Hon. Mr. Webster: At this time, the person who owns the land, even though the person was not aware that the land was contaminated at the time of purchase, would be responsible. However, in future, such land will be designated as being contaminated, and then it will be the responsibility of the new purchaser to take this into consideration when purchasing the land.
Amendment agreed to
Clause 111 agreed to as amended
On Clause 112
Amendment proposed
Hon. Mr. Webster: I move
THAT Bill No. 20, entitled Environment Act, be amended in clause 112 at page 53 by:
substituting the words “the regulations” for the words “a permit, order or direction.”
This is for clarification only, as we know that all permits, orders and directions flow from the regulations. It is simply substituting “the regulations” for those words.
Amendment agreed to
Clause 112 agreed to as amended
On Clause 113
Amendment proposed
Hon. Mr. Webster: I move
THAT Bill No. 20, entitled Environment Act, be amended in clause 113 at page 53 in the English text by:
deleting the words “or causes or permits the release of a contaminant into the natural environment,”.
Here, we are deleting that phrase as it is unnecessary wording. Now it reads, “every person who releases a contaminant in an amount...” and so on.
Amendment agreed to
Clause 113 agreed to as amended
On Clause 114
Hon. Mr. Webster: I just want to bring to the attention of Members a typo in clause 114(10). The small “t” should be a capital “T”.
Clause 114 agreed to
On Clause 115
Hon. Mr. Webster: Again, there is a typo in the title; there is a spelling mistake in the word “rehabilitation”.
Clause 115 agreed to
On Clause 116
Amendment proposed
Hon. Mr. Webster: I move
THAT Bill No. 20, entitled Environment Act, be amended in subclause 116(1) at page 56 in the English text by deleting the words “to the satisfaction of the Minister” and substituting for them the words “in accordance with a plan”.
Mr. Lang: Should that section not read “shall” issue a certificate? Why should it still be discretionary to the Minister? Where land has been restored or rehabilitated according to the plan under clause 114 or clause 115, the Minister “shall” issue a certificate of compliance.
Hon. Mr. Webster: The Member is quite correct about that. Since we have agreement on that, to save time, we could just agree that that is a typographical error. Change the “may” to a “shall”.
To clarify, in addition to the amendment proposed in clause 116(1), we are amending the expression “may issue a certificate” to the expression “shall issue a certificate”.
Deputy Chair: Is there unanimous consent?
All Hon. Member: Agreed
Amendment agreed to
Clause 116 agreed to as amended
On Clause 117
Clause 117 agreed to
On Clause 118
Clause 118 agreed to
On Clause 119
Clause 119 agreed to
On Clause 120
Clause 120 agreed to
On Clause 121
Hon. Mr. Webster: I wish to bring to the Members’ attention a typo in clause 121(b), deleting the word “a” immediately before the word “accordance”. There is an extra “a” in that line.
There is also a typo in clause 121(c), where the comma should be deleted immediately after the word “measures”.
Amendment proposed
Hon. Mr. Webster: I move
THAT Bill No. 20, entitled Environment Act, be amended in clause 121(b) at page 59 by substituting the words “environmental protection officer” for the word “Minister”.
Hon. Mr. Webster: The reason for this amendment is that there is no need to refer to the Minister in this clause.
Amendment agreed to
Amendment proposed
Hon. Mr. Webster: I move
THAT Bill No. 20, entitled Environment Act, be amended in clause 121 at page 58 in the English text by substituting the word “release” for the word “spill”.
This amendment makes this section consistent with the other sections.
Amendment agreed to
Amendment proposed
Hon. Mr. Webster: I move
THAT Bill No. 20, entitled Environment Act, be amended in clause 121(c) at page 59 in the English text by deleting the words “at that person’s expense”.
The government could choose to assist in such cases.
Deputy Chair: Is there any debate on the amendment?
Mr. Lang: I want to make a point here. In the body of clause 121 the preamble states very clearly “...may, where he or she considers it reasonable and necessary to lessen the risk of a spill of the substance, order that person, at his, her or its expense...” and then going on to subsection 121(c) with the amendment that the Minister has put forward. Is the Minister saying that the word “may” in the preamble gives discretion to the government whether or not the government would assist?
Hon. Mr. Webster: That is true.
Amendment agreed to
On Clause 121 agreed to as amended
On Clause 122
Clause 122 agreed to
On Clause 123
Clause 123 agreed to
On Clause 124
Clause 124 agreed to
On Clause 125
Mr. Lang: In the area of pesticides, I would like to ask the Minister if there is anything new that we did not catch in respect to the regulations in the act?
Hon. Mr. Webster: In response to the Member’s question the answer is no. Everything that is contained in the Pesticides Act has been brought into this act in its entirety.
I have an amendment to clause 125(3), which is for clarification purposes only. I move
THAT Bill No. 20, entitled Environment Act, be amended in subclause 125(3) at page 60 by substituting the words “The issuance or holding of a valid” for the word “A”.
That is right at the start of subsection (3); in other words, it would read: “the issuance or holding of a valid permit does not authorize or excuse a violation of subsection (2).”
Amendment agreed to
Clause 125 agreed to as amended
On Clause 126
Clause 126 agreed to
Mr. Lang: In order to expedite business, I would deem sections 127, 128, 129, 130 and 131 to have been read.
On Clauses 127 to 131
Clauses 127 to 131 agreed to
On Clause 132
Hon. Mr. Webster: I am proposing a couple of amendments for the purpose of adding legal certainty. I move
THAT Bill No. 20, entitled Environment Act, be amended in clause 132 at page 62 by substituting, in the definition of the word “spill” the word “substance” for the words “hazardous substance, pesticide, contaminant or special waste”.
On the word “substance”, I will report at this time for the benefit of the Member opposite, that there will be a new definition for the word “substance”, which basically means a hazardous substance, pesticide, contaminant or special waste. This basically simplifies the wording in other parts of the section.
Amendment agreed to
Amendment proposed
Hon. Mr. Webster: I move
THAT Bill No. 20, entitled Environment Act, be amended in clause 132 at page 62 in the English text by:
adding the definition “Substance” means a hazardous substance, pesticide, contaminant or special waste".
Amendment agreed to
Clause 132 agreed to as amended
On Clause 133
Hon. Mr. Webster: In clause 133, there is a typo. There should be a comma after the words “shall report the spill” in the third line.
Amendment proposed
Hon. Mr. Webster: I move
THAT Bill No. 20, entitled Environment Act, be amended in clause 133 at page 62 in the English text by substituting the words “spilled substance” for the words “hazardous substance, pesticide, contaminant or special waste”.
Amendment agreed to
Clause 133 agreed to as amended
On Clause 134
Hon. Mr. Webster: I want to bring to the attention of the Members the insertion of a comma at the end of the third line, “can readily obtain it” comma.
Clause 134 agreed to
On Clause 135
Clause 135 agreed to
On Clause 136
Amendment proposed
Hon. Mr. Webster: I move,
THAT Bill No. 20, entitled Environment Act, be amended in paragraph 136(f) at page 64 by deleting the words “to the natural environment”.
The purpose of this amendment is that this section does not limit the control of the spills to the natural environment. It also pertains to spills that might occur in the communities, for example, a spill at a gas station in town.
Amendment agreed to
Clause 136 agreed to as amended
On Clause 137
Hon. Mr. Webster: In clause 137 there is a spelling mistake in the word “mitigate”. That is in the title, “Failure to mitigate”.
Mr. Lang: This is starting to get a little bit much. The spelling mistakes are one thing, but the Minister has a pile of amendments on his desk that, for the most part, are new and are not as a result of our discussions on Friday.
Did the Minister have another internal review of the bill where other major or minor mistakes have come to his attention? Is this why we are seeing a fairly significant number of amendments to the bill coming forward?
Hon. Mr. Webster: Some of the amendments are indeed spelling mistakes. We want this bill to read in a flowing manner so that it uses as few words as possible while still getting the message across.
There are more amendments coming forward, as a result of some changes that the Member and agred to. For example, of the 12 remaining amendments in this bill, which will cover about 55 more clauses, six of them are just as a result of a change we made to clause 93. They are consequences of that change we agreed to.
Deputy Chair: The typo in clause 137 is acknowledged.
Clause 137 agreed to
On Clause 138
Clause 138 agreed to
On Clause 139
Amendment proposed
Hon. Mr. Webster: Again, due to a typo, I move
THAT Bill No. 20, entitled Environment Act, be amended in clause 139 at page 64 in the English text by inserting commas immediately before and after the words “subject to section 152".
Amendment agreed to
Clause 139 agreed to as amended
On Clause 140
Clause 140 agreed to
On Clause 141
Clause 141 agreed to
On Clause 142
Amendment proposed
Hon. Mr. Webster: There is another amendment as a result of the changes made in clause 93, in Part 6, Development, Approvals and Permits. I move
THAT Bill No. 20, entitled Environment Act be amended in paragraph 142(a) at page 66 in the English text by deleting paragraph 142(a) and substituting for it the following paragraph.
“(a) respecting a category or class of development or activity or major development that is subject to or exempted from permit requirements;”.
Amendment agreed to
Amendment proposed
Hon. Mr. Webster: I move
THAT Bill No. 20, entitled Environment Act, be amended in paragraph 142(b) at page 66 in the English text by adding the words “or activity” immediately after the words “class of development”.
This is a slight amendment again to clause 93. The words were actively used throughout clause 93(6) and should be carried forward to the regulation-making section.
Amendment agreed to
Amendment proposed
Hon. Mr. Webster: I move
THAT Bill No. 20, entitled Environment Act, be amended in paragraph 142(d) at page 66 in the English text by deleting paragraph 142(d) and substituting the following paragraph:
“(d) prescribing procedures and standards for assessing all categories or classes of developments or activities, including procedures and standards required for the issuance of permits;”.
All this does is delete the reference to the development assessment process.
Amendment agreed to
Amendment proposed
Hon. Mr. Webster: I move
THAT Bill No. 20, entitled Environment Act, be amended in paragraph 142(e) at page 66 in the English text by deleting paragraph 142(e) and substituting for it the following paragraph:
“(e) respecting public participation in the issuance of permits; and”.
This deletes the participant funding for the development assessment process.
Mr. Lang: The intent that both the Minister and I had was that, if there was going to be any financing of groups, it was to help draw up and develop the various regulations that would eventually be put into place, not to fund participants.
This says “respecting public participation in the issuance of permits”. In looking at this, it is a question of who is interpreting the section. It could be interpreted in such a broad manner that the Commissioner in Executive Council, if they felt like it, could write regulations that would provide for public funding to go for the purpose of intervening in permits.
I do not think that is what the Minister wanted. I was under the impression that we wanted to give the Commissioner in Executive Council, under regulations, the right to fund public participation for the development of regulations.
Hon. Mr. Webster: The Member is correct, and we have agreed to do that, but in another part of this bill. All we are saying here is that we can make regulations respecting how the public can participate in the issuance of permits. It removes any reference to funding in that process, which is what the Member wants.
Amendment agreed to
Clause 142 agreed to as amended
On Clause 143
Clause 143 agreed to
On Clause 144
Hon. Mr. Webster: I want to point out a typo in clause 144(i). At the end of that paragraph, the small “p” for part 8 should be capitalized.
Clause 144 agreed to
On Clause 145
Mr. Lang: I am wondering about the drafting of this. It says “may make regulations relating to Part 9 including regulations”. Is “including regulations” not understood?
Hon. Mr. Webster: No, the introductions of all these clauses start off by saying “including regulations”. It defines that the Executive Council may make regulations relating to part 9, including regulations (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f).
Clause 145 agreed to
On Clause 146
Clause 146 agreed to
On Clause 147
Clause 147 agreed to
On Clause 148
Clause 148 agreed to
On Clause 149
Clause 149 agreed to
On Clause 150
Clause 150 agreed to
On Clause 151
Clause 151 agreed to
On Clause 152
Mr. Lang: The Minister and I have discussed this. The deletion of “without a warrant or court order”, in section 153, which I believe the Minister is bringing forward, will meet the objections that were voiced by some witnesses about the invasion of privacy. In most part, the amendment the Minister is bringing forward will meet the objections to that particular offensive section and principle, included in the first draft, which was voiced by others during the public hearing process.
Hon. Mr. Webster: As the Member has correctly pointed out, we will be bringing in an amendment under clause 153 to make it very clear. The Member is right that this was voiced as a concern in discussions with the public on the draft act. Consequently, all clauses related to search and seizure are subject to clause 152, to ensure that whenever a private dwelling is involved a search warrant is required.
Clause 152 agreed to
On Clause 153
Amendment proposed
Hon. Mr. Webster: As you have just mentioned, there is an amendment to clause 153. I move
THAT Bill No. 20, entitled Environment Act, be amended in clause 153(1) at page 74 and 75 by:
deleting the words “,without a warrant or court order,”.
Amendment agreed to
Clause 153 agreed to as amended
On Clause 154
Mr. Lang: I just want to raise a concern here. It has to do with the words “without a warrant or court order”. When an environmental protection officer is on a piece of property and sees something, they can seize it without applying for a warrant or court order. I am wondering if the Minister has had time to review this section to see how applicable it is with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Also, how common is this? It seems to me that if one is seizing property, would they not have to have some kind of authorization?
Hon. Mr. Webster: No. A warrant would not be required for seizure if the officer has reason to believe there has been a contravention of the act. This clause is similar to section 104 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, section 21(3) of the Manitoba Environment Act and section 127 of the Ontario Environmental Protection Act. It is pretty standard procedure.
Clause 154 agreed to
On Clause 155
Clause 155 agreed to
On Clause 156
Clause 156 agreed to
On Clause 157
Clause 157 agreed to
On Clause 158
Clause 158 agreed to
On Clause 159
Amendment proposed
Hon. Mr. Webster: There is a typo in clause 159, but I want to correct it in the form of an amendment. I move
THAT Bill No. 20, entitled Environment Act, be amended in subclause 159(1) at pages 78-79 by deleting subclause 159(1) and substituting for it the following subclause:
“159(1) Where an environmental protection officer has reason to believe
“(a) that a development or activity is causing or is likely to cause irreparable damage to the natural environment; or
“(b) upon consultation with a health officer, that the development or activity is causing actual or imminent harm to public health or safety,”
and then continuing with the rest of the text.
To make things clearer, what we are doing is taking the clause as it appears now in (a) - “has reason to believe ...” - and moving it up as part of the main body of subsection (1), because it really applies to both (a) and (b).
Amendment agreed to
Clause 159 agreed to as amended
On Clause 160
Clause 160 agreed to
On Clause 161
Clause 161 agreed to
On Clause 162
Clause 162 agreed to
On Clause 163
Clause 163 agreed to
On Clause 164
Clause 164 agreed to
On Clause 165
Clause 165 agreed to
On Clause 166
Clause 166 agreed to
On Clause 167
Amendment proposed
Hon. Mr. Webster: I move,
THAT Bill No. 20, entitled Environment Act, be amended in subclause 167(1) at page 83 by adding the word “for” immediately after the words “provide financial assurance to the Minister”.
Mr. Lang: Once again, I wish to go on record concerning the importance of this section and the implications that it can have if it is not wisely and judiciously used. This is a relatively new concept of financial assurance for development.
It is a competitive world that we live in. We continue to make more and more rules that will cost investors in the territory more and more money. If it is not handled judiciously, it will be more advantageous to invest that risk capital in other places in the free world that are trying to attract investors.
We will be watching how the regulations are developed for this section. If anything, we have to weigh on the side of being conservative when introducing this type of policy. Otherwise, all Yukoners are going to suffer the consequences of it, and it will primarily be those people whom we all profess to represent. By this I mean truck drivers, people who are working on heavy equipment, and all those kinds of people who rely on heavy industrial development for their livelihood.
We are suffering the consequences of the strike in Faro - at least in my riding. I do not know about the other Members. I have numerous people in my riding who are out of work and people who are really starting to feel the financial pinch. They do not have any other place to go to work. In fact, some of them have moved out of the territory, leaving their spouses and children here, in an attempt to find work elsewhere.
I am thinking of new developments coming on. Be very, very careful. It could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back, if we are continually asking for more and more.
Hon. Mr. Webster: Again, the Member has put his concerns on the record as he did Monday in general debate. I think that we had a full debate on Monday afternoon on this matter and made it quite clear that this was a concern raised by almost all Yukoners. As a result of the discussion paper and the draft of the act, Yukoners wanted to see some type of security deposits in place.
I noticed recently when the Yukon Mining Advisory Committee reviewed the matter of security deposits, it did not reach full agreement on the issue of security deposits, but did recognize that it is obviously required in many cases. The committee developed a list of guiding principles as to when they should be used. We will be looking to some of those guiding principles when we form regulations for this function.
Amendment agreed to
Clause 167 agreed to as amended
On Clause 168
Clause 168 agreed to
On Clause 169
Clause 169 agreed to
On Clause 170
Amendment proposed
Hon. Mr. Webster: I move
THAT Bill No. 20, entitled Environment Act be amended in subclause 170(1) at page 85 in the English text by: deleting subclause 170(1) and substituting for it the following subclause: “170(1) Neither the Minister nor an employee of the Government of the Yukon appointed under the Public Service Commission Act is liable for anything done or admitted in the good faith execution of any duty or power under this act.”
Mr. Lang: I do not have any problem supporting this amendment if, under the offence section, those corporate executives and municipal politicians - and I know the Minister is going to say that municipal politicians are covered under the Municipal Act - who are working for a company or municipality in good faith are not personally liable for anything done or admitted under this act.
I want to make it clear that I do not want to see a section in this act that is going to give civil servants and the Minister a lot more latitude in a court of law by just saying that everything was done in good faith. I want to know how this is going to relate to a corporation and individuals within a corporation and how this section will apply there.
Have I made myself clear to the Minister? Does he understand what I am saying? I do not want to have two sets of rules. The way this section is written, unless he has another amendment for the offence section for those in corporations similar to this, I believe we have two sets of rules. It gives a lot more leeway to civil servants than to individuals in private companies.
The concern was expressed by the witnesses. They were worried about getting people who are prepared to take on responsibilities if there are liabilities involved.
Hon. Mr. Webster: The purpose of this section, as amended, is to make it clear that there is no more protection for the Minister or officials than for the public or corporations. This section is similar to provisions in other Yukon statutes, which provide protection against civil suits for the performance of duties. Municipal officials are not addressed - we have already gone through this, because they are already covered by the Municipal Act.
However, the other situation I think the Member is referring to is clause 179 where we are dealing with corporate officials who have committed an offence and have been found guilty. The Minister or the officials who have committed the offence and who are negligent are also liable under this act for offences. In that respect, everyone is operating under the same principles.
Mr. Lang: Let us have the same principles, then - let us not put this section in at all. Take out the provision for protection of government employees, because everybody is equal under the law; then, go to clause 179 and say, “Where a corporation or government or a government official commits an offence under this act, any officer, director, manager or agent of the corporation or government who knowingly directed, authorized, assented to ...”.
Clause 179 would apply to everybody, whether it be a corporation or a government official. I think that would be fair, and then there would be no misunderstanding. This rule would apply on the commission of an offence.
Hon. Mr. Webster: I can see the point the Member is making, and perhaps we can take these one at a time. First of all, clause 170 is a standard clause that we find in other pieces of legislation. The Gasoline Handling Act is an example: section 8(5) - no inspector is personally liable for anything done by him in the exercise of his powers under this act. The same thing appears in the Boiler and Pressure Vessels Act, in section 22(4): while acting pursuant to this act, an inspector is not liable for any injury, loss or damage occasioned thereby.
This is a standard procedure. It also applies to municipal officials, by the Municipal Act.
On that basis, with this amendment, it makes matters quite clear that that is the situation for Government of Yukon personnel.
Mr. Lang: The Minister has said that, for the purpose of offences in this particular act, the government will be treated as everyone else. We have agreed. We have even gone so far as to make an amendment at the beginning that “notwithstanding this act” was removed from the definition section, and Parts 2 and 3, to ensure that is clearly stated.
Accepting that principle, I want to let the Minister know that if this is going to apply evenly and equally, all we need is the offence section. We do not need a section to specifically protect civil servants. They are going to be doing their jobs, and so will the Minister. The only time the offence section is going to kick in is if it is proven you have committed an offence.
If you want to use the argument the Minister is advancing, we should have a section that protects persons in corporations or municipalities who have faithfully been carrying out their duties.
We should eliminate the entire section, as opposed to trying to amend it, and amend section 179. Just because this section is in other legislation, it does not make it right. I am beginning to wonder where we are going with legislation when being within the civil service puts you one step ahead of the general public whom they are supposed to be representing. Perhaps we should be reassessing this in all our legislation, not just in this one.
The Minister has made it very clear to the general public, and to us, and we all agree that this law should apply equally to everyone - government and non-government alike. Why not just go with section 179, and not with a specific section to protect the civil service?
Hon. Mr. Webster: I think that the Member is forgetting something. First of all, let me deal with section 170, “Protection of government employees”. This section about government employees operating in good faith and executing the duties and powers authorized under this act is very similar to section 9, where we talk about individuals who also operate in good faith in the execution of their activity being a defence.
In section 9, we are dealing with an individual who is conducting an activity in good faith and exercising due prudence in the civil suit. Section 170 parallels that for government employees. That is why you find it in other pieces of legislation.
Mr. Lang: I submit that section 9 applies to government employees. If you go back to section 9, the Government of the Yukon Territory, or an employee of the Government of the Yukon Territory can be taken to court and that is part of their defence.
The Minister is not putting forward a sound argument as to why we have to put this in as a further security blanket. If the Minister is satisfied that section 9 is so good and is going to give such a wide defence for all of us, then I submit that we do not need a specific section for protection of government employees.
Hon. Mr. Webster: In section 170, “Protection of government employees”, we are talking about administration of this act. Individuals and corporations are not talking about the administration of this act in their duties on behalf of the department. Section 9 is referring to an individual corporation or government activity.
Mr. Phelps: The whole point is that we are so satisfied with the fairness of section 9, that we feel that it would be unfair and less than charitable of us to insist that the poor folks who work for the government should have a different status than the other folks in the territory. We see this as a gesture of kindness on our part to ensure that people working in the Minister’s department will not be discriminated against.
We would submit that because the Minister has convinced us that section 9 is so broad and powerful in the situation of an action taken under this act, that it would only be fair to the poor folks that work for the Minister that they not be discriminated against. Therefore, we should delete section 170 entirely.
Hon. Mr. Webster: Again, I make the case that the reason for clause 170 is that it gives the same protection for an employee of the government, operating under his or her duties in due diligence and carrying out his or her responsibilities, equal to the defence that is provided to a corporation or individual in clause 9(c). The defendant has established there is no feasible or prudent alternative to the activity, which is basically the same thing.
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)
Hon. Mr. Webster: The Members opposite contend that clause 9 applies to the government. I do not know if it applies to the government officials, but if it did, it still applies to individuals and corporations other than individuals in the employ of the government.
Mr. Phelps: If the Minister is concerned that section 9 does not apply to government officials, we could add “for greater certainty” to section 9 once we delete section 170. The Minister could then rest assured that officials would not be discriminated against; they would be treated fairly and there would not be two classes of citizens under the operation of this act in Yukon.
Hon. Mr. Webster: There is no question that section 9 will apply to an individual or a corporation. I am not certain about officials. The reason for clause 170, a standard clause - as I have already mentioned it appears in municipal acts and other acts in the territory - is to give that protection to employees. I think both are covered quite equally here by clause 9 and clause 170.
Mr. Phelps: Surely, the Minister would agree that if we took clause 170 out of the act and amended clause 9 with a “for greater certainty” clause that this would apply to government officials as well as to everybody else. Then he would be doubly sure that there was fair and equal treatment under the provisions of this act.
This act surely should not leave this Legislature permanently scarred with the clause that it is in merely because it is in lots of other acts. This act, as the Minister has said many times, is different from other acts passed in this House in the past and throughout Canada. Government and those who work for government are treated equally with everyone else. It is the egalitarian principle.
We seek to defend and ensure that the good record of the Minister is not blemished by an oversight, such as allowing the kind of section that means a double standard would be slipped into this act by mistake.
I would hope that he would agree to clause 170 being deleted. If he wants, we would readily agree, for greater certainty, a subclause under clause 9 to ensure that government officials would be treated equally to other citizens in the territory.
Hon. Mr. Webster: We have already established, under “Defenses”, clause 9, that if the defendant - this being an individual or a corporation - establishes that they are acting with due prudence, this is a defence.
All clause 170 does is provide the same protection to officials of the government who are acting in the administration of their duties, in due diligence.
Mr. Lang: I hope the Minister sees the logic of our argument. We have said that everyone should be equal before this particular piece of legislation. We have gone so far as to put amendments, brought forward by the government and by us, to ensure that that principle is sustained throughout the bill.
If we look at clause 8(1) - which I would refer to as the definitions section for the purposes of explaining clause 9(1) - it is very clear that, and I quote, “Every adult or corporate person resident in the Yukon who has reasonable grounds to believe that (b) the Government of the Yukon has failed to meet its responsibilities ...” can lay an action". The “Defences” section, clause 9, applies for the defendant, which could be the Government of Yukon, an individual in the government or a group of individuals in the government. It could even be the Minister.
I am submitting that I am accepting his argument that clause 9 applies and is specific to the administration of the Government of the Yukon Territory. He has written it in that manner to make that clear.
Following that, it does not make sense that we need clause 170, unless the Minister is intent on giving a further security to those who work within the public service. The point is, if you take a look at clause 170, it talks about “good faith execution or purported execution of any duty or power under this act.” That goes a lot further than when one is a defendant and has to establish that there has been no feasible or prudent alternative to the activity.
Clause 170 gives a further defence to those within the public service or for the Minister to say, “I was just acting in good faith.” If you read section 9(1), with respect to defences, this says that is not satisfactory.
We should be removing section 170 because I think we are giving further security to those within the public service as opposed to those outside the public service.
If the Minister feels that one is acting in good faith and can prove they are, then that should be a defence for everybody and should be incorporated into clause 9(1). It is not in clause 9(1). We have to prove that there is no other viable alternative.
Hon. Mr. Webster: Clause 9(1) defences are talking about impairment of the environment. The Member opposite is quite right that it can apply to an employee of the Government of the Yukon, besides an individual or a corporation.
I think the Member is correct in suggesting that clause 170 gives a further defence to government employees. In this section we may not be talking about actual impairment of the environment, whereas we are talking about this in clause 9. Clause 170 talks about administration and execution of duties. It may not involve actual impairment of the environment. That is the difference.
Amendment agreed to
Clause 170 agreed to as amended
On Clause 171
Clause 171 agreed to (later re-opened and amended)
On Clause 172
Hon. Mr. Webster: There is a typo in subclause (d) of clause 172 that needs correcting - basically to leave a space between the words “or” and “section 115".
Amendment proposed
Hon. Mr. Webster: I move
THAT Bill No. 20, entitled Environment Act, be amended in paragraph 172(e) at page 87 by substituting the subsection number “114(6)” for the subsection number “114(4)”.
This corrects an incorrect cross-reference.
Amendment agreed to
Clause 172 agreed to as amended
On Clause 173
Clause 173 agreed to
On Clause 174
Clause 174 agreed to
On Clause 175
Clause 175 agreed to
On Clause 176
Clause 176 agreed to
On Clause 177
Amendment proposed
Hon. Mr. Webster: I move
THAT Bill No. 20, entitled Environment Act, be amended in clause 177 at page 88 in the English text by deleting the words “or agent”, as the words are unnecessary.
Mr. Lang: There is an important principle involved here. Would the Minister consider further clarification of this section? It is very broad, and it states “...where it is established that the offence was committed by the person’s employee acting in the course of his or her employment...”.
Perhaps we should be adding a clause in this section with respect to the employer knowing that it was going to be harmful to the environment. The interpretation here could be so broad that the employer may have no knowledge of the offence, or alleged offence, taking place and yet, at the same time, they could be held liable. It would seem to me that, as an employer, and in order to carry the liability, you should have some knowledge when you are directing your employee to do certain things.
I would like to hear what the Minister’s comments are on that.
Hon. Mr. Webster: I understand the Member’s concern, and I would like to stand it over so I can give it some consideration over the break.
Amendment stood over
Clause 177 stood over
On Clause 178
Clause 178 agreed to
On Clause 179
Mr. Lang: To add further weight to the argument for clause 177, I will point out that clause 179 reads “who knowingly directed, authorized or assented to”. Perhaps that is a similar phrase we could put into clause 177 for consistency within the act.
Hon. Mr. Webster: I thank the Member for suggesting that language, but the reason I want to give it more thought is because I do not want it to appear as if we are providing a loophole for people to simply claim that they did not know and for that reason they should not be liable for any damage they have done or any offence they have committed.
Clause 179 agreed to
On Clause 180
Hon. Mr. Webster: I move
THAT Bill No. 20, entitled Environment Act, be amended in clause 180 at page 89 by substituting the words “the Court” for the words “a judge”.
Amendment agreed to
Clause 180 agreed to as amended
On Clause 181
Clause 181 agreed to
On Clause 182
Amendment proposed
Hon. Mr. Webster: I move
THAT Bill No. 20, entitled Environment Act, be amended in clause 182 at page 89 by adding the words “or the regulations” immediately before the words “shall bear the following endorsement”.
Amendment agreed to
Amendment proposed
Hon. Mr. Webster: I move
THAT Bill No. 20, entitled Environment Act, be amended in clause 182 at page 89 by deleting the word “Yukon” immediately before the words “Environment Act”.
Amendment agreed to
Clause 182 agreed to as amended
On Clause 183
Clause 183 agreed to
On Clause 184
Clause 184 agreed to
On Clause 185
Hon. Mr. Webster: There is a typo in clause 185(1)(b). The word “it” in the phrase “thing that it appears” is unnecessary.
Deputy Chair: We will deem it a typographical error.
Clause 185 agreed to
On Clause 186
Clause 186 agreed to
On Clause 187
Clause 187 agreed to
Amendment proposed to add Clause 187.1
Hon. Mr. Webster: I move
THAT Bill No. 20, entitled Environment Act, be amended by adding the following clause 187.1 at page 92 in the English text directly after clause 187:
“187.1 Where an individual makes a report to an environmental protection officer under section 113 or 133 or provides information to the Minister or an environmental protection officer pursuant to a requirement under this act, the contents of the report and the information are not admissible as evidence in a prosecution of the individual for a contravention of this act or the regulations, except to prove compliance or non-compliance with paragraphs 154(5)(a), 172(a) or 173(a).”
This new clause is as a result of several recent court cases in Ontario. It ensures consistency with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It basically says that someone cannot be asked to incriminate themselves. In other words, a person cannot incriminate himself through a report that he is required to file.
Amendment to add Clause 187.1 agreed to
Clause 187 agreed to as amended
On Clause 188
Clause 188 agreed to
On Clause 189
Clause 189 agreed to
On Clause 190
Clause 190 agreed to
On Clause 191
Claise 191 agreed to
On Schedule A
Schedule A agreed to
On Schedule B
Amendment proposed
Hon. Mr. Webster: This is the last amendment. I move
THAT Bill No. 20, entitled Environment Act, be amended in Schedule B in the English text by adding the words “Canada Petroleum Resources Act” immediately before the words “Canadian Environmental Protection Act” and the words “Dominion Water Power Act” immediately after the words “Canada Environmental Protection Act” and the words “Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act” immediately after the words “Northern Inland Waters Act”.
This adds to Schedule B other federal statutes that provide permits for activities that may have an effect on the environment.
Mr. Lang: We will support the amendment.
For the record, it certainly highlights the haste in which the bill has been put together. These things should have been known well ahead of time.
I think it is unacceptable that the Minister was put in that position by his advisors. One has to wonder how well written the act truly is when reading through the number of amendments that are being put forward. As a Member of this House, it makes me uncomfortable to know that the Minister has been prepared to compromise in a couple of areas and accept various amendments. I appreciate the spirit we have exercised in Committee on it.
This final amendment highlights just how unprepared the document has been. These things should have been established at the outset on the drafting of the legislation. There should have been no question about which federal statutes would apply under Schedule B. It is not as if these federal statutes appeared out of nowhere. They have been there for a long time.
Amendment agreed to
Schedule B agreed to as amended
Deputy Chair: I will declare a brief recess
Recess
Deputy Chair: I will now call the Committee to order.
On Clause 14 - previously stood
Hon. Mr. Webster: We will first be dealing with clause 14. I will be speaking to the amendment proposed by the Member for Porter Creek East. I am going to argue against the amendment, as we think it is unnecessary. The Member stated that the reason he brought forward the amendment was because he was concerned that parents may be liable. We asked our legal counsel to double-check. They assured me that parents are not liable for the illegal or criminal activities of their children.
If a child were charged under section 18, our young offender provisions would apply, but the parent would not be liable for the fine.
Mr. Lang: I withdraw the amendment.
Deputy Chair: Is there unanimous consent?
All Hon. Members: Agreed.
Deputy Chair: The amendment is withdrawn.
Clause 14 agreed to
On Clause 15
Amendment proposed
Hon. Mr. Webster: I move
THAT Bill No. 20, entitled Environment Act, be amended in clause 15(1) at page 12 in the English text by:
Inserting the words “as soon as possible” after the words “shall investigate”.
This is a result of the objection raised by the Member from Porter Creek East.
Amendment agreed to
Clause 15 agreed to as amended
On Clause 72 - previously stood
Amendment proposed
Hon. Mr. Webster: I move
THAT Bill No. 20, entitled Environment Act be amended in clause 72, at page 37 by deleting clause 72 and substituting for it the following clause: “72. The Commissioner in Executive Council may make regulations respecting forest resources on land, the right to beneficial use or to the proceeds of which is appropriated to the Government of the Yukon and is subject to the control of the Legislature.”
Mr. Lang: I think that we will accept this amendment. In part, it meets our concern.
I understand the problem that the government is having in not being too clear as to whether or not they have the legislative authority to make overall decisions about the harvesting of green timber, and I would assume that this would apply to firewood.
We are very concerned about this. If there is any significant move in the area of forestry, we feel that the Minister has a responsibility to bring an act before the House, similar to the development assessment process. This is not because of any vested interest here, it is the question of what the Legislature is here for.
We will support the amendment with the understanding that if there is a transfer of forestry, we will see an act before the House.
Deputy Chair: There was already an amendment on this clause moved by Mr. Lang the other day. What happened to that amendment?
Withdrawal of amendment
Mr. Lang: Are you looking for unanimous consent to withdraw the initial amendment? If so, I give my consent to remove the initial amendment.
Deputy Chair: Is there unanimous consent?
All Hon. Members: Agreed
Deputy Chair: The amendment is withdrawn.
Hon. Mr. Webster: I want to assure the Member opposite that the new proposed amendment only applies to making regulation on Commissioner’s lands. When devolution of the forestry responsibility comes to the Government of the Yukon - the development of management plans on all lands in the territory - a new act would come before this House for review by all Members.
Amendment agreed to
Clause 72 agreed to as amended
On Clause 81 - previously stood
Amendment proposed
Hon. Mr. Webster: I move,
THAT Bill No. 20, entitled Environment Act, be amended in clause 81 at page 39 by deleting from the definition of “existing assessment or approval process” the words “the Northern Inland Waters Act (Canada) or any other” and substituting for them the words “an”.
Amendment agreed to
Clause 81 agreed to as amended
On Clause 99 - previously stood
Amendment proposed
Hon. Mr. Webster: I move
THAT Bill No. 20, entitled Environment Act, be amended in clause 99 at page 48-49 in the English text by deleting subclause 99(2).
Mr. Lang: I just want to say that we are pleased to see that amendment deleting the requirement for mandatory reporting from the bill. We will be supporting it, as per our earlier discussion during the course of the clause-by-clause debate.
Amendment agreed to
Clause 99 agreed to as amended
On Clause 171 - re-opened
Amendment proposed
Hon. Mr. Webster: The meaning of clause 99(2) requires a consequential amendment to clause 171. Therefore, I move
THAT Bill No. 20, entitled Environment Act, be amended in clause 171 at page 86 in the English text by deleting paragraph 171(d) and renumbering paragraph 171(e) accordingly.
Amendment agreed to
Clause 171 agreed to as amended
On Clause 110 - previously stood
Hon. Mr. Webster: I would like to propose a friendly amendment to clause 110.
Deputy Chair: There is already an amendment to that clause.
Mr. Lang: I will withdraw my amendment, so the Minister can proceed with his.
Deputy Chair: Is there unanimous consent?
All Hon. Members: Agreed.
Deputy Chair: The amendment is withdrawn.
Amendment proposed
Hon. Mr. Webster: I move
THAT Bill No. 20, entitled Environment Act, be amended in subclause 110(1) at page 52 in the English text by deleting subclause 110(1) and substituting for it the following subclause:
“110(1) Where the Minister is satisfied that the normal use of a package or manufactured product will cause a significant impairment of the natural environment that cannot otherwise be prevented or mitigated, the Minister may, by order
“(a) ban the sale of the product or use of the package for up to 120 days, or
“(b) establish a schedule for ceasing the sale of the product or use of the package.”
Amendment agreed to
Clause 110 agreed to as amended
On Clause 177 - previously stood
Amendment proposed
Hon. Mr. Webster: We agreed to take a look at clause 177 with respect to the employer’s liability. This clause ensures that companies take the responsibility to ensure their employees are properly instructed on how to comply with laws governing company activities, just as municipal, territorial and federal governments must take the responsibility to ensure their employees are acting in compliance.
Employers, as with governments, are required to carefully scrutinize employees’ activities and make sure they are aware of the use of directives and instruction guides, that the employees know what they are doing, so they do not inadvertently commit an offence under this act.
This involves carefully setting out the terms of employment, providing training and guidelines, et cetera. This gives protection for the employer. Once the employer is acting in a responsible manner and providing full instruction and directions to the employees, if the employee then acts outside the terms of employment, or the directive, the employer would be protected.
Amendment agreed to
Clause 177 agreed to as amended
Tabling of French version of amendments
Hon. Mr. Webster: I am advised that, as a duty that must be performed at this time, I have for tabling with the Clerk amendments to the French text, which, taken in conjunction with material already tabled constitutes a true French text copy of Bill No. 20, entitled Environment Act, as amended by this Legislature.
Deputy Chair: The table has received the French text amendments.
On Clause 1
Clause 1 agreed to
On Preamble
Preamble agreed to
On Title
Title agreed to
Hon. Mr. Webster: I move that you report Bill No. 20, entitled Environment Act, out of committee as amended.
Motion agreed to
Unanimous consent requested to extend sitting hours
Hon. Mr. McDonald: After having discussed the timing of House business with the Opposition House Leader, I would like to move that the Assembly be empowered to sit beyond 5:30 p.m. for the purposes of completing the business before Committee of the Whole, to give third reading to Bill No. 20, Bill No. 33 and Bill No. 46, and for dealing with Government Motion No. 60 and Government Motion No. 65.
Motion agreed to
Bill No. 33 - Historic Resources Act - continued
Hon. Mr. Webster: We finished debating this bill sometime last week. We had stood over clauses 60, 67(1)(a), 70, 75 and 85(1). Is that correct, Mr. Chairman?
Deputy Chair: That is correct. We will now proceed to clause 60, on page 38.
On Clause 60 - previously stood
Hon. Mr. Webster: I assume all Members would like to approach the stood over clauses in the order they appear, numerically.
Although I do have an amendment to one of the five stood-over clauses, I do not have one for clause 60 dealing with the definition of an historic object, which, as may be recalled, was a subject of great debate in this Legislature. I mentioned to the Member for Hootalinqua, the Leader of the Official Opposition, last week that I had reviewed it further, and I am content with the definition as it stands.
Mr. Phelps: The difficulty we have is with the definition of an historic object, particularly paragraph (a) because it reads that, among other things, an historic object is “an object that is more than 45 years old and has been abandoned”. Our problem with that definition is that it is so broad as to be, in our view, ludicrous, particularly when such severe penalties turn on that definition - particularly under clauses 70 and 75.
The word “object”, as defined by the Webster’s Dictionary, the Random House unabridged edition, on page 993, is “anything that is visible or tangible and is stable in form”.
Under the Concise Oxford Dictionary, the new edition, sixth copyright, 1976, on page 752, an “object” is defined as “a thing placed before eyes or presented to the one of the senses; a material thing; a thing observed with optical instrument or represented in picture”.
Anything is an “object”. As for historic objects, this rather ridiculous definition presents difficulty to anyone in the Yukon who finds or does anything.
I would like to present to the House some modest examples of historic objects that I brought into the Legislature the other day. I can start with this object. It is a rock. There are quite a few of these in the Yukon. I have an uncle who is a mining engineer, and he assures me that this rock is more than 45 years old. Any of these rocks that have been abandoned - this one was at one time, but is not now, as I have it firmly in my possession - is an historic object under clause (a). Therefore, anybody finding an object such as this - and I know there are quite a few - comes under the clauses that we had set aside, partly because of the ridiculous definition.
While we are on the subject of rocks, I have here a rather large object. It, too, is an historic object. It was also abandoned, unfortunately, because it is a piece of copper ore. I am sure that any miner would be concerned about the definition. Under sections 70 and 75, miners would be required to report their findings and not destroy them. They are, after all, historic objects.
I also have another similar historic object that looks quite a bit different. I know there are a few of these around; this comes from the Venus Mine. I understand there are quite a few of them in that mine; however I understand there are mines that do not have gold and silver ore in them, although they are represented to contain these things. Again, anyone who does any kind of work will probably come across a few historic objects such as this, because it is an object that is more than 45 years old and I can assure the House that it was abandoned.
Here I have something that is still quite dusty. I would have a great deal of difficulty determining whether or not this is an historic object, because it is an object, and while it has been abandoned, it may or may not be at least 45 years old. These, I am told, have been made right up to the present time, but they were making them during the early 1940s.
I have another interesting historic object I picked up in my travels, and there are a few of these around, too. It is a piece of driftwood. There are a lot of people who go camping and burn driftwood, and these are historic objects. A lot of people around Carcross do that. I have even done it myself on the beach. I have never really heard of any of these people reporting their findings to any authority, although I am sure they would be delighted to. All of these people have been quite accustomed, given the lifestyle of many Yukoners, to destroying historic objects, so they are all perhaps shaken by the sweeping generalities contained in this act.
I have here an interesting object; it is a hat. It was abandoned, and I am sure everyone here will appreciate that this is an historic object and we would want to ensure that anybody who did not report finding it, destroyed or harmed it in any way, would be subject to the up-to-$50,000-a-day fine.
Here is something that looks old and appears to be an old miner’s hammer. It was found in the mining area south of Carcross, I am told. Again, what would not be absolutely certain is that it is an historic object. It is an object. It was abandoned. It may or may not be 45 years old.
Another historic object I picked up somewhere is extremely valuable. I want to make sure that I report this. For anyone who finds it, I suppose I could leave a note on it saying; “Please report this to the government, because otherwise you will be guilty of an offence under section 70 and liable to a fine of up to $50,000 a day for not reporting it.”
Another historic object, as I am sure that all can plainly see, is an old beaver cutting. It looks something like a horse or a dog. Someone picked this up on a beach not too long ago. It was chewed by a beaver. I understand beavers are not subject to the act, so one cannot prosecute the beaver for destroying this historic object.
I am sure that by now the Members are getting my drift. This historic object is the branch from a tree. Rather, I should say that we are not sure whether or not it is historic. The tree that it came from was rather big, but in order to determine whether or not it is historic, we must report it under section 70. We would, of course, have to cut down the tree in order to count the rings. If we are unfortunate enough to have cut down a tree that was more than 45 years old, we could be fined up to $50,000 a day under section 75 for destroying an historic object. This type of object leaves us - and I believe there are a few of them around the Yukon - in rather a conundrum.
Finally, we get to the classiest of the objects. See if you can accept this one. This is an old coffee pot. Actually, it is from an old set my father abandoned some time ago. It is 45 years old. It, too, is an historic object.
I guess the point of all this is that when we are talking about certainty and having an act that makes any sense whatsoever, surely common sense would dictate that the definition of historic objects is just ridiculously broad.
In our discussions, the Minister had an honourable proposal that everything would be cleared up, if we removed the reference to 45 years old, so that any object would be historical.
Hon. Mr. Webster: I was asking a rhetorical question.
Mr. Phelps: I guess that is not acceptable from this side. I hope that Members can understand why.
The problem with all of this is that it is a serious issue, because we are talking in terms of extremely severe potential penalties, although that is a section that we are going to review. It completely removes any kind of certainty at all from the lives of anybody who goes out and does anything. It is my respectful submission that, for those reasons, it is more than practical for government, through regulations, to start defining objects and classes of objects that they feel ought to be historic objects. That is the way that it is handled in Alberta legislation, and I think that is the only appropriate way in which to proceed.
Hon. Mr. Webster: I want to thank the Member opposite for bringing to the Legislature his collection of assorted historic objects. Broadly interpreted, they are indeed historic objects: the mineral resources, the rock collection, the driftwood collection, and hats. I would like to learn more about the history of the hat. If we can prove conclusively that the hat did belong to some colourful Klondike character, Joe Boyle perhaps, and that was his favourite hat, it may indeed be interpreted by the Heritage Board as an historic object. Was it a ladies hat? I am not too familiar with the styles. There is also the pot collection, although I am quite certain that we would have many of those quite similar in our collection, and we may not require that we, by regulation, designate that as an historic object.
I am pleased to see that the Member has taken the spirit of this act and the definition as broadly as it is intended to be. I think that, as he mentioned quite clearly, we do have to rely on common sense and one’s good judgment. I do not think that someone would view that piece of driftwood, or the branch of the tree, as an historic object and, certainly, when we are talking about penalties for someone destroying that little branch of the tree or burning that piece of driftwood, they would not be penalized, as the Member suggests.
One of the problems is finding a more precise definition of an object. A rock is an historic object in many acts and statutes in this country, using the 50 years as a guideline. I do not know where you stop. That rock is more than 50, 100, 200 years old.
When does an object become an historic object? It is very difficult to put a precise time on it, and that is why we, in this act, following the examples of other jurisdictions, are using 45 years of age as a guideline. When someone comes across something that has been abandoned, which looks unusual and may have some particular significance in the history of the territory, then it will be considered as such.
Mr. Phelps: I would like the Minister, in all seriousness, to show us where that definition has been used in such a way that people, in their everyday activities, are doing things that amount to an offence under an act unless some board comes along and deems they are not interested in the object. This seems to me to be so straightforward that it is not even worth arguing. Surely, the government ought to be defining, with some precision, exactly what classes of things are historic objects, rather than simply say a person could be committing an offence in anything they do, but they should not worry, because the people who make the regulations will be sensible.
It is totally backwards, and I challenge the Minister to show me where this type of definition is used in this way in any act in Canada - where people doing practically anything are open to a charge unless Big Brother decides it is okay for them to do whatever.
I know what the Alberta legislation says.
Hon. Mr. Webster: The Member asked for an example of something that exists at this time. It is quite similar to what we have in place right now under the current Yukon archaeological sites regulations definitions. I have already mentioned some federal statutes that use 50 years as a deadline. This is for purposes of exporting historic objects across borders, and I know they vary for various classes of historic objects. I do not think this is unusual.
The federal Archaeological Heritage Protection Act cites 50 years. As the Member, and as I raised previously in debate, the 45-year age limit in this particular bill is to ensure that the World War II military heritage of the Yukon is captured, and that is the reason it is in place.
Mr. Phelps: Is something an historic object if it is not man-made?
Hon. Mr. Webster: Yes. In the definition, historic object includes archaeological object, and paleontological object is listed on another page.
Mr. Phelps: I cannot believe my ears. It seems so fundamentally simple to me that you have to have some precision in the definition of the things that you are going to be required to report to government and prevent it from being destroyed.
I am certain it would go against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to think that anybody should be subject to a vague law that says you may or may not be guilty of an offence under this act, but do not worry about it, we will exercise common sense. It is the most ludicrous definition of an offence I have ever even heard of. It is almost comical.
Hon. Mr. Webster: I would like to ask the Member how, at this time, he would protect the bombers that we have in the various lakes in the territory without passing this act. What clause would he introduce to ensure that the ownership of those planes would rightly belong to the people of the Yukon?
Mr. Phelps: It is very simple. It would be done by, under the regulations section and under part (d) of clause 60, defining in classes of objects, whether man-made or whatever, that airplanes X years old are historic objects; that certain kinds of vehicles are historic objects or certain kinds of bottles - by putting some precision on the meaning of historic objects.
That, surely, is a requirement of the government. The government has the power under the remaining subclauses (b), (c) and (d) to designate anything that it might deem of value.
Hon. Mr. Webster: I will submit to the Member that he is quite correct that under (d), historic objects, the Commissioner in Executive Council can, by regulation, designate an object or class of objects as being historic objects, although it would require some time for regulations to be introduced to this effect. The purpose of (a) is to clearly get across the fact that, immediately this act comes into effect, we are dealing with something 45 years of age until, by regulation, we designate other time frames or classes or objects.
It also sets out the principle that the object has been abandoned, which is important.
The Member is right that there are ways to designate, by regulation, specific objects by age. Until that happens, definition (a), which refers to objects more than 45 years old that have been abandoned should serve as a general guideline.
Mr. Phelps: It does not serve as a guideline at all. It may serve as a guideline to less than one-trillionth of the objects in the Yukon. Surely the Government has a requirement to speak with some precision to what is and what is not an historic object. All these things I have here are, by the definition - and all things like them: every mountain, every part of a mountain, every tree, every part of a tree, every petal and every grain of sand.
Hon. Mr. Webster: I would hope that within a very short period of time, over the next few years perhaps, that we would give consideration to establishing ages for all classes of objects to be defined and designated as historic objects. Until that time, I prefer that the definition include a name and the use of time.
Mr. Phelps: Perhaps the Minister could make his job easy and just give us a list of objects that are not historic objects.
Hon. Mr. Webster: It may even be possible that an object could be considered an historic object even if it is not 45 years of age. That is one of the reasons for keeping it as broad as possible.
Mr. Phelps: Are there Members on the other side who are going to support this definition and these penalties? I can not believe it.
Hon. Mr. Webster: This act has been 10 years in the making. It has gone through an extensive amount of public consultation for a variety of reasons, particularly those put forward by the historical community. They are very insistent on having this definition in place.
Deputy Chair: Does clause 60 carry as amended?
Some Hon. Members: Agreed.
Some Hon. Members: Division.
Deputy Chair: Order, please. The question is: does clause 60 clear as amended?
Some Hon. Members: Disagreed.
Division
Deputy Chair: Those in favour please rise.
Members rise
Deputy Chair: Order. Would those who disagree, please rise.
Members rise
Deputy Chair: The results are seven yea, six nay.
I declare that the yeas have it.
Clause 60 agreed to
On Clause 67 - previously stood
Hon. Mr. Webster: Clause 67(1)(a) was stood over as there was some question as to whether or not that information would be protected from the public. Section 67(1)(a) does not need amending, as sensitive site location information is protected by clause 86.
Clause 67 agreed to
On Clause 70 - previously stood
Hon. Mr. Webster: On clause 70, report on findings. It is my opinion that it needs no amendment as it is a fundamental element of any modern historic resources legislation.
Mr. Phelps: I have here some historic objects. We feel that, given the definition of historic objects, clause 70 ought not go ahead. I do not know what more I can say that has not already been said, except that the definition makes the section ridiculous.
Division
Deputy Chair: Division has been called.
All those who agree, please rise.
Members rise
Deputy Chair: All those who disagree, please rise.
Members rise
Deputy Chair: There are seven yeas, six nays. I declare that the yeas have it.
Clause 70 agreed to
On Clause 75 - previously stood
Hon. Mr. Webster: Clause 75 is Priority of Filing. At the request of the Leader of the Official Opposition, we did some research to determine if this clause requiring priority for historic sites designation would pose a burden on individual property owners in financial agreements with banks. We checked with the three major banks in the City of Whitehorse. They have indicated that a land titles office filing an historic sites designation has no bearing on whether an individual receives funding from the bank or not.
Clause 75 agreed to
On Clause 85 - previously stood
Amendment proposed
Hon. Mr. Webster: The last clause that was stood over was 85, concerning offences and penalties, and I have an amendment. I move
THAT Bill No. 33, entitled Historic Resources Act, be amended in clause 85 at page 49 by adding the following clause for the said clause 85:
“85(1) Any person who contravenes this act or a regulation, order, bylaw, direction, or requirement made or imposed under this act is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to
“(a) a fine of up to $5,000 for each day the offence continues, or to imprisonment for up to 6 months, or to both the fine and imprisonment, if an individual, and
“(b) a fine of up to $50,000 for each day the offence continues, if a corporation.
“(2) If a corporation commits an offence referred to in subsection (1), any officer, director, manager, or agent of the corporation who knowingly directed, authorized, assented to, or participated in the commission of the offence is a party to and guilty of the offence and is liable to the punishment provided for the offence, whether or not the corporation has been prosecuted or convicted.
“(3) A judge or justice convicting a person of an offence under subsection (1) may
“(a) where the offence caused damage to or the demolition or destruction of a historic resource, order the person to pay, in addition to any fine that may be imposed, the cost of the repair, restoration, or reconstruction of the historic resource, and
“(b) where the offence relates to the acquisition, possession or disposal of a historic object, declare the object forfeited to, and order its delivery to, the Government of the Yukon.”
I have just discovered that the amendment has not been provided to the Member opposite who requested that this amendment come forward. As well, I do not have copies of the amendment on hand. We had made copies, but they are not here, so it is difficult to deal with at this time.
Mr. Phelps: We appreciate the attempt to meet our concerns. We still feel the penalty is unusually high.
I would ask the Deputy Chair to call the question.
Deputy Chair: Does the amendment carry?
Some Hon. Members: Agree.
Some Hon. Members: Disagree.
Deputy Chair: I think that the yeas have it and declare the amendment carried.
Amendment agree to
Clause 85 agreed to as amended
On Title
Title agreed to
Hon. Mr. Webster: I move that you report Bill No. 33, entitled Historic Resources Act, out of Committee with amendment.
Motion agreed to
Bill No. 46 - An Act to Amend the Parks Act - continued
Deputy Chair: We will be discussing Bill No. 46, An Act to Amend the Parks Act.
Hon. Mr. Webster: We stood over passing Bill No. 46 to take a look at a couple of matters at the request of the Member for Porter Creek East. One was dealing with perhaps having some provision in the bill for taking away privileges from people who abuse their permit. Speaking to the Member privately on this matter we determined that it would be best if this information was printed on each campground permit, simply stating that repeat offenders or offenders under this act would have their permit removed and could not enjoy the privileges.
Mr. Lang: I am satisfied with that explanation.
On Title
Title agreed to
Hon. Mr. Webster: I move that Bill No. 46, entitled An Act to Amend the Parks Act, be moved out of Committee as amended.
Motion agreed to
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I move that the Speaker do now resume the Chair.
Motion agreed to
Speaker resumes the Chair
Speaker: I will now call the House to order.
May the House have a report from the Deputy Chair of Committee of the Whole?
Mr. Joe: The Committee of the Whole considered the following bills and directed me to report same with amendments: Bill No. 20, Environment Act; Bill No. 33, Historic Resources Act, and Bill No. 46, Act to amend the Parks Act.
Committee of the Whole also passed the following motion: “that the Assembly be empowered to sit beyond 5:30 p.m. for the purposes of completing the business before Committee of the Whole, to give third reading to Bill No. 20, Bill No. 33 and Bill No. 46, and for dealing with Government Motion No. 60 and Government Motion No. 65.
Speaker: You have heard the report of the Deputy Chair of Committee of the Whole. Are you agreed?
Some Hon. Members: Agreed.
Speaker: I declare the report carried.
Motion to proceed with Third Reading of Bills and not to consider Committee Reports
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I request the unanimous consent of the House to proceed now, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 59(2), with third reading of Bill No. 20, Bill No. 33 and Bill No. 46.
Also, I request the unanimous consent of the House not to proceed with motions respecting committee reports, as was earlier agreed to.
Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
All Hon. Members: Agreed.
Speaker: Unanimous consent has been granted.
We will now proceed with Orders of the Day and Government bills.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
GOVERNMENT BILLS
Bill No. 20: Third Reading
Clerk: Third reading, Bill No. 20, standing in the name of the Hon. Mr. Webster.
Hon. Mr. Webster: I move that Bill No. 20, entitled Environment Act, be now read a third time and do pass.
Speaker: It has been moved by the Hon. Minister of Renewable Resources that Bill No. 20, entitled Environment Act, be now read a third time and do pass.
Mr. Lang: The debate on the Yukon Environment Act has been long and lengthy. I want to make a number of observations at the third reading stage of the bill.
We were very pleased to see the Minister accept the argument from this side about the responsibility of the bill to include major policy issues that had to be decided by the Legislature, such as the development assessment process.
I am very pleased to see the amendment brought forward so that that section will not come into effect until such time as an act clearly describing the process for development assessment is passed by this House.
The same applies to the amendment with respect to the forestry management section of the bill. Earlier this afternoon we permitted, through amendment, the management of one percent of Yukon land, which is Commissioner’s land at the present time, with the undertaking that any other forestry responsibility devolving to us from the Government of Canada would require that an act be considered by this House.
Another area where we were pleased to see the government reassessing their position was in mandatory reporting. We were pleased to see that removed.
Another area of major concern of those who appeared as witnesses was the question of whether or not the Government of Yukon would be bound by the act; after the clause-by-clause debate, that particular principle, which was expressed so often by witnesses and others, is now firmly entrenched in the law - the Government of Yukon will be bound by the Environment Act, as amended.
There was another area of concern to this side. We were pleased to see a compromise reached so that there was a clear policy direction with respect to defining the establishment of a wilderness area. I still would have preferred to see that kind of designation in the Parks Act. In some cases, we feel the Parks Act has tried to do too many things and, subsequently, people who have to work with the various pieces of legislation might be confused, to some degree, as to where responsibility lies for some aspects of the laws they have to work under.
I want to express for the record, once again, a number of areas of significant concerns we have about the bill. One refers to the environmental rights section. As the Minister knows, we did accept the principle of an environmental rights section, but we put in quite a lengthy amendment, which we felt would make how one went about laying a complaint or a charge clear and concise. It was discussed at some length by all Members. Unfortunately, the government was not prepared to accept our amendment, and we feel that the bill may well - and only time will tell - be a tool for some people who feel strongly about an issue and are prepared to go to the extreme lengths of blocking an otherwise acceptable development. They will use the law to their advantage to obstruct something that is seen to be in the public good by both the regulatory bodies and the government.
Another area where we had concerns is in section 11, which is the reverse onus section. We feel it should have been removed. We find it offensive, and do not feel the cases cited by the Minister gave substantial enough argument to warrant such a section.
I know the public will probably never be made aware of it, but if they come under it and are prosecuted under it, they will be guilty and will have to prove themselves innocent in order to avoid charges under the present act. We think that is not the way to go, and we feel it is very offensive.
Another area we have some reluctance accepting is the clear and concise four or five pages outlining the necessary reports to be done over the years by the government. As I indicated in debate, we see that as a consultant’s dream and a taxpayer’s nightmare. As you know, we presented amendments that the government did not see fit to accept. We feel that time will prove us right, that thousands and thousands of dollars are going to have to be committed to meet those obligations, in one manner or another.
Another area that is of concern is that this bill has received the most numerous amendments of any bill for quite some time. I would submit there were well over 60 amendments; quite a number of them were substantial. In itself, I feel that indicates the haste with which the bill was put together. We also debated that at some length in Committee.
That causes us some concern, because we may well not have picked up all the problems or found all the areas that should have been written in a better manner. Some of the drafting was very loose and, over a period of time, interpretation of courts could have an adverse effect on the general public.
I just want to say that it is not our intention to obstruct the legislation, as I indicated to the Minister both privately and publicly. We have always said that an environment act should be passed by this House but I want to put on the record that we have some concerns with the present bill, even after it has gone out of Committee.
I also want to say that as the critic, trying to work with the Minister responsible, I think that there were some areas that we found we had a common cause. The meeting we had last Friday went on for five hours was very beneficial. We were able to come to an understanding on some major aspects of the bill, which enabled us to proceed with the bill fairly expeditiously and with very little acrimonious debate.
I just want to conclude by saying that we do have some concerns about the bill and only time will tell if we are right or wrong. In some cases I hope we are wrong, but we are here to provide ideas and also other options for how we can accomplish our objectives.
As far as the environment is concerned, I think that all Members on both sides of the floor are the same. I do not see that much difference; it is just a question of getting there.
We shall see, once this bill comes into effect, how it will affect the general public and we will be looking forward to the accompanying piece of legislation, or an amendment to this act, outlining the development assessment process.
Mr. Nordling: I have already expressed my opinion that the bill as tabled should have been left to sit, mature and be reviewed in six months, so I will not repeat that speech.
I would also like to make it clear that I am a bit uncomfortable passing this act without more time to review and analyze the final draft, which was arrived at only today. Despite the numerous amendments proposed by both the Minister and the opposition critic, and passed by this House, there may be areas that may be overlooked or will cause problems.
We are bound to have problems with the act and there are bound to be omissions in the final draft. I hope that no individual Yukoner will suffer because of our haste, and as the Member from Porter Creek East says, only time will tell.
Speaker: The Hon. Member will close debate if he now speaks, does any other Member wish to be heard?
Hon. Mr. Webster: I will be brief, as we have spent a considerable amount of time on debate on this bill, improving it. I would like to respond briefly to a few remarks made by the critic of the Official Opposition.
Certainly, as he mentioned in his introductory remarks he was pleased that we had come to some agreement about requiring legislation to come into this House for review by elected officials on a development assessment process when it comes time to replace existing federal legislation, as well as for management of the forestry resources on crown lands. I want to say at the very outset that I agree with this in principle, and I am very pleased that we are able to come to a mutual agreement on amendments proposed for these two areas.
The Member mentioned the fact that this bill will bind the Government of the Yukon. It has always been the intention of this act to bind the Government of the Yukon. It is consistent with the underlying principles of the bill. The Government of the Yukon is the trustee of the public trust.
As the Member indicated, perhaps it was not as well written as it could have been and did require some clarity. I am pleased to see that that has been done over the course of the last week’s debate.
The Member has mentioned a couple of concerns, one being the bill of rights part of this bill. I believe that the concerns he has raised are not warranted, particularly the one on section 11. I think we can point to examples where similar principles are entrenched in legislation and are working well. I think they set a standard for other jurisdictions to follow, when it comes time for them to amend their environmental protection legislation.
With respect to the concern the Member has raised about reports, I do not believe this will become a consultant’s dream. This has not proven to be the case in the past, when we have been reviewing, for example, the economic strategy. I do not think it will happen with the conservation strategy or the state of the environment reports. These will be done by government.
I believe these reports are required. People demanded such reports in the discussions we had, both on the discussion paper and on the draft act. They are intended to keep government honest, which I am sure they will do. In the process, they will develop new recommendations on how we can better protect our environment.
Another concern the Member raised was the number of amendments that came forward. It is true that there were quite a few. This is not unique. It has happened in other acts that have come forward to this Legislature, such as the Wildlife Act.
For a piece of legislation that is new to this territory, and one that is as long as this - we are talking about 193 clauses - and considering the complicated nature of some of these sections, and how all the parts are integrated, I think the number of amendments were not that excessive. We now have a bill that reads very well, is clear to interpret - which is very important - and I think it is as concise as possible.
I want to thank the Opposition critic for coming forward with some of the amendments to provide clarity, reduce ambiguity in the bill, as well as to make changes to some of the principles.
We certainly did have some long meetings to talk about a number of concerns on some clauses of the bill. I want to thank him for the helpful amendments he brought forward. On some other matters, as he has mentioned, we just agreed to disagree and debate it in the House.
I am pleased that Members do now recognize the need for this legislation and have accepted the principles.
In closing, I think that, with this piece of framework legislation in place, we can get on with the task of involving the public in drafting regulations that will indeed protect our environment.
Motion for the third reading of Bill No. 20 agreed to
Speaker: I declare that Bill No. 20 has passed this House.
Bill No. 33: Third Reading
Clerk: Third reading, Bill No. 33, standing in the name of the Hon. Mr. Webster.
Hon. Mr. Webster: I move that Bill No. 33, entitled Historic Resources Act, be now read a third time and do pass.
Speaker: It has been moved by the Hon. Minister of Renewable Resources that Bill No. 33, entitled Historic Resources Act, be now read a third time and do pass.
Mr. Phelps: This was certainly, if not the most controversial bill, the second most controversial bill of the sitting. We have been through considerable debate, back and forth, and negotiations over parts of the bill. I recall stating in earlier debate that the bill had been described to me by one long-time Yukoner as a framework for abuse, and I mentioned that.
We tried to pass amendments that would make this a better piece of legislation. We were successful in part. Some 20 amendments were passed in the course of going through this bill clause by clause in Committee of the Whole. Two of the more significant amendments were the amendment stating that a residence could not be designated as an historic site by the Minister without the written consent of the owner, and the other amendment had to do with ownership of historic objects, which removed the requirement to register historic objects with the Minister within three years of the coming into force of this act as a necessary precondition to retaining ownership in historic objects. As Members will recall, that was made a requirement only for archaeological and paleontological objects.
I regret sincerely that we were unable to convince the side opposite about the definition of historic object under clause 60. We feel very strongly that to have a definition so broad as to include all objects more than 45 years old or have been abandoned is to remove almost entirely any legal certainty on most activities in the Yukon.
Very briefly, one looks at section 61. “No person shall search or excavate for historic objects or human remains except in accordance with an historic resources permit.” That renders that section pretty well meaningless if it is upheld by the courts, which I hope it would never be, as being ultra vires the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Virtually every individual who excavates or searches, at the whim of officials, could be prosecuted.
Section 62, Export of historic objects, states, “No person shall remove an historic object from the territory, whether or not the person owns it, except in accordance with an historic resources permit.” Again, all objects found by mining companies, placer miners, and tourists, whether they be rocks, stones, pieces of trees, whatever, cannot be taken from the territory or they will be committing an offence under this act unless this clause is cut down in court as being ultra vires the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Section 63 states, “No person shall destroy or alter any historic object, whether or not the person owns it, or any human remains, except in accordance with a historic resources permit.”
Again, if the Court were to rule that section to be ultra vires the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, everyone is at the mercy of government officials who, on their subjective whims, could prosecute them for lighting a campfire, collecting firewood, cutting down trees, moving and chipping at rocks, et cetera.
I very much regret that this bill is so drastically at odds with not only common sense, but fundamental principles regarding control of the individual and the need for certainty in laws that are quasi-criminal in nature. I simply regret that it has been allowed to pass in this form.
Having said that, I do want to acknowledge the willingness of the Minister to meet with the critic, Mr. Phillips, and myself with regard to numerous concerns. I would like to acknowledge the positive contribution made by both the critic and the Minister in achieving the 20-odd amendments that were passed in Committee. I only wish that we could have convinced the side opposite of how greatly the positive aspects of this bill are undermined, given the broad definition of historic objects.
Mr. Nordling: I would like to thank the Member for Riverdale North for bringing forward his amendments, and the government side for accepting them. Through these amendments, the act has become much more palatable for Yukoners. The problem that I see, which has not been resolved, is that the whole act really hangs on the definition of an historic object, and we do not yet have a workable definition.
I suspect that we are going to be in for a certain number of problems and misunderstandings before this all shakes down and a workable definition is created, through common sense and the setting of precedents.
However, I am glad that we do have an act, and I hope that the problems and the fears that we have are unfounded.
Speaker: The Hon. Member will close debate if he does now speak. Does any other Member wish to be heard?
Hon. Mr. Webster: I want to thank the Members opposite, particularly the Leader of the Official Opposition and the Member for Riverdale North, for taking many hours to sit down to advance the debate of this bill in this House and to talk about some concerns they had in bringing forth the 20 or so amendments. As the Leader of the Official Opposition has already stated, two are indeed significant, one being the mandatory reporting and the other being not declaring residences to be historic without the written consent of the owner, who must reside in that residence.
There have obviously been some concerns raised about the definition of an historic object. However, I feel that when this bill comes into effect we want to have immediate protection for objects that have been abandoned that are 45 years of age for a variety of reasons that I have already cited. I think that we can avoid problems that have some potential to arise by working quickly to put regulations in place that will define specific objects, a whole class of objects, more precisely, in terms of them being designated as an historic object.
I want to assure the Members on the side opposite that we will be moving very quickly in the establishment of regulations, and obviously the first area will be dealing with our military heritage in the artifacts of World War II.
In closing, I would like to say that I am very pleased that after at least 10 years of working on this Historic Resources Act, and considering the wide amount of consultation that has been conducted over the years, particularly the last two years, I am very pleased that we do now have an act that will promote appreciation of the Yukon’s historic resources and will provide for their protection and preservation, their early development and the study and interpretation of our resources.
Motion for third reading of Bill No. 33 agreed to
Speaker: I declare that Bill No. 33 has passed this House.
Bill No. 46: Third Reading
Clerk: Third reading, Bill No. 46, standing in the name of the Hon. Mr. Webster.
Hon. Mr. Webster: I move that Bill No. 46, entitled An Act to Amend the Parks Act, be now read a third time and do pass.
Speaker: It has been moved by the Hon. Minister of Renewable Resources that Bill No. 46, entitled An Act to Amend the Parks Act, be now read a third time and do pass.
Motion for third reading of Bill No. 46 agreed to
Speaker: I declare that Bill No. 46 has passed this House.
GOVERNMENT MOTIONS
Clerk: Item No. 5, standing in the name of the Hon. Mr. Byblow.
Speaker: Is the Minister prepared to deal with Item No. 5?
Hon. Mr. Byblow: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Motion No. 65
Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister of Community and Transportation Services
THAT this House recommends to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development the appointment of Judy Dabbs of Whitehorse to the Yukon Territory Water Board for a three-year term.
Hon. Mr. Byblow: Following past practice and legislative requirements, I am putting forward this motion for the House to approve the naming of Judy Dabbs as a candidate for appointment to the Yukon Territory Water Board.
As Members may be aware, the Yukon Territory Water Board is established under the authority of the Northern Inland Waters Act. It is made up of nine members, of which the Legislature names three to the overall board.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is responsible for appointing the members named by the House. In the case of Ms. Dabbs, I believe she has demonstrated a very strong commitment on a number of issues that makes her particularly qualified to serve on the board. The board, of course, is a quasi-judicial body and covers quite a wide range of discretionary and non-discretionary powers and authorities. Ms. Dabbs is a member of the Yukon Conservation Society; she is also a member and a former chair of the Recycling Committee, and was also a member of the Advisory Committee on Waste Management that recently reported. Ms. Dabbs is also a founding member of Citizens for a Healthy Yukon Environment, which was formed to look at the issues and options for sewage treatment. She was also a representative on the city’s sewage technical committee. I believe Ms. Dabbs has shown strong leadership on a number of water management and environmental matters and will provide an excellent choice by this House to recommend to the federal Minister for appointment to the board.
Motion No. 65 agreed to
Motion No. 60
Clerk Assistant: Item No. 4, standing in the name of the hon. Mr. Penikett.
Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Premier
THAT, on the occasion of his retirement from his position as Leader of the PC Yukon Party, the House congratulate the Member for Hootalinqua on his years of service to his party and to the public.
Hon. Mr. Penikett: I cannot guarantee that this will be the last opportunity for us to address the Member for Hootalinqua on the floor of this House prior to the convention that has been called to replace him. On the assumption that it is the last opportunity, and with the forgiveness of the Member opposite for being a bit premature, I would like to say a few words to this motion and to the Leader of the Official Opposition.
I would like to speak on behalf of all Members on this side, perhaps on behalf of the Clerks at the table and the staff of the Legislature, including the Hansard staff.
The Leader of the Official Opposition is retiring. That is not a personality trait, that is his employment prospects in this Legislature.
I, better than anybody else in this Legislature, with the possible exception of the Leader of the Official Opposition, can tell people that being Leader of the Opposition is not an easy job. I know that the constant negativity, which is perhaps part of the job description, is highly corrosive and at times even soul disturbing. I think it is also true for all of us, in varying degrees, that politics can be painful business and a painful occupation. It is true, at least in my experience, that there are few tributes to a politician while their career is still alive. There are even fewer when, as a leader, you have a bad day, especially if that bad day happens to be an election day.
We are all elected to try to serve the citizens of our beloved territory according to our best likes and our philosophies. In the back of our minds, we all know that political life can come to an end one day. You are essentially given two choices in this prospect: you can either jump or be pushed. The Leader of the Official Opposition has chosen to jump. We all know that a political career is finite.
We know in the back of our minds that, from the time we start the political life and service, it will end one day. Even though we suffer from the hurly-burly of legislative fights and, occasionally, suffer abuse from our colleagues, there is a sense that, after we have abandoned our political career, some 45 years later, our grandchildren or our partisans may come to regard us as statesmen. Of course, my mother always told me that a statesman was a dead politician and, perhaps, that is the only way that any of us can achieve that status in the official memory of our community.
I do want to note, and I think that I say this on behalf of all Members, that the Member for Hootalinqua has served this House and Legislature with wit and intelligence. He has presented a coherent and intellectually consistent world view, and a coherent philosophy of life and politics. It is not a philosophy that I share, but it is one point of view that I have come to respect in the Member opposite over the years of this House.
This afternoon, the Member demonstrated a sense of humour about a piece of legislation that he opposed in bringing us his collection of rocks, trees and stuff. I will not call it junk, because you are not allowed to anymore, since the passage of the Historic Resources Act, but we were all entertained by that.
I can say that I think all of us in the House appreciate moments of humour, levity, and wit, and the Member has demonstrated that during his time here. We are grateful for such moments in this House.
We will remember them for a long time, as we will remember the Member long after he has left our ranks. On behalf of my caucus and my colleagues, we wish him well in his future endeavours.
Applause
Mr. Lang: I am starting to date myself now that I have achieved the final position in this House, referred to as the dean of the House. I recall when I had the honour of being first elected back in 1974; at that time, there was a new Member from the constituency of Riverdale: the Hon. Willard Phelps. He was a Member for just over a year. In that short period of time, the Members at that time grew to very much appreciate his sense of humour and his wit, as the Government Leader points out. It was interesting that the Member for Riverdale took it upon himself to speak on numerous issues that affected Carcross and the lakes in the Carcross area, and they predominated a great deal of Question Period as well as Committee of the Whole discussion - much to the delight of the then Member for Campbell who represented the area, Bob Fleming.
One debate I recall with interest was when Willard stood up and spoke on the question of damming the Bennett Lake system and how NCPC was going to get onto the fighting side of Mr. Phelps and the consequences thereof if they went in that direction.
Willard left political life for a period of time, and then came back in 1985 as the leader of our party and Leader of the Government for a very short time. Of course, he then became Leader of the Opposition.
As a Member of the House, I want to say that we have very much appreciated Willard as our leader and also as a Member. I point out to all Members that he is strictly retiring as the leader of the party; he will still be continuing as the MLA for Hootalinqua.
The Government Leader pointed out a valid observation that leading a political party is an onerous task. Numerous people are vying for the position that will be vacant as of June 15, and it is a very difficult position to take on, for some of the reasons the Government Leader cited.
I know that Willard has contributed much to the debate in the House, and it has always been very pleasant to serve with him as a Member of the Legislature.
Applause
Motion No. 60 agreed to
Speaker: The House will take a short break while we await the Administrator. We will ring the bells at that time.
Recess
Speaker: We are now prepared to receive the Administrator to grant assent to the bills that have passed this House.
Administrator enters the Chamber announced by the Sergeant-at-Arms
Assent to Bills
Administrator: Please be seated.
Speaker: The Assembly has, at its present session, passed certain bills. In the name of and on behalf of the Assembly, I respectfully request your assent.
Clerk: An Act to Amend the Jury Act; Electoral District Boundaries Commission Act; Land Titles Act; An Act to Amend the Municipal Act; An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicles Act; An Act to Amend the Financial Administration Act; Building Standards Act; An Act to Amend the Home Owners Grant Act; An Act to Amend the Supreme Court Act; Municipal Finance and Community Grants Act; Yukon Development Corporation Loan Guarantee Act; An Act to Amend the Electrical Protection Act; An Act to Amend the Chartered Accountants Act; Third Appropriate Act, 1990-91; An Act to Amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act; An Act to Amend the Pounds Act; Highways Act; Environment Act; Historic Resources Act; An Act to Amend the Parks Act.
Administrator: I hereby assent to the bills as enumerated by the Clerk.
Ladies and gentlemen, I would just like to say a word before you adjourn today.
Besides wishing you a calm, peaceful and restful summer, which I know you have all earned after a very long and heavy session, as a former colleague, I would like to say a word about the retiring Leader of the Official Opposition - her Majesty’s loyal opposition. I am sure that another former colleague, who could not be present today, would join me in wishing you well, Mr. Phelps.
It has been a privilege to serve through the years with the third generation of a Yukon family to represent their people in this House. I think that is a record that no other Legislature in Canada holds, as far as I know.
We wish you well and we hope to see you again in this House with a less stressful load to carry.
Applause
Administrator leaves the Chamber.
Speaker: I will now call the House to order.
Special adjournment motion
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I move
THAT the House, at its rising, do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of the Speaker, after consultation with the Government Leader, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet;
THAT the Speaker give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time; and
THAT, if the Speaker is unable to act owing to illness or other causes, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order.
Speaker: It has been moved, by the Hon. Government House Leader
THAT the House, at its rising, do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of the Speaker, after consultation with the Premier, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet;
THAT the Speaker give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time; and
THAT, if the Speaker is unable to act owing to illness or other causes, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I move the House do now adjourn.
Speaker: It has been moved by the Hon. Government House Leader that the House do now adjourn.
Motion agreed to.
Speaker: This House now stands adjourned.
The House adjourned at 6:43 p.m.
The following Legislative Returns were tabled May 29, 1991:
91-2-120
Consulting contract copies for the Departments of Education and Government Services and for the Public Service Commission (McDonald)
Written Question No. 4
91-2-121
Cost of consulting contract with Drummond Fyfe from April 1 to May 31, 1990, and March 20 to 30, 1990 (Penikett)
Oral, Hansard, p. 822
91-2-122
Consulting contract copies for the Department of Tourism (Webster)
Written Question No. 4
91-2-123
Consulting contract copies for the Department of Renewable Resources (Webster)
Written Question No. 4
91-2-124
Moose populations and hunting in game management zones 7 and 9 (Webster)
Oral, Hansard, p. 914 and 915
91-2-125
Elk released in Hutshi Lake area (Webster)
Oral, Hansard, p. 1069 and 1138
91-2-126
Pounds Act charges laid pertaining to animals-at-large along the highway since April 1, 1989 (Webster)
Oral, Hansard, p. 953
91-2-127
Campground rowdiness violations statistics (Webster)
Oral, Hansard, p. 1128
91-2-128
Bison complaints in the Champagne area (Webster)
Oral, Hansard, p. 902 and 955
91-2-129
Consulting contract copies for the Department of Health and Social Services (Hayden)
Written Question No. 4
91-2-130
Consulting contract copies for the Department of Justice (M. Joe)
Written Question No. 4