MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_01CEF0F0.3A56AFE0" This document is a Single File Web Page, also known as a Web Archive file. If you are seeing this message, your browser or editor doesn't support Web Archive files. Please download a browser that supports Web Archive, such as Windows® Internet Explorer®. ------=_NextPart_01CEF0F0.3A56AFE0 Content-Location: file:///C:/B1334A59/119.htm Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Yukon Legislative Assembly <=
/span>
Whitehorse, Yukon
Tuesday, December 3, 2013 — 1:00 p.m.
Speaker: &nb= sp; I will now call the House to order. At this time, we will proceed with prayers.
Prayers
Daily Routine
Speaker: &nb= sp; We will proceed at this t= ime with the Order Paper.
Tributes.
TRIBUTES
In recognition of International Day of Persons with Disabilities and Disability Awareness Wee= k
Hon. Mr. Graham: &= nbsp; I rise today to ask all colleagues in the Legislature to join me in acknowledging the International Day of Persons with Disabilities. The theme= for this year is: “Break Barriers, Open Doors: For an Inclusive Society a= nd Development for All.”
More than one billion peo= ple — or approximately 15 percent of the world’s population — live with some form of disability. Persons with disabilities face physical, social, economic, and attitudinal barriers that exclude them from participa= ting fully and effectively as equal members of society. They are disproportionat= ely represented among the world’s poorest and lack equal access to basic resources such as education, employment, health care, and social and legal support systems. In addition, they usually have a higher rate of mortality.= In spite of this situation, disability has remained largely invisible in the mainstream development agenda and its processes.
The commemoration of this year’s International Day of Persons with Disabilities provides us wit= h an opportunity to further raise awareness of disability and accessibility not = just globally, but here at home as well.
We are indeed fortunate t= hat in a community the size of Yukon we have amazing groups of people who have come together through various organizations to support and serve Yukoners with disabilities, both physical and cognitive — Yukon Council on DisABILI= TY, Options for Independence Society, Yukon Association for Community Living, Teegatha’Oh Zheh, Autism Yukon Society, CNIB, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Society Yukon, to name a few. All of these groups provide support, not only= to the individuals themselves, but also to their families. The Yukon governmen= t in turn supports the Rick Hansen Institute and provides annual funding, which = is then redirected locally through the Yukon Solutions Team to assist in creat= ing accessible, inclusive communities. This money enables the purchase of adapt= ive equipment and other mobility aids, including installation of ramps in homes= and buildings.
All of these organization= s make tremendous efforts to benefit Yukoners with a wide range of disabilities, to help improve their health outcomes and enhance their quality of life. They = work very hard to break down barriers and open doors for all of their members and clients.
I have heard it said that= Yukon has some of the best supports in the country, especially for individuals wi= th disabilities. We should be very proud of that and those individuals who make that true.
I’d like to take the opportunity to introduce three of those individuals here today: Lisa Rawlin= gs Bird from YCOD, Bobbie Lucas from Teegatha’Oh Zheh, and Debbie Parent from Yukon Learn. Thank you very much for the work that you do.
Applause
Ms. Stick: &= nbsp; I rise on behalf of the Official Opposition and the Third Party to pay trib= ute to International Day of Disabled Persons and Yukon Disability Awareness Wee= k.
The theme of Internationa= l Day of Persons with Disabilities is “Break Barriers, Open Doors: For an Inclusive Society and Development for All.”
We are fortunate in the Y= ukon to have many groups, volunteer organizations, professionals and NGOs working to improve inclusivity for all Yukoners with disabilities. These include: Yukon Council on DisABILITY, Yukon Association for Community Living, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Society of Yukon, the Challenge-Disability Resource Group, Teegatha’Oh Zheh, Helping Hands day program, Open Doors day program, Options for Independence Society, Yukon Learn, Yukon Special Olympics and m= any groups and individuals providing residential supports to adults and childre= n.
I apologize if I have mis= sed any — I’m pretty sure I have. I would also be remiss if I did not recognize the many family caregivers in all our communities who are support= ing their family members with a disability. They are often the ones who listen closest and know what is most needed for the individuals they support.
Individuals with disabili= ties — whether children, adults, seniors or elders — all want the sa= me thing everyone else does: a safe, affordable place to live, an opportunity = to work and receive pay for that work and a chance to participate in the recreation and arts of the community. Individuals want to participate in th= eir communities, attend school, attend church, volunteer, develop relationships= and friendships and receive the appropriate supports they need to do these thin= gs.
These are all things that= we want and these are things we can all work on together. Are our businesses accessible? Do we consider individuals with disabilities when hiring new st= aff? Are our sports teams inclusive? Do we include individuals with disabilities= in our organizations and do we give them meaningful roles? Mr. Speaker, do we listen? If we want to break barriers and open doors, as this day’s th= eme suggests, there is much that each of us as individuals can do every day.
I want to thank all those organizations, individuals and family members who work hard to build inclus= ive communities throughout the Yukon and to remind each of us of the role that = we play in building a better community.
In recognition of the centenary of Girl Guiding in Yukon
Hon. Ms. Taylor: &= nbsp; I rise on behalf of the Assembly to pay tribute to Girl Guides and the upco= ming centenary of girl guiding in the Yukon, which began in Dawson City back in 1914. At that time, parents wanted more for their daughters and so the first gathering of 25, 10- to 12-year-old guides took place at St. Paul’s C= athedral. Martha Black was their patron and Harriet Osborne was their leader.
The early groups met at s= chool and church and did marching drills by the government building. They spent t= wo weeks every summer at Rock Creek on the Klondike River. They borrowed tents from the Royal Northwest Mounted Police and slept on spruce bough beds with Hudson Bay blankets. During the war years, they made candy, cookies and long-knit blue stockings for soldiers overseas and raised funds for the Red Cross.
Yukon guides have also pl= ayed a very important role as ambassadors. In 1953, 19-year-old Lena Tizya from Old Crow was chosen by the Commonwealth Youth Movement to represent Yukon and Alberta Girl Guides in London at the coronation of Her Royal Highness Queen Elizabeth II.
In 1959, Brownies and Gui= des were with Scouts and Cub Scouts at Whitehorse airport to welcome Her Majesty Que= en Elizabeth and Prince Philip during their royal tour. In 1967, 40 Girl Guides helped formed the honour guard to welcome Her Royal Highness Princess Alexa= ndra to the Yukon as part of Canada’s centennial celebrations. In 1982, Gu= ides greeted and attended celebrations with Princess Anne during her visit to Whitehorse.
By the 1960s, extensive g= uide camping was taking place and the land for Sprucewind, the campsite at MR= 17;Clintock Bay at Marsh Lake, was leased from the territorial government. In 1987, it = was purchased outright and hundreds of Girl Guides and Brownies have camped the= re ever since from across North America.
Yukon Guides have hosted = cadets from abroad, have won the Yukon Sourdough Rendezvous best group float and were an integral part of the community response to the 1979 Dawson City flood.
As one of the largest organizations for women and girls in Canada, Girl Guides continues to play = an important role in the lives of our youth. This may be because, while the Gi= rl Guides are a long-standing tradition in Canada, the organization has also b= een willing and able to change with the times. From learning to bandage wounds during the First World War to learning about Internet safety and privacy in today’s digital age, guiding continues to change with the times to reflect the needs and the interests of contemporary girls and women.
Guide laws and the Guide = promise have also evolved over the years to reflect what girls and young women valu= e in today’s world. Likewise, uniforms, badges as well as the recipe for t= he infamous Girl Guide cookies have also evolved over the last 100 years. What hasn’t changed, however, is the Girl Guides’ overarching vision= of supporting and enabling girls to be confident, resourceful and courageous, = and to make a difference in the world.
Though some time ago R= 12; and I must stress, Mr. Speaker, quite awhile ago — I had the privilege of serving as a Brownie and a Girl Guide here in the Yukon. My mother was a hu= ge advocate of guiding in the north and, as such, served as a team leader for a number of years in the Watson Lake division. My experience was a very posit= ive one, overall. Above all, it taught us the importance of teamwork, having fun and pursuing interests beyond what we thought were our interests at the tim= e.
It gave me a better appre= ciation of the outdoors and learning how to be a responsible environmental steward.= As a Brownie and a Guide, I had the opportunity to experience winter camping f= or the first time. I learned various skills and crafts, and engaged in the sal= e of a lot of Girl Guide cookies — a skill that has served me well in rece= nt years.
There are a number of pro= minent women who can say their lives were influenced by their association with Girl Guides, from the Queen Mother to Canada’s first female astronaut, Rob= erta Bondar, who was also a doctor and a scientist before her space adventures began.
Here at home, Yukon area = Girl Guides have made an impact on the history of Yukon and have contributed many individuals, including government leaders, commissioners, managers, directo= rs, teachers and many others with successful careers over the years. Ask any wo= man who has ever been a Girl Guide about the meaning and value it has played in their lives, and they will undoubtedly share with you some very profound and valued memories of how their lives were influenced by this highly respected organization and the camaraderie of their fellow Guides.
I believe there will alwa= ys be Girl Guides, as long as there are girls and young women who are interested = in being part of their community and making it a better place for everyone. Mo= st importantly, being a Girl Guide is about being true to yourself, which can often be a challenge for girls and young women in today’s world.
As minister responsible f= or the Women’s Directorate, I was honoured and pleased to acknowledge the excellent work and the contributions of the Yukon Girl Guide movement with = the unveiling of a poster during Women’s History Month in October. It was= an event that was well-attended and an event that certainly has contributed to= the ongoing history of this movement.
In keeping with past prac= tice, I will be delivering a box of Girl Guide cookies later today to every member = of the Legislative Assembly — because we all know that eating cookies in= the Assembly would contravene the Standing Orders of the Assembly —and to each person in the media gallery and to the Hansard office staff as well. As members are aware, all funds raised from the sale of Girl Guide cookies sup= port girls throughout the Yukon and their respective unit activities.
In closing, I’d lik= e to thank our own Yukon area Alberta Council — in particular, the Yukon a= rea commissioner Kerri Scholz, who has also joined us here in the gallery today — and the many countless volunteers for the imparting of their values= and helping to shape the lives of Yukon girls and future citizens for the past almost 100 years. Joining me in the gallery here today are Kerri Scholz, Jan Mann, Erin Dixon, Johanna Smith, Carole Laurie and Sarah Usher.
I would ask all members t= o join with me in giving a warm welcome to each of these individuals. I would also just put in a plug with respect to a number of upcoming events, in recognit= ion of 100 years of girl guiding in the Yukon, inclusive of a guiding retreat coming up in Dawson City to mark the 100th anniversary. It will = be taking place May 23 to 25 in Dawson City. For more information, one can actually go on to http://www.20= 14guideretreat.com. There will also be a book launch recognizing and commemorating the history = of Girl Guides in the territory and a museum exhibit launch at MacBride Museum that will be kicked off on February 1, 2014.
I would welcome all Yukon= ers to join with us in this great celebration coming up and to extend a warm welco= me to each and every one of you for joining us and for your contributions.
Applause
Speaker: &nb= sp; Introduction of visitors.
Introduction of Visitors
Ms. White: I ask the House to join me in welcoming Amanda Smith, who is a translator working with the hearing impaired. Thank you for being here.
Applause
Speaker: &nb= sp; Are there any returns or documents for tabling?
Are there any reports of committees?
Are there any petitions t= o be presented?
Are there any bills to be introduced?
Are there any notices of = motions?
Is there a statement by a minister?
This brings us to Question Period.
QUESTION PERIOD<= /p>
Question re: Mineral staking = on settlement land
Ms. Hanson: Mr. Speaker, Yukon First Nation governments were quick to respond to the December 2012 Ross River Dena Coun= cil Court of Appeal decision, telling the Yukon government in January 2013 that they were prepared to work collaboratively to develop new mining legislation and regulations. The government turned down this opportunity when they reje= cted the Ross River decision and asked the Supreme Court of Canada if they could appeal.
As of December 27 of last= year, the status quo for mining in this territory is no longer an option. The Yuk= on Court of Appeal made this clear when it handed down its decision and the Supreme Court of Canada made this clear when it rejected the governmentR= 17;s request to appeal.
So, Mr. Speaker, why is t= his government so intent on maintaining the status quo when it is clear this pa= th will only lead to further court battles and more economic uncertainty?
Hon. Mr. Kent: = span> Just to correct the record, there were two declarations made by the Yukon C= ourt of Appeal. One of them was accepted with respect to notification on class 1 activities within the Ross River area. The other one is the one that we appealed. Of course, as the member opposite referenced, we saw that the Sup= reme Court of Canada rejected our appeal and we’ve been working through th= e Executive Council Office, through the Premier’s leadership, in a government-to-government consultation with the Ross River Dena Council to identify areas within their traditional territory where staking won’t= be occurring. That declaration doesn’t require any amendments to the act= .
The amendments to the act= that are before this House, and the subsequent regulations, deal with the notifications under class 1. I know — I’ve spoken in the past a= bout this — that the NDP would prefer to see mining shut down in the territory, an end to the free-entry system, large-scale withdrawals of land, and increased royalties and taxes.
That’s not what we&= #8217;re about. The court didn’t question the free-entry system; neither is the Yukon government. We’re working to ensure that we meet the obligations under the December 27, 2012 Yukon Court of Appeal ruling and we’re working to do that by December 27.
Ms. Hanson: Mr. Speaker, Yukon First Nations gave up a great deal when settling land claims. In retu= rn, they agreed to work with the Yukon government following devolution to devel= op new mining legislation that would be consistent with the new relationship between the Yukon government and Yukon First Nation governments. The Premier rejected the First Nations’ request to activate provisions of the devolution agreement to develop successor legislation in collaboration with First Nations. The Ross River decision gave the Yukon government and Yukon First Nations an opportunity to modernize Yukon’s mining laws and regulations in a manner that respects aboriginal rights and provides certai= nty for the mining sector. First Nations only received draft copies of the prop= osed legislation and regulation at the eleventh hour. They were given until yesterday to respond.
Mr. Speaker, what does th= e government think it will achieve through this rushed consultation process? Has the government done a risk analysis to determine the likelihood that their acti= ons will lead back to court?
Hon. Mr. Kent: = span> I think it’s important for me to inform the House of the consultation process that has taken place with respect to these legislative changes.
In March of this year, th= e former Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, through department officials, info= rmed First Nations that we would be accepting the declaration with respect to cl= ass 1 activities. There was a consultation held on the legislative changes in J= une and July of this year, followed by discussions throughout August, September, October and November with respect to the changes to the legislation as well= as the regulations that we need to put in place to ensure that we can meet the declaration with respect to notification on class 1 activities by the court-imposed deadline of December 27.
I think that I can speak = on behalf of all Cabinet ministers on this side of the House in that we certai= nly see where there are a number of successes that we can celebrate in working = in partnership with the First Nations on a number of fronts. For instance, with Energy, Mines and Resources there are land developments with the Carcross-Tagish First Nation as well as the Teslin Tlingit Council that we = can point to as partnerships that are successful with respect to working with F= irst Nations.
We’re proud of the = work that we have accomplished together, but on some fronts there are difference= s of opinion and this is one of those cases. We’ll continue to work with F= irst Nations when it comes to ensuring that we have a healthy and responsible mi= ning sector here in the territory.
Ms. Hanson: Yukon First Nation governments have been clear that they want to work with the Yukon government and industry to create and maintain a climate of investor certai= nty and economic opportunity. The Ross River appeal court decision upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada in September confirmed that a mining system in which mining interests supersede all others cannot create this climate of certain= ty and opportunity. First Nation governments have suggested that in order to salvage the process, the Yukon government ask the court for leave to delay = the December 27 deadline so that the Yukon government and First Nation governme= nts have the time necessary to engage in meaningful consultation.
Will the Premier commit to requesting such a delay from the court?
Hon. Mr. Kent: = span> Again, we’re working with the Ross River Dena Council on the two declarations. On the one declaration with respect to class 1 notification, = not only are we working with the Ross River Dena Council but we did receive feedback from, I believe, 10 of the 14 First Nations when developing those = legislative amendments.
Yesterday was the deadlin= e for comments on the regulatory package and we received a number of letters from First Nations — letters that we commit to respond to.
We’re confident we = can meet that court-imposed deadline of December 27 with respect to the class 1 notifications. What it ultimately boils down to for us as governments, whet= her First Nation or the Yukon government, is that we need to decide if we all support responsible mining in the Yukon or not. It’s something we cer= tainly support as the Yukon government, but we recognize what it takes. It takes investment in infrastructure; it takes a clear and competitive regulatory regime; it takes a willingness by government to work with industry and First Nations to ensure that we can remain competitive on a global basis.
There are many jurisdicti= ons we compete with for investment dollars across the country, as well as around t= he world, and we want to ensure that, in the Yukon, we remain competitive when= it comes to a healthy mining industry.
Que= stion re: Peel watershed la= nd use plan
Ms. White: For seven years, First Nation governments, industry and the public engaged = in good faith with the Yukon government to develop a land use plan for the Peel watershed. However, the Yukon Party government then ignored the final recommended Peel plan.
The public knows that 55-= percent protection, as indicated in the final recommended plan, is balanced. Despite this, the government has been trying to impose on Yukoners and the four affected First Nations a completely new land use plan. We know that this government received final input from those First Nation governments just la= st week.
Will the minister tell th= is House if his government has the agreement of the four Yukon First Nations to move ahead on a final land use plan for the Peel watershed?
Hon. Mr. Dixon: &n= bsp; Mr. Speaker, as I’ve indicated previously, we have received input from the four affected First Nations with regard to the government-to-government consultation that we undertook with them. We are currently reviewing the in= put we’ve received from First Nations. Once we’ve concluded the rev= iew and consideration of the input we received from First Nations, we’ll determine how to move forward.
We will remain engaged wi= th First Nations as we continue forward, and especially, once it comes to implementation, we would hope that implementation would be something we cou= ld do in collaboration with First Nations.
As I’ve indicated i= n this House before and in the public before, we felt that the final recommended p= lan as presented by the commission was not balanced and, indeed, could be impro= ved upon by applying certain modifications.
We then consulted the pub= lic on those modifications and received a significant amount of input. Of course, = our intention is to move forward with a land use plan that provides protection = for key areas in the Peel watershed region, but also allows for a balanced use = and balanced provisions for access that allow our economy to continue on curren= tly and into the future.
Ms. White: The minister’s answers provide little comfort to those who want econo= mic and legal certainty in this territory. The minister’s answers also le= ave much open to speculation.
The staking moratorium in= the Peel expires on December 31 of this year. The Legislature’s last sitt= ing day is on December 19. Most First Nation government offices will be closed = over the Christmas week and, in some cases, into the new year. The public’s attention during the last half of December will be turned to celebration, to family and to friends.
This government has a rec= ord of burying controversial items by announcing them on a Friday of a long weeken= d or during a holiday period. Mr. Speaker, is it this government’s intenti= on to announce its own unilateral land use plan for the Peel watershed during = the holiday period?
Hon. Mr. Kent: = span> There is no date that is set for a final decision on a plan for the Peel bu= t, as mentioned by the Minister of Environment, we’re hopeful that all t= he parties have prioritized this for a timely conclusion of this important planning process.
I certainly recognize tha= t there a number of Yukoners who have invested significantly of their time and their effort, no matter what side of the Peel debate they’re on — whe= ther they want to see land used for traditional purposes or wilderness tourism, = or whether they’re engaged in responsible resource activity and they wan= t to make sure that there is a land base available to them going forward to find= the next discovery like the Rackla or the White Gold.
This certainly isn’= t an issue where you can run to one side or, like the New Democrats do, pick win= ners or losers. We’re trying to find a balanced plan for the Peel watershe= d, one with which we can ensure there remains healthy economic activity balanc= ed against the environmental protection and the traditional uses that Yukoners value as well. That’s what we’re working toward. We’re not going to put an artificial timeline on that. We’re going to ensure th= at we exhaust every opportunity to come up with a plan that works, not only for the Yukon government, but our First Nation partners as well.
Ms. White: The lack of assurance by this government to not announce its own land use p= lan for the Peel watershed during the Christmas and New Year’s break is v= ery troubling.
By refusing to rule out t= his possibility, it suggests that the Yukon Party government is contemplating j= ust that. Such an action by this government would be an affront to democracy, w= ould bring dishonour to the Crown and would be contemptuous to Yukoners and to a= ll those who participated in the planning process. Most importantly, it would = be a great disrespect to First Nation governments.
Will this government comm= it to not announcing its own land use plan for the Peel watershed during the holi= day period and to extending the interim subsurface withdrawals in the Peel regi= on until after December 31?
Hon. Mr. Kent: = span> What I’ll commit to is announcing the final Peel watershed plan when = it is ready. That’s something that the Minister of Environment has talked about. Again, we’re reviewing input from First Nations that we’= ve received over the past while. That final round of consultations with our Fi= rst Nation partners has been ongoing for some time now. There is a lot of information and we want to ensure that we exhaust every opportunity to find= a plan that not only works for us as the Yukon government, but also works for= our First Nation partners.
Again, with respect to the announcement of a final plan or the extension of the staking withdrawal in = the Peel watershed, we certainly want to exhaust all the opportunities that we = can to reach consensus with our First Nation partners and develop a plan that w= ill work for all Yukoners no matter where they are on this issue.
Again, as I’ve ment= ioned, the NDP seeks to always run to one side of any argument. We need to, as government, be responsible and find a balance that works for Yukoners, whet= her they’re First Nations in that area or whether they work in Marwell he= re in Whitehorse supporting the mining industry. We want to make sure that the= re are opportunities for everyone when it comes to the Peel watershed and the entire Yukon.
Que= stion re: Act to Amend the Placer Mining Act and the Quartz Mining Act co= nsultation
Mr. Silver: = I have a question for the Premier on Bill No. 66. The Premier has received an earful from both the mining industry and the First Nations of the Yukon over this legislation. One of the common concerns from both sides is a lack of consultation. The Teslin Tlingit Council has described the consultation pro= cess as vague, confusing and contradictory. The mining industry said back in June simply that the consultation period for amendments is too short.
For example, the governme= nt sent draft plain-language regulations to stakeholders on November 13 and gave th= em 14 business days to respond.
Why does the Premier thin= k that 14 days is adequate to review these important regulations?
Hon. Mr. Kent: = span> It’s important to spell out the consultation process with respect to these court-ordered amendments that are before the House right now, as well= as the regulatory package. As I mentioned in March, when the Yukon government decided not to appeal the one declaration with respect to class 1 activities and notification in the Ross River area, we informed the First Nation of th= at by letter. We launched a 60-day consultation period throughout June and Jul= y on the amendments to the legislation. Then, as early as August, we began work = with First Nations and industry on not only the development of the enabling amendments to the legislation, but also the regulatory package, culminating yesterday with the deadline for comments on the regulatory package that we’re also looking at.
We want to ensure we meet= the December 27 court-ordered deadline by the Yukon Court of Appeal. We’re confident that we can do that with respect to the class 1 activities. We’re working very hard and officials in the department are working v= ery closely with industry and First Nations to accomplish just that. As I mentioned, we feel we can meet that court-ordered deadline of December 27.<= /p>
Mr. Silver: = The Premier’s mailbox has been filling up yesterday and today with letters from First Nations that have a host of concerns about this government’= ;s approach to Bill No. 66. They don’t believe that 14 days is sufficien= t to review regulations, for example.
There is a mechanism the government could have used to meet with First Nations to discuss common iss= ues with respect to Bill No. 66. It’s called the Yukon Forum. The forum h= as met once in two years since this government was elected. It’s suppose= d to meet four times a year. It’s legislated to meet four times a year. Meeting to address questions regarding Bill No. 66 is exactly the type of situation the forum was created for.
Mr. Speaker, why didnR= 17;t the Premier convene a meeting of the Yukon Forum to address concerns over Bill = No. 66 instead of just ignoring First Nations’ concerns?
Hon. Mr. Kent: = span> As I mentioned earlier in Question Period today, the Yukon government works together in partnership with First Nations on many fronts. I personally, in= my former role as Minister of Education and my current role as Minister of Ene= rgy, Mines and Resources, have been to the leadership several times, as I’m sure others of my colleagues have, to discuss issues of importance. The most recent one for me, of course, was with respect to our clean power initiative and our desire to see the development of a hydroelectric dam here in the territory.
We’re very proud on= this side of the House of all that we’re able to accomplish together. On s= ome fronts, there are differences of opinion. Essentially, we agree to disagree= and this is one of those cases. We feel that through the consultation efforts of the last year — as we move toward this court-ordered deadline of Dece= mber 27 to have these amendments in place — we’ve conducted sufficie= nt consultation given the level of amendments that we’re proposing, as w= ell as the regulatory amendments that we’re proposing.
We feel that the question= again that needs to be answered is whether or not governments, including First Na= tion governments, do support responsible mining in the Yukon or not. We’ve seen examples recently through First Nations supporting CNIM training as we= ll as the royalties that are paid to Selkirk First Nation from Capstone Mining= that they do support responsible mining, and they join us in that support and we need a competitive regime.
Mr. Silver: = The question needs to be asked and a great place to ask this question would be = in the Yukon Forum.
One option available to a= ddress the question of consultation and a host of other issues was to ask this cou= rt for an extension to implement the decision. Unfortunately, that was never considered by this government and now we find ourselves up against a deadli= ne.
Concerns are being raised= by both miners and the First Nations that the bill is being rushed and that there h= as been inadequate consultation. The Government of Yukon bears full responsibi= lity for this situation. They created this problem and concerns that have been raised for months by stakeholders have been ignored.
How does the government p= lan to address concerns raised by Yukon First Nations regarding Bill No. 66?
Hon. Mr. Pasloski:  = ; What we are hearing today from the Liberal Leader is what we hear almost on= a daily basis, and that is a continual flip-flop on basically every issue that comes forward, whether it is on digital staking — which the Liberal P= arty said they supported but then this Liberal leader said that, no, they changed their mind on that — or on F.H. Collins — he will come out and = say that we’re taking too long and we need to move this forward faster, b= ut then he also comes out with an article that says to take the time to do it right.
What about the Peel, wher= e the Liberal leader is in support of no economic development and going forward w= ith a recommended plan that will see, essentially, cultural and traditional uses for that land and no opportunities for other economies to go forward? Then = he turns around and talks about how he supports mining in Ross River.
Mr. Speaker, when the Lib= eral leader talks to miners, he tells them that they support mining. When the Liberal leader talks to conservationists, he says that he’s opposed to mining. This is the Liberals. This is how they have worked in the past. Thi= s is how they continue to exhibit they would govern today.
Que= stion re: Oil-fired applian= ce safety
Ms. Moorcroft: <= /b> The Yukon government has a responsibility to act in the interest of public safety. Action to improve the safe use of oil-fired appliances from this government has been too slow. Five reports between 2007 and 2010 by industry expert Rod Corea and five preventable and tragic deaths of tenants speak to= the urgency for immediate action.
On May 2, 2013, the Oil-Fired Appliance Safety Statutory Amendment Act established regulation-making authority, but today — seven months later — there are no regulations in place governing the safety of oil-fired appliances.
When will the Yukon gover= nment bring forward regulations to adopt the current, relevant Canadian Standards= Association fuel oil code, B139-09, into law to improve safety for oil-fired appliances= ?
Hon. Mr. Cathers: = It’s really unfortunate the pattern that we see from the NDP here in = this Assembly, constantly the most negative possible characterization of events = in almost every case. As I pointed out before to members, work on the regulati= ons for the oil-fired appliance act is underway. The focus of staff is on getti= ng it right. I would remind the member that safety is something that we must t= reat very seriously, but the members have a tendency to overblow the issue ̵= 2; and overblow it and overblow it again.
Ms. Moorcroft: <= /b> What’s an unfortunate pattern is the Yukon Party government fails to = act. Carbon monoxide detectors are a good step, but they are not foolproof and t= hey hardly solve the problem. Although detectors can save lives, the root of the problem is the need to comply with sound, up-to-date safety standards and regulations under the Building Stan= dards Act, Electrical Protection Act<= /i> and Fire Prevention Act. Indust= ry-specific laws, such as the Yukon’s Gas Burning Devices Act, do in fact protect and guide the industry by requi= ring safe appliance installations and providing for permits, qualified installers and an inspection regime with strong enforcement measures.
Again I ask the minister,= when will the government enact regulations so that Yukoners can have more confid= ence that all oil-fired appliances in all Yukon buildings are installed and oper= ated to the highest-possible safety standards?
Hon. Mr. Cathers: = Again, I think this is really illustrative of the difference between the Yu= kon Party and the NDP. First of all, the NDP takes the attitude of trying to characterize every situation in the most negative possible light and ignores the facts in doing so.
Regulations under the oil= -fired appliance act are being developed right now, and of course the first step u= nder the Oil-Fired Appliance Safety Stat= utory Amendment Act includes requiring carbon monoxide detectors in residence= s. Really, that is the first step for each and every citizen — to ensure that they have somebody who is appropriately qualified to install whatever = type of heating unit they have, that they get the proper permits from Building Safety, and that they themselves take personal responsibility for ensuring = they have a carbon monoxide detector, a smoke detector, a working fire extinguis= her and an escape plan for their house, as recommended by the Fire Marshal̵= 7;s Office and by our good staff there.
Government will do, and i= s doing, what we can to prevent future tragedies, but it starts with individual responsibility like each member on this side of the floor accepts responsibility — unlike the NDP.
Ms. Moorcroft: <= /b> We’ve seen the advertisements in local newspapers telling homeowners = it is seriously simple to find a certified technician to check installations. = An advertising campaign is a good step, but it is not enough. The government should not wash its hands of responsibility for public safety. I want the Y= ukon Party to take government responsibility.
At the coroner’s in= quest into the death of the Rusk family and their friend Mr. McNamee, the landlor= d at 1606 Centennial testified that he was unaware of requirements for a permit = to install a used oil-fired appliance.
The coroner’s inque= st determined that the deaths of five tenants at 1606 Centennial Street by car= bon monoxide poisoning were preventable. I don’t know how to cast that in= a positive light. My question for the minister is this: how will the Yukon government ensure that all landlords and building owners meet the standards= and conduct annual inspections of oil-fired appliances in accordance with safety codes and certified manufacturers’ instructions.
Hon. Mr. Cathers: = The member continually makes reference to a tragedy and government, of cour= se, has taken appropriate steps, including territory-wide public consultation, = to determine where improvements can be made that could potentially prevent a tragedy occurring at any time in the future of a similar nature. That has included public education, that has included passing legislation with regar= d to oil-fired appliances and that includes the education campaign encouraging people to have their own carbon monoxide detectors. As I reminded the membe= r, it’s also important to have a working smoke detector, a fire extingui= sher and a proper escape plan in the event that your home develops a safety issu= e of that type.
The member, in referencin= g what she tries to characterize as a failure by government to act — why did= the member during her four years as a minister act in a manner that, by her own characterization, was so short-sighted in not responding to this need, if indeed she believes this is a crucial issue? The member deliberately likes = to overplay every issue and portray it in the most negative light because that’s all the NDP has to offer Yukoners.
Que= stion re: F.H. Collins Seco= ndary School reconstruction
Ms. Moorcroft: Yesterday the Premier stated in this House that the previous budget of $38.6 million for the reconstruction of F.H. Collins is the budget that they are still operating with for the new and smaller design. In the previous tender process in late 2012 — the one the government had to cancel because t= hey mismanaged the budgets and the estimates — the government had three independent estimates for that project. The Premier has said repeatedly in = this House that independent estimates are an important tool in ensuring fiscal responsibility.
Has the government sought= any independent estimates on the construction costs for the new design of F.H. = Collins Secondary School?
Hon. Mr. Istchenko: I thank the member opposite for the question. I’ve said this in this Ho= use before that I think they’re losing the forest through the trees. We a= re building — we are out to tender right now for a school for Yukon kids= to go to. I have to clarify the responsibilities of the minister and the department. The member opposite is unable to distinguish and grasp how government functions. The contract has been put out — or tenderized to it. It’s the responsibility of the department officials with the expertise in those areas to make sure that this comes across.
The Minister of Education= and I work with our other agencies on programming. Everything is set and ready to= go. We’re looking forward to the tenders being opened on the school and we’re looking forward to a new state-of-the-art school for Yukon stud= ents to go to.
Ms. Moorcroft: <= /b> It appears that the minister has lost his ability to hear and to answer the question. I’ll try tenderizing it for him.
The tender provides an es= timate of costs for the construction of a school in Edmonton, Alberta. The project tender also has a multiplier effect for Yukon costs, which would be determi= ned by the Yukon government. We know that the addendum has added costs from original tender. Those include insulation R values and triple-pane windows = that are in line with our northern standards and codes. We also know that the multiplier effect for the Yukon would cover the greatly increased costs for supplies and materials, transportation, wage schedules and supply chain challenges, to name a few.
Without an independent and professional estimate, how can the government determine the multiplier effe= ct and the true cost of this project?
Hon. Mr. Istchenko: &nbs= p; I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again in this House: deta= ils into the contracting are the responsibility of the department and I have complete faith in what the department is doing. The professionals working in the department are flexible and responsive to the input from the local buil= ding community. The contractors who have concerns go to the department and talk about the tender.
We’re building a sc= hool to LEED standards and energy efficiency in environmental design. We have three objectives with the school. Our primary objective is to build a school for Yukoners, unlike the members opposite who maybe don’t want a school f= or Yukoners. That is our responsibility to our Yukon families. Our secondary objective is to ensure that the school is built well. It will be — I’ve spoken to this in the House — with the LEED in energy and = in environment design and to the building codes required. Our final objective = is to provide a project that will create local jobs and economic activity. Tha= t is our responsibility to our local contractors, other businesses and like-mind= ed suppliers.
Ms. Moorcroft: <= /b> Mr. Speaker, independent estimates are a vital tool in ensuring transparency and sound fiscal management, and it is the Premier who has said repeatedly = in this House that independent estimates are an important tool in ensuring fis= cal responsibility. My objective is to try to get the government to do the proj= ect right and to live up to the standards they say themselves are important = 212; an independent estimate.
Again, Mr. Speaker, has t= he government sought any independent estimates on the construction costs for t= he new design of F.H. Collins school?
Hon. Mr. Pasloski:  = ; Again, we continue on with this line of questioning from the NDP, which rea= lly, to me, speaks to what we have heard from both opposition benches. That real= ly is a continued disrespect for the employees of this government, the public servants who continue to work to deliver on a daily basis. To have the opposition come out and tell people that we’re going to build a school that won’t meet code, that we’re not going to have enough classrooms, that we’re only building a school to house 450 students — we are confident in the ability of the public servants to ensure th= at we are building a school that meets the need of the school, that we do meet= all of the requirements under the building code, and that, in fact, we have eno= ugh classrooms to ensure that we can deliver on those programs.
We want to acknowledge th= e work of the building committee. I want to acknowledge the work of the administra= tion and the teachers of that school. I want to acknowledge the work of the department and the ministers for the work that they have done.
We are going to build a 2= 1st-century school that will be the pride of all of those students who work and will be going to school and to those teachers and administrators. Mr. Speaker, we a= re looking forward to the completion of that project.
Speaker: &nb= sp; The time for Question Period has now elapsed.
Not= ice of opposition private members’ business
Mr. Silver: Pursuant to Standing Order 14.2(3), I would like to identify the items stan= ding in the name of the Third Party to be called on Wednesday, December 4, 2013: Motion No. 332, standing in the name of the Member for Klondike, and Motion= No. 545, standing in the name of the Member for Klondike.
Ms. Stick: &= nbsp; Pursuant to Standing Order 14.2(3), I would like to identify the item stand= ing in the name of the Official Opposition to be called on Wednesday, December = 4, 2013: Motion No. 496, standing in the name of the Member for Whitehorse Cen= tre.
Speaker: We’ll proceed to Order=
s of the
Day.
Orders of the Day
Government Bills
Bill No. 63: Court and Regulatory Statutes Amendmen= t Act — Second Reading
Clerk: Second reading, Bill No. 63, standing in the name of the Hon. Mr. Nixon.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: &n= bsp; I move that Bill No. 63, entitled C= ourt and Regulatory Statutes Amendment Act, be now read a second time.
Speaker: &nb= sp; It has been moved by the Minister of Justice that Bill No. 63, entitled Court and Regulatory Statutes Amendmen= t Act, be now read a second time.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: &n= bsp; The people of Yukon elected this government to ensure good governance by practising open, accountable, fiscally responsible government. One way the government achieves this is by regularly reviewing its procedures. Achieving effective and efficient operations sometimes requires major legislative amendments, but other times operations are already effective and reviews can shift to identifying opportunities for improved efficiency.
The bill before us today = proposes efficiencies through 11 minor amendments to court operations and three minor amendments to regulatory procedures. As Minister of Justice, one of my fundamental responsibilities is ensuring all Yukoners have access to high-quality justice services, including efficient, effective and appropria= te court services that are accessible to the public.
Yesterday the members opp= osite seemed to be confused on several points, so I want to begin my comments tod= ay by mentioning some of the work that we are undertaking in the Department of= Justice. I’ll come back to these in a few moments, but to summarize the amendm= ents before us, the Court Jurisdiction a= nd Proceedings Transfer Act updates references to other statutes before the act is proclaimed.
The Human Rights Act changes will see the Legislature designate a deputy chief adjudicator to ensure there is no gap if the chief adjudicator= is unable to act.
The interprovincial subpo= ena act will allow travel expense rates for extra-territorial witnesses to be set by regulation.
The Judicature Act gives effect to the government’s commitmen= t to the Agreement on Internal Trade revisions allowing person-to-government disputes by allowing cost orders against persons to be enforced.
The Jury Act broadens the pool of eligible jurors and correctly ide= ntifies those who do not qualify. It allows the court to determine how prospective jurors should be summoned and increases the maximum fine for those who fail= to attend jury selection.
The Notaries Act makes it easier to identify notaries before whom documents have been sworn.
The Regulations Act and the Interpretation Act will clarify that members of the Legislature may be given electronic notice of filing of regulations and electronic copies of the regulations.= p>
The Territorial Court Act increases the retirement age of judges fr= om 65 to 70 and allows the appointment of staff justices of the peace who can perform strictly defined functions. The changes to the Court of Appeal Act, Sm= all Claims Court Act, Supreme Court= Act and the Territorial Court Act codif= ies each court’s existing capacity to impose restrictions on vexatious litigan= ts who abuse court time and resources and clarifies procedures for appealing t= hese restrictions.
While we’re talking= about courts, I want to mention we have updated information for the court services public information. The updated small claims booklets are now available for= the public. These booklets explain the small claims court process. On-line court forums are in the process of being posted to the Court Services website. = p>
I would also like to ment= ion that on August 7, 2013, the Yukon government appointed Peter Chisholm as a new j= udge of the Territorial Court of the Yukon. Mr. Chisholm has extensive experience with the Public Prosecution Service of Canada as defense council and has a strong knowledge of the legal system in the Yukon and a history of voluntee= rism in our territory.
The first four amendments= address improvements to the empanelling of a jury under the Jury Act. The jury is one of the oldest institutions in our jus= tice system. It is a civic duty that benefits us all by ensuring fair trials, wh= ich promotes a civic and just society. Thus it is vital that the process of emp= anelling jurors promotes fairness.
The bill advances this by exempting from jury service anyone who is involved in the prosecution of criminal offences or enforcements of sentences. In Yukon, this includes the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, federal Department of Justice and the federal Correctional Service. This amendment helps ensure that jurors do not possess prior knowledge of an accused person’s circumstances, which c= ould prejudice the jury.
The second amendment addr= esses the disqualification of people from jury service on the basis of having bei= ng previously convicted of an offence. Fulfilling one’s civic duty is the right and responsibility of every Canadian citizen, so when it comes to jury duty we must ensure that we only disqualify people when there is good reason for doing so.
Currently, the Jury Act disqualifies anyone who w= as convicted of a crime in which they could have been sentenced to a jail term exceeding 12 months. So even if the sentence was shorter, such as only one = day in jail, for the purpose of jury duty, the person is still treated as if th= eir crime was serious enough to warrant a sentence exceeding 12 months in jail. This infringes on a person’s civic identity and also reduces the pool= of potential jurors. We must ask ourselves, is this infringement justified? Do= es it make sense to reduce the pool of potential jurors when the judge did not think the circumstances of the crime were serious enough to impose a jail t= erm of more than 12 months?
We must also be cognizant= of the fact that when there are fewer potential jurors available, it means those w= ho are in the pool will be called upon more often — is this fair to them= ?
Our colleagues in Parliam= ent did not think so when they enacted section 638 of the Criminal Code. In that section, the grounds for challenging a j= uror based on prior conviction are only permitted when the juror actually receiv= ed a sentence of imprisonment exceeding 12 months, not simply when they could ha= ve received that sentence. Therefore, it is appropriate to disqualify people f= rom jury service on the basis of prior convictions only when that conviction resulted in a sentence of imprisonment that actually exceeded 12 months.
The next amendment remove= s the requirement for jury duty summonses to be sent via registered mail. Our rev= iew has determined that this requirement is not needed. Sheriffs in British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan deliver juror summons by regular mail and actually report a better response to this method of service.
A better response rate im= proves the likelihood of empanelling a jury quickly, reducing the demand on everyone’s time. Removing the requirement of service by registered ma= il also provides a cost-efficiency. It saves on mail fees and it saves on staff time. The amendment removes the requirement of registered mail and it repla= ces it with a requirement that the sheriff follow the direction of the senior j= udge of the Supreme Court of Yukon on issuing summons. Thus it is still open to = the judge to use registered mail where deemed appropriate when it is no longer mandatory.
The bill next addresses t= he maximum fine that the court may impose on someone who does not respond to a jury summons. Currently if a person does not respond, the court may impose a fine in a minimum amount of $25 and a maximum amount of $200. These amounts were established when the Jury Act<= /i> was passed in 1954. Although $200 may have been a lot of money at that time= , 60 years later, it is not a sufficient deterrent. The only other Canadian jurisdiction with a maximum fine for not responding to a jury summons ̵= 2; pardon me, for Hansard that’s “jurisdictions” — are both Nunavut and Northwest Territories. Both jurisdictions rely on legislat= ion that was also enacted more than half a century ago.
The other Canadian jurisd= ictions have increased their maximum fine amounts for not responding to a jury summ= ons or have eliminated a maximum amount altogether. Seven provinces allow for f= ines of up to $1,000. This amendment brings Yukon’s legislation in line wi= th the rest of Canada by allowing a maximum fine of up to $1,000. It also eliminates the minimum fine.
Mr. Speaker, the next ame= ndment deals with how travel expense rates are set for witnesses who live outside = the Yukon and are subpoenaed to a= ttend court in our territory. Currently, travel expense rates are addressed direc= tly in the Interprovincial Subpoena Act. The amendment allows= the rates to be set by regulation instead of within the statute, which is a more efficient means of using government resources and helps ensure the Legislature’s time is available for more significant matters.
Mr. Speaker, the bill mak= es minor amendments to the Court Jurisdictio= n and Proceedings Transfer Act. This act has been passed but is not yet proclaimed. The amendment updates a reference to the Child and Family Services Act to ensure accuracy before proclamation.
The next amendment implem= ents the government’s commitment under the Agreement on Internal Trade. This national agreement has recently been amended to allow persons to be involved as parties in disputes that were previously restricted to government parties only. Part of the agreement requires gover= nments to permit trade orders arising from disputes to be filed with the court, so that they are enforceable against the parties as court orders.
A recent amendment to the agreement requires the act to consider that persons may now be subject to t= rade orders and required to pay costs. The bill achieves this.
Now turning to the Notaries Act, the bill addresses t= he need for a judge or other official to be able to identify the name and commission of a notary public who has signed a document in their official capacity. This amendment requires notaries to print or stamp their first and last name and the date their commission expires beside their signatures. To avoid placing an unnecessary burden on some notaries whose office requires = them to sign numerous documents in a day, the amendment also provides that regulations can be made exempting certain classes of notaries from the requirement.
The next amendment addres= ses the inherent powers of the courts to restrict litigants who abuse the court pro= cess by persistently starting vexatious court proceedings. These are proceedings that are without merit and intended only to annoy or harass other parties or cause them to incur unnecessary legal fees. We are all well-aware of how valuable court time is. The courts work diligently to provide services in a timely manner, yet as anyone who has brought a matter to court can attest, = it often feels like waiting for one’s day in court takes a long time. Th= is is of course because court proceedings must be rigorous and thorough to ens= ure justice is done and achieving that level of detail takes time. When a vexat= ious matter is filed, it places an unnecessary burden on the time of everyone who has a matter before the court.
It is therefore important= that the courts can take steps to address litigants who have proven themselves to persistently abuse the court process. The courts already possess this power through their inherent jurisdiction to control their proceedings. They can order a person to be declared a “vexatious litigant”, which mea= ns they must receive a leave from the court before commencing proceedings.
However, since the inhere= nt jurisdiction of the courts is not codified, it is more difficult for a layperson to understand this law. To make it accessible, the bill amends th= e Small Claims Court Act, Territorial Court Act, Supreme Court Act and Court of Appeal Act by codifying e= ach court’s inherent jurisdiction. We must also ensure safeguards exist so that no person is unfairly restricted from access to the courts. Therefore,= the bill also expressly clarifies that a right of appeal exists for a litigant = to have their vexatious status revoked or to apply for leave of the court to initiate proceedings that do have merit.
Finally, the amendment re= quires that the Attorney General must be given an opportunity to make a submission= at any hearing where the status of a vexatious litigant is being considered by= the court. This provides an additional safeguard to ensure all Yukoners have ac= cess to appropriate court services.
The next amendment improv= es efficiency in how Court Services arranges the services of justices of the p= eace for routine, non-discretionary matters. For example, currently after a bail hearing when an accused is released on a recognizance or undertaking, an on= -call justice of the peace must be called in to read and explain the release conditions to the accused.
Since JPs are not always = present in the registry, there can be a delay while they travel to the courthouse. = This creates a delay in releasing the accused from custody or returning them to Whitehorse Correctional Centre. To improve this process, the bill amends th= e Territorial Court Act to provide f= or staff justices of the peace. These JPs would be a small subset of the regul= ar court registry staff who would be empowered to carry out JP functions that = do not involve discretion, such as a reading of the conditions of release to an accused.
Since there would always = be at least one staff JP present in the court registry, the time spent waiting fo= r a JP would be greatly reduced. There would also be a financial savings since = the staff JP is already present.
The final amendment invol= ving changes to court operations changes the age of retirement for Territorial C= ourt Judges from 65 to 70. This amendment has been requested by the judiciary and brings Yukon in line with other Canadian jurisdictions.
We now turn to the second= part of the bill, which makes amendments to various regulatory procedures. The first amendment addresses the Human Right= s Act. Currently the act does not address the situation where the chief adjudicato= r of the panel of adjudication is incapable of acting in his or her role. This c= ould result in a procedural delay until a new chief is appointed by the Legislat= ure. The amendment will require the Legislature to appoint a deputy chief adjudicator who would have no extra powers or functions unless the chief adjudicator is unable to act.
If the chief adjudicator = becomes unable to act, then the deputy chief would be empowered to act in place of = the chief adjudicator until such a time as the chief adjudicator becomes able to act again or the Legislature appoints a new chief adjudicator.
The final two amendments = deal with regulations. The first increases the efficiency of how minor correctio= ns to existing regulations are made. Currently, making minor corrections to a regulation, such as fixing grammar or references, or repealing obsolete provisions requires an amending regulation for each regulation that needs correcting. To improve the efficiency of Cabinet, the bill enables minor corrections of more than one regulation to be made in a single miscellaneous amendments regulation.
The final amendment invol= ves the notice and delivery of regulations that have been filed with the registrar.= The current requirements are for all regulations to be laid before the Legislat= ure as soon as it is convenient. The amendment provides for the registrar to distribute regulations by electronic mail or other available means as soon = as possible after filing. This allows the registrar to take advantage of modern communications technology and it promotes expediency.
In conclusion, this bill = supports the government’s commitment to ensure good governance by practising o= pen, accountable, fiscally responsible government and the Department of Justice’s commitment to ensuring access to high-quality justice servi= ces, including efficient, effective and appropriate court services that are accessible to the public.
By attending to the detai= ls, the government is able to realize efficiencies that save time and expenses, whi= ch really benefit all Yukoners. I would like to thank the judiciary of both the Yukon Supreme Court and the Yukon Territorial Court for their input into th= is legislation. The court is always interested in making improvements and I= 217;m glad that our government was able to accommodate their requests for some of= the changes to legislation contained here in Bill No. 63. I think it shows that= we can work together to ensure that the judicial branch of government works we= ll and has the tools to do its job efficiently.
I would also like to take= the time to thank the staff at Court Services, the legislative counsel office a= nd the Policy and Communications branch for their hard work on this bill.They = did work very hard, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that the bill, although relatively m= inor in the nature of the changes, made it to Cabinet in a timely manner for the fall legislative session on top of the many things that are asked of them in their day-to-day work.
We know that the Departme= nt of Justice is a central service department that offers legal support to all ot= her departments, but they also have the responsibility for managing nearly 100 pieces of legislation of their own and they do an excellent job of managing this dual role.
Ms. Moorcroft: <= /b> The Official Opposition will be supporting the Court and Regulatory Statutes Amendment Act that is before us today. I want to thank the minister for reading into the record a description of what statut= es and regulations will be changed. I’m glad the minister is doing his j= ob to bring forward amendments to improve the functioning of the courts and to= add tools that will support the work of court staff.
I also want to thank the Department of Justice officials who will be listening to this debate so the minister can respond to the questions that I will now put on the record and= we can deal with when we are in Committee of the Whole.
I’m going to begin = with the orders in respect of a vexatious litigator. I’d like to know the natu= re and extent of this problem. How many litigators have brought forward vexati= ous actions without merit in the last two to five years? Do they anticipate that there will be many persons who have been persistently instituting vexatious proceedings, making it necessary to have such orders?
There’s also an ame= ndment to the Human Rights Act. I woul= d like to know if the Yukon government consulted with the Yukon Human Rights Commission about those amendments to the Human Rights Act. What the amendments do is establish that the Legislature wi= ll select the chief and deputy chief for the human rights board of adjudication.
I would be interested in = knowing what the criteria would be for the selection of those positions — if = they would be required to have training in law or knowledge and experience of administrative law.
The minister did explain = the rationale for the new staff justices of the peace with limited authority and indicated that their authority would be largely reading conditions of relea= se to an accused person to avoid delay in processing. He also indicated that w= ould be cost-effective. I will be asking the minister what other duties they may have. Does the minister know how many will be appointed and what it will co= st?
There’s also refere= nce to miscellaneous corrections to regulations looking at editorial or drafting practices and defining a consistent form of expression. I note that the amendments also refer to using gender-neutral language. It is challenging t= o be gender-neutral. I would suggest that gender-inclusive language would be an = appropriate term to use.
On the raising of the age= of retirement for a Territorial Court judge to 70, the minister said that that would comply with other jurisdictions. Was that the sole reason for raising= the age of retirement for a Territorial Court judge, or was this a request from= the judiciary or from the department or both?
I don’t have further comments with regard to the other amendments that will be before us. We can discuss them in Committee.
Speaker: &nb= sp; Are you prepared for the question? Are you agreed?
Some Hon. Memb= ers: Agreed.
Speaker: &nb= sp; The yeas have it. I declare the motion carried.
Motion for second reading of Bill No. 63 agreed to
Bil= l No. 60: Act to Amend the Corrections Act, 2009= — Third Reading
Clerk: Third reading, Bill No. 60, standing in the name of the Honourable Mr. Nixo= n.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: &n= bsp; Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill No. 60, entitled Act to Amend the Corrections Act, 2009, be now read a third time and do pass.
Speaker: &nb= sp; It has been moved by the Minister of Justice that Bill No. 60, entitled Act to Amend the Corrections Act, 2009= , be now read a third time and do pass.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: &n= bsp; I will be brief in my remarks. I again want to extend my appreciation to the Department of Justice for the excellent work they have done on Bill No. 60, entitled Act to Amend the Correctio= ns Act, 2009, and again express my thanks to all members of this Legislatu= re for supporting this bill as it moves forward.
Ms. Moorcroft: <= /b> My remarks will be brief as well. I do want to put on the record, Mr. Speaker,= that in second reading debate, the Official Opposition indicated that we will support this bill. We also raised our concerns about creating a new class of criminals — police prisoners — who are often people who are pic= ked up by the RCMP for public intoxication.
We noted that the 2010 Be= aton and Allen Task Force on Acutely Intoxicated Persons at Risk Final Repo= rt recommended a very different approach than the one the Yukon Party has take= n to criminalize people with addictions. Dr. Beaton and Chief Allen spoke about = the archaic Yukon Liquor Act, which= the Yukon government has still not updated, and they spoke about the need to up= date that legislation.
Beaton and Allen also spo= ke about the need to treat people who are drunk in public and struggling with addict= ions — often because of deep-rooted social and economic disadvantage ̵= 2; with respect and compassion. The key to doing that lies in changing attitud= es.
Dr. Beaton and Chief Alle= n noted that: “Persons of First Nations’ ancestry constitute a majority= of the individuals who are detained under the Yukon Liquor Act. Such individuals re= port, both directly and through representatives, they frequently are the recipien= ts of inappropriate attitudinal behaviours, when detained while acutely intoxicated. It is not the intent of this report to explain the reasons for this behaviour but the statement was so frequent in our conversations that = we accept the validity of the assertion.”
The Beaton and Allen repo= rt went on to note: “If any attendee to intoxicated persons demonstrates repeatedly that he is not capable of acting with respect, recognizing digni= ty or acknowledging personal rights and freedoms, that person should not be allowed to continue to serve in that capacity.”
We also raised in second = reading and in the Committee debate the missed opportunity to make improvements to = the Corrections Act, 2009 in respondin= g to people with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder who become involved with the criminal justice system.
We spoke about recommenda= tions made by the Canadian Bar Association to look at authorizing a judge to make= an order approving an external support plan recommended by an FASD person̵= 7;s probation officer that could be in effect after probation expires.
With those brief comments= , I will again state that we will be supporting this legislation and would encourage= the government to consider our advocating for making even more improvements to = the Corrections Act, 2009.
Speaker: &nb= sp; Are you prepared for the question?
Some Hon. Memb=
ers: Division.
Div= ision
Speaker: Division has been called.
Bells
Speaker: &nb= sp; Mr. Clerk, please poll the House.
Hon. Mr. Pasloski:  = ; Agree.
Hon. Mr. Cathers: = Agree.
Hon. Ms. Taylor: &= nbsp; Agree.
Hon. Mr. Graham: &= nbsp; Agree.
Hon. Mr. Kent: = span> Agree.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: &n= bsp; Agree.
Ms. McLeod: = Agree.
Hon. Mr. Istchenko: &nbs= p; Agree.
Hon. Mr. Dixon: &n= bsp; Agree.
Mr. Hassard:  = ; Agree.
Mr. Elias: = Agree.
Ms. Hanson: Agree.
Ms. Stick: &= nbsp; Agree.
Ms. Moorcroft: <= /b> Agree.
Ms. White: Agree.
Mr. Tredger:  = ; Agree.
Mr. Barr: <= /span> Agree.
Mr. Silver: Agree.
Clerk: Mr. Speaker, the results are 18 yea, nil nay.
Speaker: &nb= sp; The yeas have it.
Motion for third reading of Bill No. 60 agreed to
Speaker: &nb= sp; I declare the motion carried and that Bill No. 60 has passed this House.
Hon. Mr. Cathers: = I move that the Speaker do now leave the Chair and that the House resolve i= nto Committee of the Whole.
Speaker: &nb= sp; It has been moved by the Government House Leader that the Speaker do now le= ave the Chair and that the House resolve into Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to
Speaker leaves the Chair
Committee of the Whole
Chair (Ms. McLeod): = Committee of the Whole will now come to order. The matter before the Commit= tee is Bill No. 61, entitled Health Information Privacy and Management Act. Do members wish to take a brief recess?
All Hon. Members: &n= bsp; Agreed.
Chair: Committee of the Whole will recess for 15 minutes.
Recess
Chair: Committee of the Whole will now come to order.
Bil= l No. 61: Health Information Privacy and Managem= ent Act
Chair: The matter before the Committee is Bill No. 61, entitled Health Information Privacy and Management Act.
Mr. Graham, you have the = floor with just about 18 minutes left.
On Clause 57 — continued
Hon. Mr. Graham: &= nbsp; I think we stood over clause 56, so I’ll speak to both 56 and somewha= t to 57 as well because the same phrase repeats itself — when we were talk= ing about an enactment of Yukon or Canada or a treaty arrangement or agreement entered into. Last time we discussed this bill there were concerns raised a= bout that subclause, and it appears in three different places in the bills: in t= he disclosure, use and collection. All three sections have it.
The members opposite were questioning the language that we see in this clause — I think it star= ts on 56(1)(b) — that permits disclosures, use or consent, “subjec= t to the requirements and restrictions, if any, that are prescribed, if an enact= ment of Yukon or Canada, or a treaty, arrangement or agreement entered into under such an enactment, permits or requires the use.”
I realize that this bill isn’t the easiest to understand, and I acknowledge the concerns. What we’ve tried to do is explain this subclause and hopefully clarify the references in the three sections where the language was identical.
The intent is to allow for disclosure in circumstances where other legal instruments — either Yu= kon or federal — permits or requires disclosures. The legal instrument wo= uld be a law or a treaty, an arrangement or agreement that is made under a Yuko= n or federal law. For example, in cases of disease outbreaks, the Yukon Public Health and Safety Act requi= res disclosures by health care providers, who are custodians, of certain person= al information to be made to the chief medical officer. This specific disclosu= re is not identified under this bill, other than by reference in this provisio= n. So the only way the chief medical officer could disclose information requir= ed under the Public Health and Safety = Act would be under this act.
Other acts that require disclosures and that work in conjunction with this subclause include the Yu= kon and federal Statistics Act. I h= ave mentioned that work is underway with B.C. on a public health program. It’s a cooperative program called “Panorama.” An agreement will be required to support disclosures and indirect collection of personal information because B.C., as part of our agreement, will necessarily collect some of that information. This will be an example of a disclosure that woul= d be permitted under this subclause, because another act — in this case, t= he Yukon Health Act — permits Yukon to enter into an agreement for the disclosure of personal health information.
So, already under the Yuk= on Health Act, there is a clause R= 12; I think enacted in the 1990s — that allows us to disclose personal heal= th information to B.C. if a person is being transferred there for medical services. Under this act, you would no longer be able to do this if we didn’t have this clause in there. That’s the reason. I admit it’s all complicated, but once you wrap your head around those things= , it gets easier because basically what we’re talking about is that the language in this subclause acknowledges that other types of information flo= ws may be required pursuant to other legal instruments that may not typically = be considered to be acts about personal health information. The intention of t= his bill is to continue to allow collection, use or disclosure if it is require= d or permitted by a law of Yukon or the federal government.
When I refer to legal instruments, this could include treaties. In this subclause, “treaty” means a special type of an agreement. It’s an agreement entered into between nations or states, and an identical provision exists in ATIPP and we have tried to mirror some of the familiar language in ATIPP when possible. A common example of the use of the word “treaty” is in international tax= ation agreements between governments generally called “tax treaties”.= The wording of this clause is almost identical. It reflects the standard provis= ion found in a number of other provinces. Ontario, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan all use the word “treaty” in their parallel provisions.
I hope that this sheds a = little light on these three clauses. If there are any other questions I’ll attempt to answer them.
Clause 57 agreed to
Chair: The minister is now ready to proceed with clauses that have been stood over. Th= at would be clause 54 on page 41. Is there any debate?
On Clause 54 — previously stood over
Clause 54 agreed to
On Clause 56 — previously stood over
Clause 56 agreed to
On Clause 58
Ms. Stick: &= nbsp; I’m going to refer back to what the minister just spoke of and explain one of my concerns, though we’ve agreed on the other two clauses to p= ass that certain one. There was just a recent news article on CBC of a woman attempting to enter the United States to go on a trip. She was denied entry= and was told the reason for that, and then they proceeded to state that she had been hospitalized for a mental health problem.
Now, this is being looked= at by the ATIPP Information and Privacy Commissioner in Ontario, who has since received other complaints from individuals saying they were denied entry ba= sed on personal health care information. The reason I was concerned about this = was, I know that sometimes there are treaties with other nations. Sometimes it’s with the United States and has to do with Homeland Security. We = have to give them flight lists of who is flying over their country and that type= of personal information, so that’s what we were trying to understand. Th= en we saw this article this week, saying that, somehow, border guards had pers= onal health care information of individuals trying to enter the United States.= p>
It is being investigated,= but you can understand where our concerns would be with regard to this certain clau= se and not being sure of what treaties or agreements we do have with other countries, whether that personal health care information is protected, or a= re there instances when it could be shared — except for an epidemic, as = the minister talked about, or any other situation.
I’ll just put that = out there as an example of something we were concerned about and not knowing al= ways what those treaties and agreements are with other countries.
Hon. Mr. Graham: &= nbsp; I’m not aware and we’re not aware of any treaties right now that would allow that kind of disclosure. What we do have is an agreement between Yukon, Alaska, B.C. and a couple of western states — and Alberta too — with respect to exchanging information during a communicable disease outbreak. That’s the only treaty that the Yukon government has entered into that would enable that kind of exchange of information without allowing people the chance to agree to disclosure — but that’s the only case.
Ms. Stick: &= nbsp; I want to move on to, under section 58(e), where it says a custodian may disclose an individual’s personal health information without the individual’s consent if the personal health information is available = to the public. I just wondered if the minister could give an example of when a person’s personal health would be out in the public.
Hon. Mr. Graham: &= nbsp; A perfect example, Madam Chair, is — if a famous or infamous — = if a member of the Opposition were to go skiing on the ski hill and break her leg and it was on the local CBC news, her doctor would be able to confirm or de= ny that she actually did break her leg. That would be an example. Because the = CBC news already announced it, it would be available to the public and a doctor would be able to confirm that that was true.
Ms. Stick: &= nbsp; It would be news to me if I was skiing down a hill, Madam Chair.
In the next one (h), it s= ays — again, it’s about disclosing without the individual’s consent for any purpose other than providing health care — if the custodian reasonably believes that the disclosure will prevent or reduce a = risk of serious harm to the health or safety of any other individual. I’m looking again about another example for this, please.
Hon. Mr. Graham: &= nbsp; One of the good things about having a staff knowing that I’m not all = that sharp is that they’ve included examples on almost everything.
The example here is that,= if a doctor diagnoses a patient with severe dizziness, and the patient is a construction worker who could be injured or cause injury to others at work = if he became dizzy at work, if the patient refuses to comply with the doctor’s advice to stop working or to take a temporary desk job, the doctor could communicate the risk of injury to the patient’s employer= .
Ms. Stick: &= nbsp; I’ll move on to (n), which is about disclosure to the Canadian Instit= ute for Health Information or to a prescribed health data institute in Canada. I’m just wondering if the department is contemplating entering into agreements with other health information systems within Canada.
Hon. Mr. Graham: &= nbsp; Madam Chair, the example we have is the Canadian Institute for Health Information which is Canada’s national health database. I just return= ed from a national meeting of the Canadian Institute for Health Information and it’s supported by all jurisdictions across the country and is governe= d by a board with representation from across Canada. It provides analysis of hea= lth information to support improved health care to Canadians through better hea= lth policy and health system management. So this clause gives us the ability, i= f we have a written agreement, to provide them with health information without disclosure.
Ms. Stick: &= nbsp; Section (p) and (q)(i) kind of go together and talk about disclosure of information to verify an individual’s eligibility. It talks about fun= ding from the Government of Yukon, another province or Canada. I’m just wondering if, under this, could a person be denied health care, if in fact = it was determined they weren’t eligible?
Hon. Mr. Graham: &= nbsp; This section allows us to say whether or not that person is covered in Yuko= n. A perfect example is at Yukon College. Many times students would come in and = they did not have a health care card or an address. Health and Social Services h= ad the ability to give us the student’s address only for purposes of determining that the person was a Yukon resident. The same thing would be d= one for insured health, or Health and Social Services can inform a doctor’= ;s office that a patient who did not bring a health care card to an appointmen= t is still covered to receive care. Under those two examples, some information c= an be given just to make sure that the person receives care or receives a serv= ice.
Ms. Stick: &= nbsp; Under (s) and (t), still in the same part — litigation guardian, I’m not clear what that is.
Hon. Mr. Graham: &= nbsp; Litigation guardian is when a minor or a person not capable of representing themselves applies to the court and has someone appointed to act for them. That’s a litigation guardian.
An example for this secti= on is a psychiatrist who has completed a capacity assessment and found an individual who received a brain injury in a car accident to be incapable, can give that information to the injured individual’s wife so that she can sue on behalf of her husband, so the court can approve the wife to act for the inj= ured husband. The wife would be the litigation guardian, in that case.
Ms. Stick: &= nbsp; I am assuming then that this next section, (u)(i), talks about disclosing information for the purpose of complying with a “summons, warrant, or= der or similar requirement”. I’m again looking for an example of wh= en that would happen in (i) or (ii).
Hon. Mr. Graham: &= nbsp; It would mean that, if the wife had been approved by the court to represent= her injured husband as a litigation guardian in a lawsuit, the husband’s doctor can give her information with respect to her husband’s injury = or medical history.
Ms. Stick: &= nbsp; Going on to, under (x)(i), it’s about disclosure of information witho= ut the individual’s consent “to the Minister of Justice or the police”. Again, I’m just looking for an example. So far, I̵= 7;ve been able to follow them, so thank you.
Hon. Mr. Graham: &= nbsp; Examples are wonderful. Under this section, the Minister of Justice or the police would be able to receive that information if it relates to a possible offence under the law of Yukon or Canada. The example is the hospital can g= ive the police a limited amount of information, set out in the regulations, abo= ut a gunshot victim being treated in emergency.
Ms. Stick: &= nbsp; Under (y)(ii), there’s the section about providing information for the purpose of preventing or reducing abuse in the use of health care — j= ust another example, please.
Hon. Mr. Graham: &= nbsp; You’re going to love this one. An example is: a doctor who is called = by a pharmacist who suspects a prescription is a forgery can tell the pharmacist that a prescription brought in by a patient is a fake or is real.
Ms. Stick: &= nbsp; Under (z)(cc), it talks about the P= ublic Health and Safety Act. It’s a section that refers to the chief medical officer. It talks about under the laws of another jurisdiction, if a disclosure can be made — “if the disclosure is made to permit t= he chief medical officer or the authority to discharge a duty, function or pow= er under that act” or a substantially similar duty, function or power. Again, I’m just looking for clarification please.
Hon. Mr. Graham: &= nbsp; This is like what we talked about before where we have a treaty with western Canada and the western States as well as Alaska. Under this specific sectio= n, Health and Social Services could disclose information about patients in Wat= son Lake with a contagious disease to the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control to control the spread of that contagious disease from Watson Lake, Yukon, to Lower Post, which is in B.C. That’s what is meant by the interjurisdictional transfer.
Chair: Can we be clear on the section that we’re referring to? I thought Ms. Sti= ck was talking about (z).
Ms. Stick: &= nbsp; Just to clarify, apparently it is just (cc), not (z)(cc).
Chair: Thank you.
Ms. Hanson: Just another point of clarification. With respect to (dd)(i), it says — so here someone’s doing an audit review and they have a bunch of material that they’ve amassed before commencing the audit review of accreditation — “to destroy the personal health information at the earliest possible opportunity after completing the audit, review or accreditation.” I don’t see in the subsequent ones if there is = any ultimate termination point. Just in terms of whether there is any requireme= nt — so, if I say it’s the earliest possible, what’s to prev= ent them from dragging that out for six months or six years?
Hon. Mr. Graham: &= nbsp; You’re right in that it would mean an auditor or an accreditation more than anything. They would receive the information during their accreditation and we would expect that the information would be destroyed immediately aft= er the accreditation. Let’s say for Whitehorse General Hospital or for t= he Continuing Care section of Health and Social Services, once that accreditat= ion evaluation was done, we would expect that the information would be destroye= d.
There is no specific time= limit under this and this is maybe something we should look at doing under regulation, so we’ll take that under advisement — but it wouldn’t be done in any event right here; it would be done under regulations.
Clause 58 agreed to
On Clause 59
Clause 59 agreed to
On Clause 60
Ms. Stick: &= nbsp; I have a couple of questions in this section, the first being when it talks about disclosure to a successor. I’m assuming this would be if a new doctor was taking over an old doctor’s practice, or if a person’= ;s health information was being transferred from Macaulay Lodge to Thomson Cen= tre or Copper Ridge. I just wanted to know if, in that first 60(1), this is what we’re talking about there.
Hon. Mr. Graham: &= nbsp; Yes, that’s right. The “potential successor” is a person = who may enter into an agreement — “may” enter into an agreeme= nt to accept — and “successor” is actually someone who obtai= ns custody. So with “potential”, we’re talking about somebody looking at a practice to buy it — whether it’s a doctor or a dentist or a psychiatrist — and in the second, it’s somebody who actually obtains custody and controls it. They then become the “successor.”
Ms. Stick: &= nbsp; One of the things I looked for in this — and something that was point= ed out to me by a few individuals — was what happens when a clinic perha= ps closes and a person’s files do not get transferred to a new physician? How is a person supposed to be able to access their own personal health care information that they might take to another physician if the clinic closes without a replacement?
Hon. Mr. Graham: &= nbsp; The actual legislation was covered somewhat earlier, but remember that a custodian never loses the responsibility of those records until they transf= er that responsibility to a successor. They would be responsible for maintaini= ng control of those documents and providing security for those documents. Reme= mber that they can even charge a fee that will be set in regulation for people to access those personal health records.
In fact, under this secti= on now, if a person chooses not to have their personal health records transferred t= o a successor, they can do that as well by simply saying that they do not want = to have their files transferred. That is also the other thing that’s in here.
Ms. Stick: &= nbsp; Which would then raise the question: what happens to those records if the person says, “I don’t want them transferred”? Where do th= ey go and how does that person have access to them?
Hon. Mr. Graham: &= nbsp; They could either be transferred to the individual themselves or, if they didn’t take them themselves, the doctor would have the responsibility= to maintain control and custody of those. I can’t remember what length of time they would have to keep those — we don’t have any set limi= ts — so they would have to keep them under custody and control.
Ms. Stick: &= nbsp; My only other question around that whole piece would be, what if that physi= cian leaves the territory — even the country — retires or goes somew= here else? Again, it’s just being able to access your own personal health = care information that concerns me.
Hon. Mr. Graham: &= nbsp; We can only control what happens in the territory. In the case you mentioned where they may leave, we would expect that they would either transfer contr= ol of those to another custodian or to the patients themselves. That option wo= uld be there. In any event, they have to maintain security and control of those patient documents.
Clause 60 agreed to
On Clause 61
Ms. Stick: &= nbsp; I am looking for clarification on the diagnosis decision and the definition= of that. I’m looking for an explanation, please.
Hon. Mr. Graham: &= nbsp; This is the section we talked about at length, I think, in general debate. I think it was mainly because the IPC noted that this section was unlike any other section anywhere else in Canada. In my opening speech, I mentioned th= at we do have some items in this piece of legislation that, we believe, are setting the stage for other things to happen.
The section is really int= ended to support individuals who have used up all other avenues to obtain a diagnosi= s of medical conditions that cannot be made without limited information about another individual, specifically FASD, and that’s why I was really interested in the debate when we talked about the prevalence study going on= in the local corrections institution, because part of that diagnosis — a= nd I know the NDP critic for Justice said how important it was to get that diagn= osis in order for a person to be eligible to enter into programs to assist them = when they are afflicted with FASD. So the section is, in part anyway, a response= to concerns raised during our discussions with various FASD workers, as well as NGOs, Yukon Justice and Health and Social Services staff. It also responds = to a call to action by the Canadian Bar Association. When it recently met in Whitehorse, they commended the Yukon for providing leadership at the nation= al table on FASD and this was part of our plan.
The Canadian Bar Associat= ion has also called for better assessment tools so that FASD assessment can be completed and individuals with this disability can be provided with more appropriate responses from both the justice system and the health and social services systems. This proposal was endorsed in the meeting last week of the ministers of Justice held here in Whitehorse. We believe that we’ve included very tight controls on how this information may be accessed so tha= t the other individual’s personal health information is made available only= to the person doing the diagnosis or, in many cases, the team doing the diagno= sis, because we really have more of a team approach to diagnosing FASD.
In fact, the legislation = also limits how the court proceedings are reported so that the names of the peop= le involved cannot be made public in any way.
This section also limits = when an application to court is appropriate. The health care provider making the diagnosis must indicate that the diagnosis cannot be completed without the specific information sought in the application. The individual whose information is being requested is given notice and time to respond. Only af= ter that can the court consider the application and determine if the information requested is essential for the diagnosis and that no other information will= do.
The court must also be sa= tisfied that, without the information required to make the diagnosis, the person’s health would be endangered or their health care would be negatively affected, and that they would not be eligible for many of the programs currently available to people who are diagnosed with FASD. That’s a very high threshold.
When the court makes an o= rder under this provision, the information may only be provided to the person ma= king the diagnosis decision, and it can only be used for this purpose or for providing care to the person who requires the diagnosis.
Finally, it’s impor= tant to remember that the information can only be obtained and used in the most lim= ited manner and only for the purposes mentioned. We understand that the IPC has raised concern about the protection of privacy, and we’ve carefully considered this. We believe the courts can balance the intrusion on an individual’s privacy with the pressing health needs of another indivi= dual and make balanced court orders, which is why we chose to proceed in this manner.
Ms. Stick: &= nbsp; Thanks for that clarification. I thought about this a lot in the last week = and was trying to think whether there would be other examples of when something like this might occur. I would ask if there are other possibilities that the department has thought about. The one I came up with is: would something li= ke this apply for an individual who is perhaps adopted and is looking for gene= tic information or background for themselves — that they would have to go through an adoption department or something and try to find out that information.
Hon. Mr. Graham: &= nbsp; There is the possibility that it could be used for genetic information. The= re are so many ways now that adoptions can be tracked — so, probably not= . We felt that by putting the controls in place so that you have to go to court = and you have to convince a judge, it was appropriate that we use that system so that possibly, if a person had a disease like a blood-borne disease and they wanted to have information about another person who may have given it to th= em, that information, if you made application to the court, may be obtained that way.
Clause 61 agreed to
On Clause 62
Clause 62 agreed to
On Clause 63
Ms. Stick: &= nbsp; I’ll start right at the very top with school enrollment. I’m wondering if this section is a way of tracking new students coming into the system. Are we talking at all about vaccination information for enrollment?=
Hon. Mr. Graham: &= nbsp; No, it doesn’t. It only allows the Department of Health and Social Services to provide contact information — address and phone number — of parents of children under six to assist the Education department with school enrollment, and parents may even opt out of this by using the n= ext section.
Ms. Stick: &= nbsp; I have just a comment for section 2. It says, “Disclosure under this section must be preceded by the posting, on the Internet website of the Department…,” It’s a great website but I don’t think that many people actually would know to look there. Is there any other way = that this information could also be posted, whether it would just be an ad in the paper or something on the radio? It’s not that everybody listens or r= eads the papers either, but just so there are more options of getting that public information out there rather than just the Internet.
Hon. Mr. Graham: &= nbsp; This is the absolute, bare minimum that’s required under legislation. Under the regulations, we can require notification at the school, public newspaper ads or whatever — but this was the absolute, bare minimum t= hat would be required under the legislation.
Clause 63 agreed to
On Clause 64
Clause 64 agreed to
On Clause 65
Hon. Mr. Graham: &= nbsp; Madam Chair, this is a new division — or a new part of the division — so perhaps I’ll run through a few things.
Personal health informati= on is collected, used and disclosed for a variety of purposes. Health research is= an important purpose that Yukoners can benefit significantly from. When a custodian — who is not a First Nation custodian or a public body R= 12; wants to collect personal information for pure research purposes, the custo= dian must get approval from an institutional research review committee that is typically a research ethics board associated with a university. Custodians = can all use the information they collect for their own research purposes.
For example, if a clinic = wants to review the various approaches used in the clinic to treat a disease or to identify the more effective approaches, this is permissible. Disclosure of personal health information to other researchers is a bit different. A researcher must first have the research reviewed by a research review committee. Following that, if the researcher is requesting a public body custodian to disclose the information, the public body — typically the Hospital Corporation or Health and Social Services — must carefully consider the importance of the research and the invasion of personal privac= y.
This requirement is in pl= ace to add additional careful scrutiny of disclosures for research, given the amou= nt of personal health information that the Yukon Hospital Corporation and Heal= th and Social Services hold in their custody. When personal health information= is disclosed for research purposes, an agreement between the custodian and researcher must be in place so that the researcher maintains the privacy and security of that information.
There is currently no res= earch ethics board in the Yukon and, therefore, it would mean that, if we required the researcher to have a research ethics board approval for research, it wo= uld require somebody from outside of the jurisdiction to give consent to activi= ty happening most of the time within the government. We believe that decisions= of this nature should be made in the Yukon, given Yukon values and priorities,= and that, until a research ethics board is created in Yukon, there is no assura= nce that approval given by a research ethics board outside of the Yukon would reflect those priorities and values. That’s why we feel that the act = must contain criteria that must be met in order to permit disclosure for researc= h.
Under the Health Information Privacy and Management Act, a public body ca= nnot disclose the information for research, unless certain criteria are met. The first is that the importance of this disclosure must outweigh the privacy intrusion, that the research cannot be done without identifiable informatio= n, and it would be unreasonable or impractical to obtain consent under the circumstances.
I’ll finish that, b= ecause there is another part to it that I wanted to add, but we’ll wait unti= l we get to that section.
Ms. Stick: &= nbsp; I was going to ask the minister to get up and repeat that. It’s a lot= of information.
I’m going to try to= go through the questions. Some of them I’ve taken comments from the Information and Privacy Commissioner because she is much more comprehensive= in her comments on this and says it better than I could.
One of my first questions, though, is under section — have we started on —
Chair: We are discussing clause 65.
Clause 65 agreed to
On Clause 66
Ms. Stick: &= nbsp; Thank you, Madam Chair. I am interested in 66(2)(a). It talks about where t= he custodian is a public body, a branch, and it goes on to say it must meet the prescribed requirements, if any.
That seemed like an odd c= lause to put in there — the “if any,” suggesting that there might = not be any. So are there going to be prescribed requirements or not?
Hon. Mr. Graham: &= nbsp; Madam Chair, we’re talking about public bodies such as the Department= of Health and Social Services, the Yukon Housing Corporation or a Yukon First Nation. They will have requirements prescribed in regulation. When we talk about “if any,” those are the regulations that will prescribe requirements.
Ms. Stick: &= nbsp; Would those be regulations of those public bodies — First Nation operation or program?
Hon. Mr. Graham: &= nbsp; No, they’ll be regulations under the act created by the department.= p>
Clause 66 agreed to
On Clause 67
Ms. Stick: &=
nbsp;
My concern was that this does not limit — “A custodian may, =
without
the individual’s consent, use for the purpose of research an
individual’s personal health information that is in its custody or
control.” It does not put any limits or any framework around this.
I’m wondering if I could have an explanation of that, please.
Hon. Mr. Graham: = This is information that they already control. So they can do research. For instanc= e, if Health and Social Services wants to do a research project on the inciden= ce of some specific disease that we’ve been paying for — or a perf= ect example in Ontario was that they did a research project on cataract surgeri= es and how much it cost and how much the time has decreased to do those surgeries. That information was already in their cust= ody, so they could use it to do research. They just couldn’t disclose it.<= /p>
Ms. Stick: &= nbsp; Does this also mean that five years down the road they could go back and lo= ok at the same information and pull different information out of what they have collected in their research and use it for something else?
Hon. Mr. Graham: &= nbsp; I have to go back — this is information that is already in the custodian’s control. So if they get more information and they want to= do another research project, yes, they can do it as long as the information is already under their control. This only gives them the ability to do researc= h. So if the Hospital Corporation wanted to do research on infections of people admitted to the hospital, because that information is already there and it’s under their control, they could do that research. They could do = it every year. They probably do.
Clause 67 agreed to
On Clause 68
Clause 68 agreed to
On Clause 69
Clause 69 agreed to
On Clause 70
Hon. Mr. Graham: &= nbsp; This whole section or part — part 7 works with the management of information — includes some things new and some things old.
The first division deals = with the old and brings into the act — an amendment that was made to the Health Act to authorize the minist= er to enter into agreements. The Health A= ct provisions are repealed as a result of this new section. The other division addresses new situations that will arise once Yukon implements an electronic health information system. In this act, we refer to the Yukon health information network. As we’ll see, much of the detailed authorities t= hat will be necessary to operate the network will be set out in the future in regulation. This part is very future-oriented. It’s very comprehensive and complex, and we wanted to address as many issues as possible.
We know that the world of information management is rapidly changing. For example, we know that natio= nal efforts are now being made to develop technologies to make sure that Canadi= ans have access to their key medical information anywhere in Canada. We support this work, but our challenge is to ensure that Yukon has the authority to participate in these large, national systems. This division mirrors amendme= nts made to the Health Act that were limited to agreements made by the minister. It also broadens the earlier sc= ope and allows all custodians of health care information to enter agreements for indirect collection for the purpose of providing health care under certain conditions.
When Health and Social Se= rvices enters into an agreement, the department must post notice on its website of= the general details to inform the general public. An example of the usefulness = of this division is the work currently underway to participate in a new, natio= nal public health information management system.
Yukon is working with B.C= . to access powerful tools to improve public health care delivery and surveillan= ce. Yukon will be part of the B.C. system, eventually, and an agreement under t= his division will be necessary to authorize the flow of information between B.C. and the Yukon.
Clause 70 agreed to
On Clause 71
Clause 71 agreed to
On Clause 72
Clause 72 agreed to
On Clause 73
Clause 73 agreed to
On Clause 74
Ms. Stick: &= nbsp; Under section 74, it’s about ministers’ decisions and that, bef= ore making a decision, the minister shall submit a draft of the decision of the minister to the advisory committee, if any. It’s that “if any” again. I’m wondering if the minister could just clarify th= is particular clause. I would point out it was one that was also pointed out by the Information and Privacy Commissioner. We’re talking about having = this committee, but then it’s like, well, if any, or if we do. I’m j= ust looking for clarification, please.
Hon. Mr. Graham: &= nbsp; You know, it has been awhile since we did second reading debate but, in sec= ond reading debate, I made the commitment that we will establish an advisory committee in regulation and we will require that the minister shall submit decisions — with certain exceptions. If it’s an emergency health situation or personal harm may result, then we won’t wait the 30 days= for a decision for a review, but for normal decisions the minister will be boun= d to submit decisions to the advisory committee for recommendation.
Clause 74 agreed to
On Clause 75
Ms. Stick: &= nbsp; I just wanted to point out again that we continue to go back to the Internet website. The minister has assured that there are other ways of providing th= at information, so again I look forward to seeing the regulations and hoping t= hat those other methods are included also, and not just the Internet website as= a source of information.
There are still people wh= o do not own or have access to computers or don’t want to, or don’t know how, so it’s important, I think, that public information be available= in more than one form.
Hon. Mr. Graham: &= nbsp; Amazingly enough, we’re kind of a leader in this in that we required = any notification at all. Most jurisdictions in the country require no notificat= ion at all. As I said earlier though, this is the minimum, so the very bare min= imum is that it has to be posted. My staff has already taken note of the fact th= at this could be expanded in regulation.
Clause 75 agreed to
On Clause 76
Clause 76 agreed to
On Clause 77
Clause 77 agreed to
On Clause 78
Clause 78 agreed to
On Clause 79
Clause 79 agreed to
On Clause 80
Clause 80 agreed to
On Clause 81
Clause 81 agreed to
On Clause 82
Clause 82 agreed to
On Clause 83
Clause 83 agreed to
On Clause 84
Hon. Mr. Graham: &= nbsp; As I mentioned earlier, the Yukon is in the early stages of development of our electronic health information systems. In our discussions with other jurisdictions and with Canada Health Infoway, what we learned is that somet= imes we can’t anticipate everything before a system is actually in the tes= ting mode. We need authority to test information systems that may not be in compliance with this law, but the only way to determine this is by testing = it.
This division allows the = minister to run a pilot project that includes collection, use and disclosure of pers= onal health information and a limited amount of personal information. The project must be limited in scope and time and be for the purpose of improving health care. The purpose for piloting the project would typically be to identify if and where there may be a need for collections, uses or disclosure not yet authorized by legislation so that the department can identify any necessary amendments to legislation, new regulations or adjustments to the project to bring it into compliance.
This is somewhat on the c= utting edge, as we said earlier, but it is limited in time and scope. Pilot projec= ts can only be done once the minister is consulted with the Information and Privacy Commissioner and any custodians that may be impacted by the project. The public is then notified through posting on the website.
Ms. Stick: &= nbsp; I looked for it in the sections under this division but didn’t see it= . We talked previously about destroying records that were used in — I thin= k it was research or collection. I’m wondering if under pilot projects suc= h as this, information that’s collected and used to run tests on systems, = such as electronic ones, would be saved or would it then be gotten rid of?
Hon. Mr. Graham: &= nbsp; The intent would be that, with any pilot project undertaken, the personal information utilized would only be utilized as long as the pilot project was underway and then it would be destroyed.
Clause 84 agreed to
On Clause 85
Ms. Stick: &= nbsp; I’m just wondering who makes this decision — whether or not the information would significantly impede the pilot. Who makes that decision?<= /p>
Hon. Mr. Graham: &= nbsp; It would be part of a pilot project — the collection of personal information — so it would be reviewed by the Information and Privacy Commissioner and custodians who may be impacted. Regardless of what is included, it would be reviewed by the Information and Privacy Commissioner before the pilot project went ahead.
Clause 85 agreed to
On Clause 86
Clause 86 agreed to
On Clause 87
Clause 87 agreed to
On Clause 88
Clause 88 agreed to
On Clause 89
Clause 89 agreed to
On Clause 90
Ms. Stick: &=
nbsp;
Right at the bottom of the page of this is it will “provide an opport=
unity
for the public to provide comments on the pilot project to the Minister bef=
ore
it begins.”
I’m just wondering what that time peri=
od
might be for the public to comment on this. That was my question.
Hon.
Mr. Graham: =
At the=
very
top, clause 90 states “90 days” and it includes all of these
things. So it would be at least 90 days to provide the public an opportunit=
y to
comment on the project.
Clause
90 agreed to
On
Clause 91
Hon. Mr. Graham: = We dis= cussed this one at length as well. Because of the role that Highways and Public Wo= rks plays as a central information technology manager for the government, all Health and Social Services’ electronic information is actually in the custody of Highways and Public Works.
When Health and Social Se= rvices develops systems that form part of the Yukon health information networks, Highways and Public Works may play a very important role because they will = be the caretakers of that information. Given the way that ATIPP and this act interact, this division is necessary to permit an individual to access or correct their personal health information by contacting Health and Social Services rather than Highways and Public Works. The intent is to ensure that Health and Social Services is the public contact regardless of the role tha= t Highways and Public Works plays behind the scenes.
The IPC made several comm= ents with respect to this particular division, so maybe I’ll touch on a fe= w of those. We need to ensure that we have enough flexibility in the legislation= to accommodate any uncertainty about the structure of our future e-health syst= em. The IPC suggested that section 91 is not necessary, but in our view this wi= ll depend upon future decisions about how e-health is constructed.
The IPC suggested that Hi= ghways and Public Works could simply be made either a custodian, an agent or an information manager. We considered all of those possibilities — and t= hey remain possibilities — but at the same time, none of the models really work for us. At this point, we don’t know the solution, given where we are in the development of our e-health systems. The personal health informa= tion in the custody of Highways and Public Works remains subject to ATIPP. I thi= nk that’s really important. The IPC noted that Highways and Public Works must comply with ATIPP.
The ATIPP act requires th= at public bodies make reasonable security arrangements against loss, unauthori= zed access, collection, use, disclosure and disposal. ATIPP provides a solid framework for management of personal information.
To the extent that HIPMA protection is more robust, such as the requirement for security breach notification, we expect that such additional requirements for enhanced protection of personal health information will be included in any agreement entered into between the Minister of Health and Social Services and Highways and Public Works. In other words, when and if we enter into an agreement wi= th Highways and Public Works, part of that agreement will be that, should High= ways and Public Works have an accident or accidental disclosure of information, = the exact same section on security breach notification would apply to Highways = and Public Works as it does to any other custodian in the system.
Clause 91 agreed to
On Clause 92
Clause 92 agreed to
On Clause 93
Clause 93 agreed to
On Clause 94
Clause 94 agreed to
On Clause 95
Clause 95 agreed to
On Clause 96
Clause 96 agreed to
On Clause 97
Clause 97 agreed to
On Clause 98
Hon. Mr. Graham: &= nbsp; As much as we don’t want things to go wrong, we know that it inevitab= ly happens in systems and that processes need to be in place to respond to concerns of the public. When a person has a complaint, generally the first place to go should be to the custodian. But we know that this can be diffic= ult sometimes, and the Yukon Information and Privacy Commissioner has a vital r= ole to play in situations such as this.
Anyone can make a complai= nt to the Information and Privacy Commissioner if they believe that a custodian h= as not complied with the legislation. This division sets out the process for making a complaint and the steps the Information and Privacy Commissioner m= ay take in his or her response. The Information and Privacy Commissioner must = try to settle the issue informally if possible. If that’s not possible, t= his division establishes a formal process and timeframe for the Information and Privacy Commissioner to consider the complaint.
The Information and Priva= cy Commissioner must write a report with recommendations. The report is given = to the custodian and the other persons involved. It can also be given to the regulatory body of the custodian such as the Yukon Medical Council, if the custodian were a physician. A summary of the report must be made public, but only after the period for appeal to the court has expired. If the custodian appeals, then the report is posted when the appeal is decided and a referen= ce to the appeal decision must be posted. So that’s all I have to say on that.
Clause 98 agreed to
On Clause 99
Ms. Stick: &=
nbsp;
It says “within 60 days after the alleged non-compliance that is the subject =
of
the complaint,” so there’s a time limit of 60 days and then it =
goes
on to say that “within any reasonable longer period that the commissi=
oner
permits.”
I just wonder if there is a limit to that ti=
me
that a person could make a complaint.
Hon.
Mr. Graham: =
I thin=
k this
one may have slipped by me, Madam Chair. It is “any reasonable longer
period that the commissioner permits,” so we haven’t put an
absolute number on that. As I said, this one probably slipped by me, I
apologize.
Clause 99 agreed to
On Clause 100
Clause 100 agreed to
On Clause 101
Clause 101 agreed to
On Clause 102
Clause 102 agreed to
On Clause 103
Clause 103 agreed to
On Clause 104
Clause 104 agreed to
On Clause 105
Clause 105 agreed to
On Clause 106
Clause 106 agreed to
On Clause 107
Clause 107 agreed to
On Clause 108
Clause 108 agreed to
On Clause 109
Clause 109 agreed to
On Clause 110
Clause 110 agreed to
On Clause 111
Clause 111 agreed to
On Clause 112
Clause 112 agreed to
On Clause 113
Hon. Mr. Graham: &= nbsp; After a complaint is made and the Information and Privacy Commissioner has completed her report and recommendations, then a custodian must determine w= hat action to take. If the custodian does not follow the Information and Privacy Commissioner’s recommendations within six months of the report, the person who made the complaint to the Information and Privacy Commissioner m= ay appeal to the Supreme Court of Yukon. This division sets out the appeal procedure for the court. The court can order the custodian to comply with recommendations, make a different order under certain circumstances or dism= iss the appeal.
Clause 113 agreed to
On Clause 114
Ms. Stick: &= nbsp; I just note that we go right from — to an appeal — that it would have to be through — initiate an appeal in the court. I’m just wondering if there are any steps in between, such as mediation or a meeting= of the parties to see if there is any other way to do this. Many people are ve= ry hesitant to go through the court system and might not have the resources or= the ability to do that on their own.
Hon. Mr. Graham: &= nbsp; Madam Chair, as part of the Information and Privacy Commissioner’s investigation and recommendation, the parties will have gone through a mediation process. It’s required under the Information and Privacy Commissioner’s investigation. Any time this step has to be taken it w= ould have to be a pretty serious breach or a pretty serious incident in order to= get to this stage.
Ms. Stick: &= nbsp; I understood the part about the mediation earlier on when a person is makin= g a complaint and that the Information and Privacy Commissioner could then be involved in mediation, but this is after the commissioner has made a report= and then it’s whether the recommendations have been followed up within a = time period of six months after the report. What I’m asking is, rather than the first step being the court after the report by the Information and Priv= acy Commissioner, could there not even be a mediation or a meeting of this grou= p to say, “You haven’t done these recommendations” or “Y= ou’ve only done part of these, and is there another way that we can work this out rather than the court system”?
Hon. Mr. Graham: &= nbsp; I guess the way we looked at it is that you would have gone through all tho= se processes already. The Information and Privacy Commissioner would be making= a report that would have specific recommendations in it, and the respondent — the record custodian, in this case — has made a conscious decision not to comply with the Information and Privacy Commissioner’s report.
At that stage, we felt it= was a little far down the road to do anything but go to court, where a court has specific abilities to enforce judgments.
Clause 114 agreed to
On Clause 115
Clause 115 agreed to
On Clause 116
Clause 116 agreed to
On Clause 117
Hon. Mr. Graham: &= nbsp; This part is called “General” but it contains the important det= ails on offences and penalties that form a critical part of the act. First, thou= gh, this part provides protection to anyone who makes a complaint to the Information and Privacy Commissioner. No one can be dismissed or discipline= d if they act in good faith by making a complaint to the Information and Privacy Commissioner or refuse to do something that would violate the act. Basicall= y, this is whistle-blower protection with respect to this act.
We move on to offences un= der this act. Offences fall into two specific categories. Serious offences are where someone knowingly violates a critical or fundamental provision of the act. = This would apply to security breaches, destroying records, unauthorized access to records, abuse of the health care card, falsifying records and other such offences. This type of offence is subject to a fine of up to $25,000 for an individual and $100,000 for a corporation.
The lesser violations tha= t are committed knowingly — usually administrative non-compliance — a= re subject to penalties of not more than $500. This would include minor breach= es. This decision also sets out the regulation-making powers. The list is exten= sive but is typical for this type of legislation.
Regulation-making authori= ty under this act is particularly necessary, given that our health sector is maturing and information technologies are under development.
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
Clause 121 agreed to
On Clause 122
Clause 122 agreed to
On Clause 123
Clause 123 agreed to
On Clause 124
Clause 124 agreed to
On Clause 125
Clause 125 agreed to
On Clause 126
Clause 126 agreed to
On Clause 127
Clause 127 agreed to
On Clause 128
Clause 128 agreed to
On Clause 129
Hon. Mr. Graham: &= nbsp; This includes part 11 and part 12, both of which deal with administrative matters. One of the very last provisions sets out the requirement for revie= w of the legislation to begin within four years following implementation. As we’ve seen, this legislation is very complex, and we expect that once= it is implemented and our e-health systems are set up, there may be ways to improve the legislation to respond to changes in the way the health care se= ctor does business. Many jurisdictions — for example, Alberta — have done reviews and amendments a number of times already. The information worl= d we know is changing rapidly and we’ll need to be prepared for that chang= e.
Ms. Stick: &= nbsp; I think this will be my last question, and I thank the minister and his sta= ff for their patience in explaining this.
It has to do with clause = 129(3). It’s about the right of access to, or correction of, records. I tried= to follow this — looking at the = Health Information Privacy and Management Act. I just wish that someone could = map this out for me.
Hon. Mr. Graham: &= nbsp; I guess it remains to be seen how much time you have because I can give you= the information.
This act amends ATIPP to = a add a definition of custodian and personal health information. The act also amends ATIPP so = that generally, the right of access or correction under ATIPP doesn’t appl= y to personal health information in the custody or control of a custodian that i= s a public health body, such as Health and Social Services, or to personal information or personal health information in the custody or control of Highways and Public Works under section 91 of this act.
For example, if you want = to access personal health information in a record of a custodian that is a pub= lic body such as Health and Social Services, you should use this act, the Health Information Privacy and Managem= ent Act, and not ATIPP. However, if the custodian is a public body and a re= cord containing personal health information contains information as follows R= 12; ATIPP and not HIPMA continues to apply to access or correction for things l= ike ministerial briefing material, which I know you wouldn’t ask for, Cab= inet confidence, policy advice, recommendations or draft bills. In all other instances, this act, the Health Inf= ormation Privacy and Management Act, applies.
Clause 129 agreed to
On Clause 130
Clause 130 agreed to
On Clause 131
Clause 131 agreed to
On Clause 132
Clause 132 agreed to
On Clause 133
Clause 133 agreed to
On Clause 134
Clause 134 agreed to
On Clause 135
Clause 135 agreed to
On Clause 136
Clause 136 agreed to
On Clause 137
Clause 137 agreed to
On Clause 138
Clause 138 agreed to
On Clause 139
Hon. Mr. Graham: &= nbsp; In this act, we don’t intend to proclaim or bring it to force for at least 12 to 18 months. In some jurisdictions it has taken a number of years before implementation of this type of legislation has been possible. There = will be time allowed for new custodians to adjust their practices so that they’re in compliance with the new legislation. It is not our intenti= on to proclaim into force legislation that the health care sector is not prepa= red for and isn’t able to implement.
Over the coming months, t= here will be a huge need for training of health care providers and we’ll n= eed to develop policies and procedures required under the act.
In addition to the implem= entation work that custodians will need to do, there is a need for regulations to be brought into place. The first regulation under this act is required as the = act comes into force. This regulation, among other things, will identify in more detail the information practice requirements and additional custodians to be named.
That’s all I have f= or this one. Thank you very much everyone for the comments and questions today.
Clause 139 agreed to
On Title
Title agreed to
Hon. Mr. Graham: &= nbsp; Madam Chair, I move that Bill No. 61, entitled Health Information Privacy and Management Act, be reported with= out amendment.
Chair: It has been moved by Mr. Graham that Bill No. 61, entitled Health Information Privacy and Management Act, be reported with= out amendment.
Motion agreed to
Chair: The matter before Committee will next be Bill No. 63, entitled Court and Regulatory Statutes Amendment Act. Would the members = like a break?
All Hon. Members: =
Agreed.
Chair: = b>Committee of the Whole will recess for 15 minutes.
Recess
Chair: Committee of the Whole will now come to order.
Bil= l No. 63: Court and Regulatory Statutes Amendmen= t Act
Chair: The matter before the Committee is Bill No. 63, Court and Regulatory Statutes Amendment Act.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: &n= bsp; I’d like to go over some of the material here again. It’s simil= ar to the material that I covered previously in the second reading speech. The bill before us today deals with several of these minor amendments, which wi= ll improve the efficiency and ensure that the legislation is aligned with the = best practices that guide the work of our staff.
The bill proposes several= minor amendments to the legislation governing our courts and also to the regulato= ry function of our government. Although these amendments are minor, it’s important for us to go through each one so the members understand how this = bill improves our existing legislation. I’ll begin by discussing the 11 amendments to statutes relating to the courts and then discuss the three amendments relating to the regulatory procedures.
As Minister of Justice, i= t is one of my fundamental responsibilities to ensure that our justice system, legislation and the work that we do in the Department of Justice builds the foundation for safe, healthy and peaceful communities. We do this by ensuri= ng all Yukoners have access to high-quality justice services, including effici= ent, effective and appropriate court services that are accessible to the public.= Our work supports the courts and the judiciary and their essential role in soci= ety. Many of the amendments proposed in this bill will do exactly that.
These amendments have been prepared through consultation with the judiciary and done after careful internal and external reviews of our court processes, which suggested avenu= es for improving efficiency while maintaining the integrity of the justice sys= tem.
The first four amendments= address the improvements to the empanelling of a jury under the Jury Act.
Madam Chair, in Canada, l= aw and justice is not only the business of the members of the Legislature, the jud= ges, lawyers and police, but it is also the business of each and every citizen. = One of the primary ways that adult citizens are involved in the justice system = is by, indeed, serving on a jury.
Juries are one of the old= est institutions in our justice system. It is a civic duty that benefits us all= by ensuring fair trials, which promote a civil and just society. It is therefo= re incumbent on us to ensure that the process of empanelling jurors is robust, effective and fair.
It should be obvious to a= ll of us that it would not be fair to a person accused of a crime to have someone fr= om the prosecutor’s office empaneled on the jury or, similarly, someone employed with corrections. The first amendment in the bill recognizes this = fact by exempting from jury service anyone who is involved in the prosecution of criminal offences or enforcement of sentences.
In Yukon, these functions= are carried out by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, the federal Depart= ment of Justice and the federal Correctional Services. In exempting people emplo= yed by these federal departments, this amendment helps ensure that jurors do not possess prior knowledge of an accused person’s circumstance that may prejudice the jury, who must make their decision based solely on the eviden= ce given in the trial.
We turn now to the second amendment, which addresses disqualification of people from jury service on = the basis of having been previously convicted of an offence.
Fulfilling one’s ci= vic duty is the right and responsibility of every Canadian citizen, so when it comes= to jury duty we must ensure that we only disqualify people when there is good reason for doing so.
Currently the Jury Act disqualifies anyone who w= as convicted of a crime in which they could have been sentenced to a jail term exceeding 12 months. So even if the sentence was shorter — such as on= ly one day in jail — for the purpose of jury duty, the person is still treated as if their crime was serious enough to warrant a sentence exceedin= g 12 months. This infringes a person’s civic identity and also reduces the pool of potential jurors.
We must also be cognizant= of the fact that when there are fewer potential jurors available, it means those w= ho are in the pool will be called up more often. We need to again ask ourselve= s: is that fair to them?
The third amendment provi= des an opportunity for increased efficiency by removing the requirement that summo= ns for jury duty must be sent via registered mail to the people who form the j= ury selection panel. The jury selection panel is the group of people from which the jurors for a trial are selected. Currently the court has only two options for directing how the sheriff summons his people into this panel. It can require the sheriff to either deliver a summons to them via registered mail or hand-deliver a summons to them in person.
Our review has determined= that this requirement for summons to be delivered by registered mail need not be absolute. In fact, sheriffs in British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan a= ll send out juror summons by regular mail. They have concluded that there̵= 7;s actually a better response to this method of service rather than registered mail. Of all other Canadian jurisdictions, only Prince Edward Island requir= es registered mail when serving prospective jurors by mail. New Brunswick has = the option of ordinary mail or registered mail.
Based on the results obse= rved in British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan, we can see that delivering summonses by regular mail is an option they may also work well in Yukon. = p>
Achieving a better respon= se rate means panels are more likely to contain a sufficient number of eligible jur= ors so that a jury can be empaneled in its first sitting. This means panels wil= l be sitting for shorter times, which is desirable for panelists who are drawn f= rom the public, as well as courts, lawyers and the accused persons who are wait= ing for the trial to begin.
In addition to improving on the efficiency of time, removing the requirement of service by registered mail = also provides a cost-efficiency. Sending summonses by registered mail incurs a direct cost in the fees payable for the service as well as an indirect cost= in terms of time spent by the sheriff in preparing these letters.
We have discussed how eff= iciencies can be realized by removing the requirement of delivering summons by regist= ered mail. One may justifiably ask this: are there not times when it would be appropriate to use registered mail? The simple answer to that is, yes, there will be times when registered mail would be appropriate.
To ensure that the approp= riate choice is made on how to issue the summons, this amendment puts the responsibility for the decision on the Senior Judge of the Supreme Court of Yukon, who is in the best position to make it.
This amendment removes the requirement that summons be delivered by registered mail or by hand, and replaces it with the requirement that summons be delivered in accordance wi= th a practice direction issued by the senior judge. In this way, using registered mail remains an option that the senior judge can use when he determines that this method of service is appropriate. At the same time, it opens up other options that are likely to be more effective and reduce associated costs. <= /p>
The basis for this amendm= ent in improving the efficiency of the jury selection process was determined in consultation with the Supreme Court.
Another item raised by the judiciary to improve the jury selection process involves the maximum permit= ted fine that may be imposed on a person who fails to respond to a jury summons= . As it stands now, if a person does not appear when summoned for jury service, = the court may impose a fine in a minimum amount of $25 and a maximum amount of $200. These amounts were established when the Jury Act was passed in 1954 and, although $200 may have been a = lot of money at that time, we know that it’s not a sufficient deterrent at this time.
We have discussed the fun= damental importance of our jury to our justice system. We’ve also discussed how the failure of people to respond to a jury summons places an unfair burden = on the citizens who do respond. Therefore it’s important that the courts have available a suitable deterrent for people who have demonstrated a disregard for the jury selection process.
The current maximum permi= tted fine of $200 is far too low. The only other Canadian jurisdictions with a maximum fine of $200 for failing to respond to a juror summons are Nunavut = and Northwest Territories. Similar to Yukon’s current Jury Act, both of these jurisdictions rely on legislation in wh= ich the fine amounts were enacted more than half a century ago. The other Canad= ian jurisdictions have increased their maximum fine amounts for failing to resp= ond to a jury summons or have eliminated a maximum amount altogether.
Seven provinces allow for= fines of up to $1,000 to be imposed. These include Alberta, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Quebec. In fact, Quebec allows for fines up to $2,000 for subsequent offenc= es after the first.
This amendment brings Yukon’s legislation in line with the rest of Canada by allowing a max= imum fine of up to $1,000. It also eliminates the minimum fine. Note that this amendment does not require a $1,000 fine to be imposed. Instead it sets $1,= 000 as the maximum. It is the ceiling that fines that cannot exceed. The actual amount is determined by the judge who is in the position necessary to assess the circumstances surrounding why the person failed to respond to the jury = summons. In this way, the amendment increases the discretion in which the judge can operate to allow for fines that would provide a suitable deterrent in today’s economy.
We have discussed how the= bill makes four amendments to the jury-selection process that supports the Department of Justice’s goal of providing high-quality justice servic= es, including efficient, effective and appropriate court services that are accessible to the public.
The next amendment deals = with how travel-expense rates are set for witnesses who live outside the Yukon and a= re subpoenaed to attend court in the Yukon. In its current form, the Interprovincial Subpoena Act speci= fies the amounts of travel expenses directly in the statute. This requires an en= tire bill to be passed when the rates need to be adjusted and, taking into accou= nt that annual cost increases can require the rates to be adjusted annually sometimes, this would place an unnecessary burden on the Legislature’s time every year, which is better spent in addressing matters of more significant importance to Yukoners.
The amendment allows the = rates to be set by regulation instead of within the statute. In doing so, the legislation will be aligned with the manner in which expense rates for witnesses subpoenaed from within Yukon are set, which is regulated under th= e Territorial Court Act.
We now turn to the sixth amendment, which addresses the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act. This act has already been pa= ssed but is not yet proclaimed. It contains a reference to the Children’s Act, but since that statute was subsequently renamed as the Child and Family Ser= vices Act, this amendment puts the correct reference in the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act so that it can = now be proclaimed.
The seventh amendment imp= lements the government’s commitment under the Agreement on Internal Trade. This national agreement has recently been amended to allow persons to be involved as parties in disputes that were previously restricted to government parties only. Part of the Agreement on Internal Trade requires governments to allow trade orders arising from disputes to be treated as court orders so that they are enforceable against the parties. The Judicature Act currently does so when governments are the parties. With the recent= amendment to the agreement, it is necessary to amend the act to recognize that persons may now be the subject of trade orders and required to pay costs. This amendment does so. It fulfills Yukon’s commitment to its federal, provincial and territorial partners in the agreement.
Madam Chair, we turn now = to the Notaries Act for the eighth amendm= ent. Notaries public perform an important function in our judicial system and are qualified to administer oaths, affidavits, affirmations and statutory declarations among the various powers they are authorized to exercise. Each notary’s commission is time-limited, although they may renew their commission before it expires by taking the appropriate steps.
The Notaries Act does not currently require notaries to indicate the date their commission expires. This makes it difficult for someone who is presented with a notarized document, such as a judge, to confirm a valid commission existed when the document was indeed signed.
Also it’s not always possible to determine the identity of a notary from their signature.
To address these factors,= this amendment requires notaries to print or stamp their first and last name and= the date their commission expires beside any instrument that they sign in their official capacity.
It is also the case that = some notaries process a large number of documents in a single time for whom stam= ping their full name and commission on each document would be an unnecessary bur= den. This amendment also provides for classes of notaries who are exempt from the requirement to print or to stamp their name and the date their commission expires. These classes would be established by regulation.
Thus, this amendment stri= kes a balance between the need of the court to confirm the identity and commissio= n of notaries who have signed instruments brought before the court with the impa= ct of this requirement on those classes of notaries for whom doing so would be= an unnecessary use of their time.
The next amendment addres= ses the inherent powers of the courts to address litigants who abuse the court proc= ess by persistently starting vexatious court proceedings. These are proceedings that are without merit and intended only to annoy or harass other parties or cause them to incur unnecessary legal fees. I know the member opposite asked about vexatious litigants and there have been no recent vexatious litigants, but judges have expressed the need to have this properly entrenched in the legislation in a consistent manner across the acts governing the various courts.
The Supreme Court has had= a vexatious litigant practice directive for some time, and this is on the cou= rt website.
The member also asked abo= ut retirement ages for the judges — the changing of the age from 65 to 7= 0. Changing the retirement age was discussed with the judiciary, and raising t= he age of the Territorial Court Judges to 70 was supported by all of the judge= s.
The member opposite also = asked about administrative JPs and how many we foresee would be utilized in the Department of Justice. At this time, we are looking at about two or three individuals, just to make sure there’s ample support during the day a= nd that there are a number of people so that, if there are individuals on holi= days or off sick, we have people in place.
The member opposite also = asked about the Human Rights Act comp= onent of this bill. We had conversations with the panel of adjudicators and the c= hief adjudicator prior to her resignation. The chief adjudicator and the panel members indicated that this issue needed to be addressed in the act.
Madam Chair, I see that m= y time has expired, so I’ll offer the floor to the members opposite.
Ms. Moorcroft: <= /b> I thank the minister for the answers he has provided. The one question I had = that I did not put on the record during the second reading speech relates to cla= use 5 and the amendments to establish in regulations the witness fees and travel expenses to be paid to a witness who attends before a court because of a subpoena.
The question is whether t= hese regulations would also address the payment of witness fees and travel expen= ses for expert witnesses or witnesses who may be called before a coroner’s inquest.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: &n= bsp; That would be dealt in the regulations under the Coroners Act.
Chair: Is there any further general debate on Bill No. 63? We’re going to proce= ed to clause-by-clause.
On Clause 1
Clause 1 agreed to
On Clause 2
Ms. Moorcroft: <= /b> I did ask the minister whether he or his department officials had consulted w= ith the Yukon Human Rights Commission regarding the amendments. I had also asked him whether the adjudicators and chief adjudicators would be selected on the basis of whether they had training and knowledge in administrative law. Whi= le he did indicate that he had conversations — or someone had conversati= ons — with the panel of adjudicators and the chief adjudicator, the other questions that I asked he has not responded to yet.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: &n= bsp; I thought I did answer the question. We did not consult directly with the H= uman Rights Commission, but did consult with the panel of adjudicators and the c= hief adjudicator, prior to her resignation.
As to further questions, = I might have to ask the member to restate those questions.
Ms. Moorcroft: <= /b> The question was whether, in designating the chief adjudicator and the depu= ty chief adjudicator, those positions would be people who had training and knowledge in administrative law, and if those criteria would be set in determining who would be appointed.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: &n= bsp; Indeed that is a preference for those positions — although not mandatory, it is a preference.
Clause 2 agreed to
On Clause 3
Clause 3 agreed to
On Clause 4
Clause 4 agreed to
On Clause 5
Clause 5 agreed to
On Clause 6
Clause 6 agreed to
On Clause 7
Clause 7 agreed to
On Clause 8
Clause 8 agreed to
On Clause 9
Clause 9 agreed to
On Clause 10
Clause 10 agreed to
On Clause 11
Clause 11 agreed to
On Clause 12
Clause 12 agreed to
On Clause 13
Clause 13 agreed to
On Clause 14
Clause 14 agreed to
On Clause 15
Clause 15 agreed to
On Clause 16
Clause 16 agreed to
On Clause 17
Clause 17 agreed to
On Clause 18
Ms. Moorcroft: <= /b> The next three clauses — 18, 19 and 20 — are the clauses that provide the amendments for the Small Claims Court, the Supreme Court and the Territorial Court to make for consistent provisions with respect to vexatio= us litigants. The minister did indicate these amendments were being brought forward to improve efficiency and align with other statutes, and that there were no recent vexatious litigants. I wanted to ask the minister to confirm that there have not been recent examples of people who have brought forward vexatious litigation in either of the Small Claims, Supreme or Territorial courts.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: &n= bsp; Section 18 adds provisions to the S= mall Claims Court Act that allows the Small Claims Court to deal with litiga= nts who abuse the court process by persistently starting vexatious court proceedings. These are proceedings that are without merit and are intended = to only annoy or harass other parties or cause them to incur unnecessary legal fees.
If the court believes tha= t a person has started a vexatious proceeding, or has been conducting proceedin= gs in a vexatious manner, then the court may take steps to prevent them from creating further disturbances.
First, the court must giv= e notice of its intention to the person and to the Attorney General. Then the person= has an opportunity to make a submission to the court in a hearing. The Attorney General may also speak at that hearing. After the hearing, the court may or= der that the litigant must obtain the court’s permission before starting a new proceeding or continuing a proceeding that they’ve already starte= d. After the court makes this order, the person can apply to the court to have= the order removed or for leave to continue a proceeding that the person has alr= eady started. After the hearing, the person’s application — if the c= ourt is satisfied that the proceeding is not an abuse of the process and has reasonable grounds — then the court may rescind the order or grant le= ave to start or continue a proceeding. The Attorney General is entitled to rece= ive notice of any of the applications made under this section and may appear at= any of the hearings.
The member opposite was a= lso asking about section 19, so I’ll cover her question in this answer as well. That section adds the provisions to the Supreme Court Act that allows the Supreme Court to deal with litigants who abuse the court process by persistently starting vexatious co= urt proceedings. So again, those are proceedings without merit and are really intended only to annoy or harass other parties and to cause them to incur unnecessary legal fees.
If that court believes th= at a person has started a vexatious proceeding or has been conducting proceeding= s in a vexatious manner, then that court may also take steps to prevent them from creating further disturbance. Again, first that court must give notice of i= ts intention to that individual and to the Attorney General. The person then h= as the opportunity to also make a submission to that court in a hearing, at wh= ich the Attorney General may also speak. After that hearing, the court may order that the litigant must obtain the court’s permission before starting a new proceeding or continuing a proceeding that they’ve already starte= d. After the court makes that order, the person can apply to that court to have the order removed or for leave to continue a proceeding that the person has already started. After hearing the person’s application, if the court= is satisfied that the proceeding is not an abuse of process and has reasonable grounds, then the court may rescind the order or grant leave to start or continue a proceeding. As I indicated before, the Attorney General is entit= led to receive notice of any of the applications made under the section and may appear at those hearings.
With regard to the member opposite’s specific question about recent cases of vexatious litigant= s, in the last three or four years we don’t believe that there have been any. But when they do arise, the member opposite should be able to understa= nd that one vexatious litigant can take up a whole lot of court time so this addresses that issue. I thank the member opposite for the question.
Ms. Moorcroft: <= /b> Just to follow up on that, I have heard concerns mostly expressed by women about abuse of process when an ex-spouse will be continually going before t= he court in attempts to vary custody or maintenance orders. I would like to ask the minister whether this provision in relation to prohibiting vexatious litigation has been used in other jurisdictions to prevent parties who may = be bringing forward a proceeding without merit to annoy an ex-spouse.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: &n= bsp; That would be a question that we would definitely have to put some research into.
Ms. Moorcroft: <= /b> Could I put on the record that I would like to ask the minister to respond = to that question with a letter at a later date? Would he be able to do that?
Hon. Mr. Nixon: &n= bsp; That is something I can commit to and I will provide a letter to the member opposite in the new year.
Clause 18 agreed to
On Clause 19
Clause 19 agreed to
On Clause 20
Ms. Moorcroft: <= /b> The minister did respond to part of my question related to the amendments to the retirement age for the judiciary — increasing it from 65 to 70. I just want to follow up and ask the minister if that is the case in all other jurisdictions in Canada, or does the retirement age remain at 65 in any jurisdictions? Or is it more than 70 in some other jurisdictions?
Hon. Mr. Nixon: &n= bsp; The retirement age of all superior court judges, such as the Judge of the Supreme Court of Yukon, is set at age 75 by the Constitution. In most of Canada, provincial court judges are required to retire at age 70. This incl= udes British Columbia, Quebec, Alberta, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrad= or.
Judges in the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and New Brunswick can work until age 75 before retirin= g. In Ontario and Saskatchewan, the retirement age is 65, but with provisions = for continuing on one-year appointments until age 70 for Saskatchewan, or age 75 for Ontario.
Manitoba is unique in hav= ing no mandatory retirement age, and P.E.I. is the only jurisdiction other than Yu= kon that currently requires territorial or provincial court judges to retire at= age 65 with no provision for ongoing appointments.
Ms. Moorcroft: <= /b> I’d like to thank the minister for the answer. As I haven’t yet today, I’d also like to thank the officials for being so well-prepared this afternoon.
Clause 20 agreed to
On Clause 21
Clause 21 agreed to
On Clause 22
Ms. Moorcroft: <= /b> This question relates to both clause 22 and clause 24. Is there any differe= nce between administrative and presiding justices and staff justices?
Hon. Mr. Nixon: &n= bsp; There are a few differences. I will highlight a couple here now. Administra= tive judges would not be sitting in court, but they would deal with swearing mat= ters where presiding judges do sit in court. Staff justices would just be there = to read matters.
Clause 22 agreed to
On Clause 23
Clause 23 agreed to
On Clause 24
Ms. Moorcroft: <= /b> The minister indicated in response to my question that he anticipated that there would be two or three staff justices appointed and that they would ma= inly be doing the process of explaining conditions to someone who had been sentenced. I’d like to ask the minister whether this measure has been costed and what the costs are anticipated to be.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: &n= bsp; There would actually be a cost-savings in moving to a situation like this. The st= aff JPs would be utilized through existing positions, but it would save some co= st on accessing JPs to come in on time-off to hear these matters.
Clause 24 agreed to
On Clause 25
Clause 25 agreed to
On Clause 26
Clause 26 agreed to
On Clause 27
Ms. Moorcroft: <= /b> The minister indicated that the department has been working on this. I̵= 7;m wondering if the minister can give us an idea when he anticipates the act w= ill come into force.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: &n= bsp; As the member will be aware, this act would come into force through an order-in-council. We suspect it would be sometime in the new year.
Clause 27 agreed to
On Title
Title agreed to
Hon. Mr. Nixon: &n= bsp; Madam Chair, I move that Bill No. 63, entitled Court and Regulatory Statutes Amendment Act, be reported without amendment.
Chair: It has been moved by Mr. Nixon that Bill No. 63, entitled Court and Regulatory Statutes Amendmen= t Act, be reported without amendment.
Motion agreed to
Chair: Now we’re going to continue on with general debate in Vote 53, Department= of Energy, Mines and Resources, in Bill No. 11, entitled Second Appropriation Act, 2013-14. Do you require time for R= 12;
Some Hon. Members:  = ; <= /span>(Inaudible)
Chair: Committee of the Whole will recess for five minutes.
Recess
Chair: Committee of the Whole will now come to order.
Bil= l No. 11: Second Appropriation Act, 2013-14 — continued
Chair: We’re going to continue with general debate on Vote 53 in Bill No. 11, entitled Second Appropriation Act, 2013-14.
Mr. Tredger has the floor= from November 25.
Department of Energy, Mines and Resources — continued
Mr. Tredger:  = ; I thank the House for this opportunity to speak to Energy, Mines and Resour= ces again. I would like to welcome the staff from Energy, Mines and Resources. Welcome to the House and thank you for your assistance as we delve through = the budget. I look forward to continuing this discussion.
Yukon has five percent of Canada’s territory, but only one in 1,000 Canadians have the privileg= e to call themselves Yukoners. That means we are a relatively small number of pe= ople with a big responsibility as stewards of our territory. There are challenge= s to being a small population in a large territory.
I’ve had the good f= ortune to have grown up in a small community. I’m also, as the representative for the Mayo-Tatchun area, aware of some of the challenges that we face as a small community with few people in our vast area. How we meet our responsibilities as stewards of the land and how we interact with industry = and with each other is critical.
With a population of about 34,000, the Yukon shares some of the characteristics of small communities. People in these communities — in the communities of Mayo and Pelly and Haines Junction and Ross River — know what it means to depend on one = another. They know what it means to build trust. They know what it means to take advantage of opportunities as they arise.
In the Yukon, we are bles= sed with strong communities, both within and outside of Whitehorse. We are blessed w= ith vast resources and riches, with pristine wilderness — an incredible legacy left us by previous leaders.
Underlying all we do when= we make use of our resources, whether through mining, agriculture, forestry or something else, we need to do so as a community and with our communities. T= he relationship is all-important.
So when we take a departm= ent like Energy, Mines and Resources, I believe we can involve everyone. We can work with industry and with First Nations, and we can create a fair, sustainable= and prosperous Yukon — but we must do it together in consultation and collaboration. Sometimes the progress may seem slow, but we must ensure tha= t no community, no one, is left behind, that no government is left behind, that = no peoples are left behind. That is what the NDP stands for and that is what t= he NDP will continue to work for.
Our leaders have seen fit= to sign First Nation agreements, to work with First Nation leadership, leadership in Canada and leadership in Yukon to develop the Umbrella Final Agreement, to develop a land claims format and to develop self-government agreements. The key to the prosperity and the futur= e of the Yukon is within these agreements and within our relationships.
First Nation governments,= the Yukon government and the Government of Canada have entered into a new relationship with the signing of the Umbrella Final Agreement, First Nation self-government agreements and the subseq= uent implementation of these.
I know this House needs no reminder, but all Yukon First Nation final agreements are constitutionally protected. Leaders in the Yukon — First Nation and government leaders — must honour the treaties and agreements to build a common future. T= he New Democratic Party believes in respect, in trust and in a mutual relation= ship with First Nation governments, arrived at through transparency, through openness, honesty and clear communication. The New Democratic Party also believes that the benefits of the resource extraction industry and other industries should be beneficial to all Yukon and that this can be done sustainably and without contributing to global problems such as climate cha= nge. Yukon owns these resources. It is a legacy gifted to us now and for our children.
The New Democratic Party = will stand for Yukoners and we will fight for our share and fight to ensure that= all Yukoners benefit and have a say in the development and extraction of our non-renewable resources. We can and must ensure that the industry is viable, responsible and sustainable, but mostly we must build strong relationships between Yukon citizens, between Yukon governments — the Government of Yukon and First Nation governments — between rural and urban, between= one community and another and between all users of the land, whether they be outfitters, trappers, harvesters or employed in the resource extraction industry.
Yukon citizens deserve an= d need the leadership that understands the obligations and the opportunity that we= are presented with. We are aware, as stewards of the land, that we are responsi= ble for our environment. We are aware that the leadership and the elders on our land have shown us a way. We have been left a legacy in renewable energy. O= ver 40 years ago, a series of projects were undertaken, yet we have watched as = our consumption of energy has grown and our production has levelled off. Now we= are on the cusp of making some very critical decisions. We must not be rushed because we have delayed the process. Now, more than ever, we must carefully choose our course.
We need to enrich opportu= nities for people to be on the land, to involve communities and elders, renewable resources councils, hunters, trappers, non-government organizations — like the Yukon Fish and Game Association, the Yukon Trappers Association — First Nations and citizens who spend time on our land and waterways= .
We are on the cusp of mak= ing some very serious decisions and heading in a direction that will determine our relationships for the near and subsequent future.
When I was up last time, = I had asked the minister a bit about housing. One of the ways that we interact as= a community in Mayo, Pelly and Carmacks is through the housing that we offer. Currently most communities in the Yukon are struggling to provide housing f= or their citizens and to provide for future citizens. A number of the mining companies h= ave cited housing as critical to the development of their mines. I know communi= ties are hoping that mining will help sustain their town. I have heard a number = of stories in recent months of people who wished to move from Whitehorse in the employ of YTG to live in a community, only to find there was no housing available.
My question for the minis= ter last time was for specifics around the development of lots in Mayo and Carmacks = in particular. In Mayo, I had a recent conversation with the Na Cho Nyäk = Dun and they cited that the development around Site C had stalled.
They had been in conversa= tions with Yukon government but had not received any follow-up. There was talk of some developments on Site C. I know that the community — the Village = of Mayo and the Na Cho Nyäk Dun were both eager to go ahead. I would appreciate it if the minister could give me an update on the development of= Site C.
As part of that, I wonder= if the minister and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources have a comprehen= sive plan in place with clearly defined directions and specific measurable goals= and objectives as part of a strategic planning process to meet the housing need= s in our communities. I know there are a number of one-off projects underway, bu= t is there an overall assessment of housing in the Yukon Territory, in our vario= us communities, anticipating current and future needs in terms of housing, ris= ks to those needs and how we’re going to go about ensuring that there is cooperation between the First Nations, the village councils, the community councils, the people in the communities and industry — how has that p= lan been developed and could the minister could share with us the Yukon-wide housing policy for rural communities and where we are with that?
Hon. Mr. Kent: = span> I thank the member opposite for his comments as well as the questions.
I’m not sure that we’ll get to the questions during the short time that we have before = us today — perhaps when Energy, Mines and Resources comes up again, if indeed it makes it back to the floor of the House during the balance of this sitting.
I do want to speak a litt= le bit about what the member opposite mentioned as far as what the NDP stands for. Certainly there is a difference of opinion from this side of the House to t= he other side of the House on what the NDP stands for.
Mentioning things such as involving everyone, including industry and individuals and First Nations — that would apply for the NDP everywhere except for the Peel watersh= ed.
They’ve run to one = side of that issue with respect to not seeking the balance that the Yukon Party is seeking for the Peel watershed, respecting the contributions that the exploration sector makes to the economy, respecting the contributions that = the mining sector makes to the economy. The New Democrats certainly don’t include mining in their vision for the Peel. We were treated to a fairly extensive afternoon of the economic plan put forward by the Leader of the N= ew Democratic Party. Their definition of “viability” includes the = end of the free-entry system, a system that has worked very well for a number of years in ensuring that small prospectors — essentially one prospector= and perhaps even his dog — are able to go out there and find the White Go= lds, find the Raklas, find the Wolverines and the other projects that have advan= ced to where they are.
The NDP viability include= s the removal of large areas of land from mineral staking. There’s no balan= ce. There’s no fairness to that.
The NDP viability includes increasing taxes and royalties — taxes on and royalties for placer miners. All Yukoners know that those are very much respected as the family = farm of the north. Small operators in Klondike and small operators in the member’s riding of Mayo-Tatchun — and he wants to increase the taxes and royalties on those individuals, perhaps driving some of them out = of business. Again, that is their definition of viability, as well as a comple= te overhaul of mining legislation.
Again, we need to remain competitive. We need to have mining legislation that is competitive with ot= her jurisdictions, not only in Canada, but around the world. But the NDP would = have us remove that competitiveness. They would seek to ensure that we regulate = and legislate mining out of business and out of the Yukon.
Madam Chair, I could go o= n and on with respect to the member’s opening comments, but perhaps I will save that for the next time. Seeing the time, I move that we report progress on = Bill No. 11, entitled Second Appropriati= on Act, 2013-14.
Chair: It has been moved by Mr. Kent that the Chair report progress on Bill No. 11, entitled Second Appropriation Act, 2013-14. Are you agreed?
Motion agreed to
Hon. Mr. Cathers: I move that the Speaker do now resume the Chair.
Chair: It has been moved by Mr. Cathers that the Speaker do now resume the Chair.
Motion agreed to
Speaker resumes the Chair
Speaker: &nb= sp; I will now call the House to order. May the House have a report from the Ch= air of Committee of the Whole?
Cha= ir’s report
Ms. McLeod: = Mr. Speaker, Committee of the Whole has considered Bill No. 61, entitled Health Information Privacy and Managem= ent Act, and directed me to report the bill without amendment.
Mr. Speaker, Committee of= the Whole has also considered Bill No. 63, entitled Court and Regulatory Statutes Amendment Act, and directed me to report the bill without amendment.
Committee of the Whole ha= s also considered Bill No. 11, Second Appropriation Act, 2013-14, and directed me to report progress.
Speaker: &nb= sp; You have heard the report from the Chair of Committee of the Whole. Are you agreed?
Some Hon. Members:  = ; Agreed.
Speaker: &nb= sp; I declare the report carried.
The hour being 5:30 p.m.,= this House now stands adjourned until 1:00 p.m. tomorrow.
The House adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
= 3536 = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = HANSARD &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; December 3, 2013
= December 3, 2013 = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; HANSARD &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp;  = ; &n= bsp; PAGE 3509