Whitehorse, Yukon

Tuesday, May 17, 1988 - 1:30 p.m.

Speaker: I will now call the House to order. We will proceed with Prayers.



Speaker: We will proceed with the Order Paper.

Introductions of Visitors?

Returns or Documents for Tabling?


Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: I have three returns.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I have several returns, plus the Report on Regulations for tabling.

Speaker: Reports of Committees?


Introduction of Bills?

Notices of Motion for the Production of Papers?

Notices of Motion?

Statements by Ministers?


Visitor Radio Station CKYN - “Yukon Gold”

Hon. Mr. Porter: As the Minister responsible for tourism, I would like to report that Radio Station CKYN “Yukon Gold” is officially going to be launched on air as of May 20, 1988.

CKYN, Ninety-six point one (96.1) on the FM dial, will officially go on air at 3:00 p.m. May 20, 1988 to coincide with the opening of our six visitor reception centres for the 1988 summer season. To celebrate this special occasion, opening ceremonies will be held simultaneously in Whitehorse, Watson Lake, Carcross, Haines Junction, Beaver Creek and Dawson City. Each of the communities will be broadcasting CKYN over low-powered transmitters from the visitor reception centres.

Commencement of the new service will mark a new era in the department’s tourism promotional efforts in the Yukon. Never before has the travel industry applied the radio medium so broadly to deliver information and entertainment geared specifically toward increasing visitors’ enjoyment and length of stay.

From May 20 to September 25, local broadcasts will be heard daily from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. The programming consists of 12 one-hour cassettes, containing information on local attractions, points of historic and natural interest and interviews with Yukon  personalities.

Yukoners, past and present, tell their stories about northern life in 150 interviews collected for the radio programs. Archival tapes were utilized to present Yukon’s past through the lives of Martha Louise Black and Robert Service. A great Yukoner, Johnny Johns, is featured in one of his last interviews before his recent death.

The prepackaged programming will be augmented by local, live on-air announcements. Once every 28 minutes the VRC staff will be able to announce upcoming community events, road conditions and other information of interest to our travelers.

I am sure that you will join me in congratulating the department on instituting this innovative marketing concept, and I hope that you will take the opportunity to tune in to FM 96.1 for this new radio service and will attend the official inauguration of the service here in Whitehorse at 2:45 p.m. on May 20 at the T.C. Richards Building.

Speaker: This then brings us to Question Period.


Question re: Territorial Court Act

Mr. Phelps: I have some questions about something known around the territory as the Territorial Court Act problem regarding the Thomson affair, the firing of the justice of the peace, and the question being who fired Mr. Thomson.

As Members here may recall, last November the Justice Minister hastily called a press conference in order to save his political skin. He called into question the integrity of the chief judge of the Territorial Court. We know as well that the Judicial Council cannot find out who is telling the truth in this matter because it was not given the power to cross-examine witnesses under oath.

Has Cabinet made a decision yet about proceeding on this matter and ensuring that the taxpayers of the Yukon will know the truth about this matter?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: I was asked that question yesterday. The phraseology of the preamble contains inaccuracies; however, the essence of it is: is there a decision by Cabinet? As of yet, the answer is no.

Mr. Phelps: When are we going to get a decision on this matter?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: I have been asked that question repeatedly, and I have answered, as has the Government Leader, that the agendas of Cabinet are not public; the matter is in the hands of the Cabinet, and the Cabinet will conclude its deliberations and decide. When the decision is made, the Members opposite and the public will know the decision at that time.

Mr. Phelps: If the Minister of Justice is not pulling a Richard Nixon and stonewalling, hoping this thing will go away so the truth will not come out, will he give us a commitment that this issue will be resolved in Cabinet next Thursday?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: That is essentially the same question as before. It is not within my power to give such a commitment. The deliberations of Cabinet are collective, as the Member knows, and the Cabinet will decide. When the Cabinet has decided, the decision will be known.

Question re: Territorial Court Act

Mr. Phelps: The public is not so concerned with what the deliberations of Cabinet will be but of the Judicial Council or a justice appointed under the Public Inquiries Act, because people want to know who was lying. That is what they want to know.

Yesterday, in response to a question that I asked about the same sordid affair, the Minister of Justice responded as follows, “It is not accurate to say that the Cabinet knew the situation would not be adequate. Our expectation was entirely the other way, and that is simply not an accurate statement. The position of Cabinet was, and is, that we wished to ascertain the facts, and the particular way that the Judicial Council chose to go about that was their decision.”

Is the Justice Minister now saying that the Judicial Council was lying, when they informed him that they had concerns about not being empowered to cross-examine witnesses under oath back in December?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: No.

Mr. Phelps: Then how on earth could the good Minister of Justice stand in his place yesterday and tell us that he and his fellow Cabinet colleagues were confident that the Judicial Council could get to the bottom of this matter and get to the truth of this matter, when they had already said that they needed the power to cross-examine witnesses?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: Because the statement was true.

Mr. Phelps: I do not know if the Justice Minister has something in his ear most of the time, but maybe he did not hear the question. Is he telling this House that he did not believe the Judicial Council when they told him that they required the power to cross-examine witnesses under oath in order to get to the truth of the matter?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: The Member opposite is being willfully blind to the options and the possibilities here. The position of the Cabinet was, and is, that we would like to get to the bottom of this matter and ascertain the facts, and not, as is the position of the other side, that of being obviously unconcerned about the facts, and wishing only to attack the Minister.

Question re: Territorial Court Act

Mr. Phelps: I would like to ask the Government Leader if he was forewarned by the Minister of Justice of that before he scurried out to have his press conference and called into question the integrity of the chief judge of the Territorial Court. Did the Minister of Justice forewarn the Government Leader that he was going to do this unconscionable thing?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I do not necessarily share the characterization of the Leader of the Official Opposition of the event described by him and the description in terms of defaming the character of a Member of the front bench. In any case, a communication of that kind between the Ministers, I do not believe, is something that would be subject to questions in the House.

Mr. Phelps: Does he now approve of what the Minister of Justice did, because what he did serves only to debase the entire judicial system of the territory?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: The Minister of Justice has the confidence of his Cabinet colleagues; otherwise, he still would not be Minister of Justice.

Question re: Rental accommodation in Whitehorse

Mr. McLachlan: As the Minister  for Economic Development is well aware, the situation regarding rental accommodation in the City of Whitehorse is becoming more and more critical. Each day there is less available as more and more people who work in the Yukon’s tourism industry move into the city and attempt to secure rental accommodation. How will the strategic investments section of the Joint Venture Program, for which this Minister is responsible, succeed in getting more apartments or more apartment buildings built in the City of Whitehorse?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: Firstly, the Minister  responsible for housing has already answered the question. We have made a decision to designate the rental market as a strategic area, for which the monies in the Joint Venture Program can be available. This program provides a financial incentive to investors to participate in certain kinds of projects. One of the categories in which venture capital money can be spent is in the area of strategic investment.

Having designated the area of rental accommodation as strategic, that permits applications under this program to go forward and to provide significant financial incentives from this government to the investors to participate in such projects.

Mr. McLachlan: The payback for the investors is when the unit is built and is 100 percent occupied. Getting the funding to build it is the problem.  Why has the government not addressed the shortfall in the funding deficiency in the same way that it has addressed the shortfall in funding in the rural mortgage program?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: The Member is referring to the necessity of providing bridge financing to make up the difference between what could be available for the private market and what is necessary to initiate a project. As has been indicated by the Minister for Economic Development and myself, there are programs, one in Economic Development and one in the Housing Corporation, that do deal with bridge financing.

In the case of Economic Development, the bridge financing is provided through the Joint Venture Program for rental accommodation per se. In the Home Owner Initiative Program, projects that include both rental and units for sale can be funded under the Joint Venture Program in terms of the provision of bridge financing.

Mr. McLachlan: What is the rationale behind tying up the $10,000 contribution for a period of two years after the project is built and fully occupied?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: The Venture Capital Program was not designed specifically for the housing market. The Venture Capital Program was designed to encourage investors to invest in Yukon projects. The general reason for the requirement cited by the Member is to provide some protection for the public investment, so the money provided in this way will achieve the objectives for which it has been budgeted.

Question re: Education Council membership

Mrs. Firth: The school committees conference was held some time ago now, and I have a question about the resolution that was presented at the conference. The resolution read that the Minister of Education appoint one delegate and an alternate from the l’Ecole Emilie Tremblay school committee to the Education Council. Has the Minister made the appointments yet?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: No. Any changes to the status of the Education Council, or to the governing or advisory structures under the School Act, or the policies pursuant to those structures, will be made in the context of the White Paper, which will be announced shortly and will deal with the matter the Member has mentioned, as well as others.

Mrs. Firth: When the school committee members make a resolution, it is sent to the department for input. Under the current policy, input to this particular resolution says that it is a ministerial decision at present. Does the Minister’s government agree with the principle of having these individuals appointed to the Education Council?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: It may be technically true that the Minister has the latitude to make these appointments; however, I have taken the position that changes of this nature should be made within the full context of the education White Paper, and any changes will not be made in an ad hoc way. Policy will not change until the paper is brought forward, which announces the government’s direction with respect to the education act and policies for the future.

Mrs. Firth: The Minister did not answer the question about whether the government agrees with that position. I would like him to answer that and, as my final supplementary question, I would like to ask if he has communicated that position to the l’Ecole Emilie Tremblay school committee, that they will not be getting their appointments until after that process.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I did answer the question by stating the decision on the make up of any advisory or governing structures of the territory will be made within the context of the White Paper. The White Paper has not been tabled, so it is impossible at this stage for me to unilaterally or arbitrarily make a decision now, because of the guidelines I have mentioned.

The school committees around the territory know what is happening with respect to the process for developing the education act and the making public of a White Paper. The l’Ecole Emilie Tremblay school committee is well aware of the fact that the government will be making a decision with respect to their request in the context of the White Paper, and not before.

I have not personally written to the school committee to inform them of that fact, but I am positive it is well known to them.

Question re: Yukon Housing Corporation/appliances

Mr. Lang: I would like to turn back to the Yukon Housing Corporation. A couple of weeks ago I asked the Minister about the policy that had emanated from the Yukon Housing Corporation directing that appliances over two years old in staff housing would be replaced. Last evening, the Minister said that his investigations in the matter shows that there was a Yukon Housing Corporation employee who thought that was the case, but that was not the policy and it has changed back to what it was before.

How many appliances were replaced under the policy by that employee until it was caught and changed back to what it should have been?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I would not characterize it as changing back to an old policy. I would characterize it as a misinterpretation of an existing policy. I am not aware of the corporation surplusing any appliances simply for the fact that they were two years old or more.

Mr. Lang: The Minister investigated this matter. He must have gotten to the bottom of it. My understanding is that seven sets of fridges and stoves were replaced in Ross River. There was a number in Faro, and other communities could have been affected by the directive being sent out. How many fridges and stoves, two years and older, were replaced through this particular policy until it was discontinued?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I just answered the question. After the investigation, I am not aware of any fridges and stoves that were surplused simply because they were two or more years old. As I indicated yesterday, in Ross River there were some units taken out of staff housing to go into social units, but they were not taken out of the Housing Corporation’s inventory and they will not be taken out of the inventory simply because they are two years old or more.

Mr. Lang: In view of the fact that we know of one particular case where this happened, if not more, - I  understand this happened in Faro as well -appliances were replaced under this directive. What is the Minister going to do with the extra appliances? Are they going into storage.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: It is a revelation to me that it has happened. The Member makes the allegation that it has happened in Faro as well. I do not know that that is the case at all. In any case the units will be used in social housing units, staff housing units, new units and they will be used as replacement units in our inventory. Any units that are not currently in a staff or social housing unit that are still serviceable will be used in units in the future either new or as replacements.

Question re: Yukon Housing Corporation/appliances

Mr. Lang: Most members of the public have appliances that last for 10, 15 or maybe 20 years. My concern is that over the past year, or year and a half, there has been a policy in place where the Yukon Housing Corporation replaced appliances that were two years or older. I do not know why. My information is that as many as 15 appliances were purchased over this past year.

Could the Minister go back to the Yukon Housing Corporation and find out exactly how many appliances were bought under this particular policy and where they were distributed to?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Depending on how long the Session goes on, I will be disputing hotly that there was a Yukon Housing Corporation Board policy to replace all units after two years. I did indicate yesterday afternoon that there was an employee who took it upon himself to interpret existing policy and who allowed units in several cases to be replaced after two years. The situation was certainly caught very early and it is the case that no units at all, to my knowledge, whatsoever, were surplused from the inventory as a result of the misinterpretation by this one employee. There were no cases, that I am aware of, where the Yukon Housing Corporation sold units or destroyed units or threw units in the garbage that were two years old simply because they were two years old. The policy of the corporation is to surplus units that are beyond economic repair. That was the policy and that is the policy. Any units that are in the inventory right now, or projected to be in the inventory, will be used in units that either will be constructed, or in units that need to be replaced.

Mr. Lang: I know that the Minister does not have the information with him. I am just asking that he report back to the House. Could he find out how many appliances were bought under this misinterpretation of the policy because obviously the directive went out that any appliance two years old and over would be replaced. My question is: how many? Could the Minister just nod his head in agreement and get the information for the House?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: The Yukon Housing Corporation’s clear policy is that units will only be surplused after they have been determined to be beyond economic repair. All the units that are purchased will be used in new units that will be purchased for social housing or built for the purposes of staff housing. All the units in the inventory will be used in an economical way and will be placed where they are needed most. No units will be surplused simply because any particular person feels that they are getting just a little bit old.

Mr. Lang: I realize that the Minister has an expanding empire. I realize that all the new homes and the homes that they are purchasing and building will require appliances. I recognize that those particular appliances bought under that policy can be stored and put into these other homes as they are built. I wanted to know from the Minister how many appliances were purchased under this misinterpretation of the policy. I did not ask whether or not he could find some more houses to put them in. I know that the Minister is fully capable of that.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I know the government is more interested in ensuring there is an adequate supply of housing for Yukoners than the Member for Porter Creek East ever was. We are interested in meeting those real needs, both on the social housing side and on the home ownership side, and we have proved it.

With respect to the policies, I have indicated exactly what the policies are. With respect to the numbers of units that have been purchased, if the Member wants to know exactly how many stoves or fridges were purchased last and projected to be purchased this year, I can provide that information.

Question re: Lottery licensing regulations

Mrs. Firth: I have a question for the Minister who has the confidence of his colleagues, the Minister of Justice. Yesterday, I asked the Minister if he would meet with the Lottery Licensing Board and review the licensing rule for charitable organizations. At that time, he said he would.

When will the Minister be meeting with them to review this rule?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: That meeting is not yet scheduled, so I am unable to give a precise date.

Mrs. Firth: Yesterday, also in the Question Period, I asked the Minister a question, at which time he replied that I had misinformed the House, and that the Lions Club was always interested in sealed bids for the cottage, that no licence is required, and that the process was continuing now.

I have spoken to the president of the ...

Speaker: Order, please. Would the Member please get to the supplementary question?

Mrs. Firth: I spoke to the president of the Lions Club, and he said that statement was wrong. Is the Minister prepared to correct the record at this time, in light of the fact the statement was wrong?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: No, I do not believe the statement was wrong. The important piece of information here is the interaction that occurred between the person who spoke to the officials who were charged with administering the Lottery Licensing Act. A conversation occurred between two people there, and my information is as I have stated it.

Mrs. Firth: The position of the Lions Club, according to the president, is that the statement the Minister made in the House was incorrect, was wrong. I guess we will just have to stand by that position.

Will the Minister give us a commitment as to a time line when he will review this policy with the committee, and when we could expect it would be changed?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: I have already answered that three or four times, I believe.

Question re: Lottery licensing regulations

Mrs. Firth: Regarding the issue with the Minister of Justice and the Yukon Lottery Licensing Board, the Minister has said he will meet with the committee again and discuss it. We would like to have a more specific time line on when he is going to meet with them. He has given us no schedule date. We would also like to know when he expects to have this issue resolved. There are numerous charitable organizations out there waiting for a decision on this matter, so they can come and freely apply for the licences they want. They are looking for a time line as to when the Minister is going to meet, is going to review this and when it is going to be made public.

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: Organizations and individuals can apply at will at any date that they choose. I will continue to monitor this situation and continue to discuss, with the chairperson of the board, the situation as it practically exists. Because the information about the practical results and implications of the policies in place is not known today; it cannot be; it is impossible to predict a date.

Mrs. Firth: It is not impossible to predict a date. If the Minister’s intentions were as he likes to make them out to be, he would give that prediction. He says that...

Speaker: Order, please. Would the Member please get to the supplementary question?

Mrs. Firth: ...they are going to monitor it. How long are they going to monitor the situation? How many more organizations have to lose out on potential revenue-raising opportunities?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: The information contained in the preamble of the question, I believe, is inaccurate. I have already answered that question.

Mrs. Firth: Will the Minister give any commitment to the public that he will meet with the board within the next month?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: Yes.

Question re: Workers’ Compensation Board/accommodation

Mr. McLachlan: Can the Minister of Government Services confirm that the Workers’ Compensation Board recently purchased four lots behind the business known as Carcare Motors at about $16.00 per square foot. This will bring the holdings of the Workers’ Compensation Board to some 60,000 square feet of prime commercial space in downtown Whitehorse? Can the Minister confirm that?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: No. I cannot. I will check with the Workers’ Compensation Board and find out if that is accurate.

Mr. McLachlan: With the land that is being purchased, some of which the Minister is knowledgeable about, can he advise us if the board is planning to build anything other than office space? I ask the question because we talked about bringing people in from outlying communities who are ill in relation to the Department of Health and Human Resources. Some of the land assembly projects that are taking place look as if they are big enough to take a motel or a hotel beside an office tower.

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: No.

Mr. McLachlan: Can the Minister also confirm that the board has recently purchased as many as 10 or 11 separate housing units within the City of Whitehorse that are not on continuous lots?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: No, I cannot. I would certainly know of such an event if it occurred. I have no knowledge whatsoever of such an allegation. I simply do not believe it is credible.

Question re: Electrical rate policy

Mr. Nordling: I have a question to the Government Leader with respect to electrical rate policies.

We have been trying since last fall to get answers about the Yukon Utilities Board. In November we were told that appointments were imminent. No appointments were made. In April and May we were told that appointments would wait until after a rate policy was in place. The Minister of Justice said he expected a rate policy in April. The Government Leader said this announcement on his behalf was not authorized. It is now mid-May, and I would like to know if the Government Leader can tell us when we will have a new rate policy?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: As early as last fall in discussion on the department’s estimates, I indicated to the Member that I had requested from the Yukon Development Corporation, this May, its proposals for restructuring of subsidies and structuring of rates. At this point I have not received the proposals from the corporation. Once I have received the proposals from the corporation and my recommendations about the same have been forwarded to and passed by Cabinet, they will be made public. That, in any case, would take a matter of weeks. It will be forthcoming, but not this week or next. I would think late May or early June would be the earliest we could make a public announcement on that.

Mr. Nordling: The other outstanding issue in this area is the powers of the Yukon Utilities Board. On April 12 the Minister of Justice said that the prospect of changing the powers of the board and/or revising the Public Utilities Act was under review. I would like to know when the review will be complete and if there will be changes to the legislation?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: I am unable to say precisely. There will certainly not be changes to the legislation in the spring sitting of the Legislature. At the earliest possible it could be the fall sitting. The decisions are consequent on other decisions, which have previously been spoken about, which are not yet made.

Mr. Nordling: Could the Minister tell us if appointments to the Yukon Utilities Board will be made before this review is complete and before any possible changes to the legislation?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: Yes, I would expect that to occur.

Question re: Tourist reception ccentreWhitehorse

Mr. Phillips: With respect to the plans to locate a new tourism information centre in the City of Whitehorse, yesterday I tabled a petition with over 200 signatures of individuals and businesses who want the Government of Yukon to consider building a tourism information centre on the Alaska Highway. Many tourists bypass Whitehorse simply because they do not know it is here.

Has the Minister of Tourism reviewed the proposed location of the centre and considered the arguments made by the signatories to the petition?

Hon. Mr. Porter: We have not reviewed the specifics of the petition. It was only yesterday that the Member brought the petition to the attention of the House. However, I can tell the Member that no final decision has been made as to the location. As it appears to be an interest of the community that other site locations be identified and assessed, we will do that.

Mr. Phillips: I am asking the Minister if he will consider reopening the idea of a tourism information centre in Whitehorse and giving these people the opportunity to be heard, as well. There are a great many businesses that are downtown and feel the centre should be located up the hill. The suggestion I have heard many times is that up near the new Transportation Museum would be a great location. It would catch people going both north and south.

Would the Minister give those people the consideration and give them an opportunity to have some input into where it should be?

Hon. Mr. Porter: We would examine that particular question. You will recall earlier that the Member for Porter Creek East had raised the question of, prior to making a decision regarding the location of the visitor reception centre outside the downtown core, that we should check with other cities of similar size. We did do some checking with Prince George and some other cities in northern BC and Alberta. In some certain situations, where the visitor reception centre was located outside the downtown core, the communities ended up constructing another visitor reception centre downtown, and some places have moved from outside the city back to the downtown core. So, there seems to be a trend in those other areas that the downtown core is favoured.

Nevertheless, because of the seeming interest in looking at the Alaska Highway adjacent to Whitehorse proper, we would reexamine that site.

Mr. Phillips: The businessmen involved feel that, by the number of tourists who are bypassing Whitehorse each year, we are losing approximately $500,000 in revenue in the City of Whitehorse alone each year. When would we expect to build such a facility, and when would it be operational?

Hon. Mr. Porter: The Member will recall that in our capital allocation we set aside some money to do some preliminary architectural and engineering work this fiscal year. So, it would not be possible to do any construction this year. For construction to be anticipated, it would have to come in the budget of 1989-90. In order for the department to be able to get the necessary finances, we would have to go through the normal capital budgeting process.

So, it would be at least two years from now if a construction decision is going to be made.

Speaker: Question Period has now elapsed. We will now proceed with Orders of the Day.


Speaker: Government Bills.


Bill No. 7: Second Reading

Clerk: Second reading, Bill No. 7, standing in the name of the hon. Mr. Penikett.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I would like to move the second reading of Bill No. 7, entitled Languages Act.

Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Government Leader that Bill No. 7, entitled Languages Act be now read a second time.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: It is my pleasure today to formally introduce the principles of this measure to the House. As Members are aware, this act is a consequence of the languages agreement that we recently signed with the Minister of Justice, Mr. Hnatyshyn. Included in that act were the substantial elements of the legislation that one sees before us today. The only additional provisions in this act from those that were tabled previously are measures that have been added to the act in response to concerns evidenced by Members of this House. It should be noted that the agreement was signed after almost two years of very delicate, and at times very difficult, negotiations.

The agreement and the legislation here today serve a number of important purposes. In the first instance, they provide for a recognition, by both levels of government, of the importance of our aboriginal languages, and of the need to provide additional language services to our francophone minority. The agreement, as all Members know, provides for a quarter of a million dollars for the enhancement and preservation of aboriginal languages of the Yukon, and for the development and delivery of services to aboriginal language speakers in the Yukon in the next five years. It also provides for continuing federal funding for the implementation of French language services, where they are needed.

In the second instance, the agreement removes the Yukon from the provisions of the Official Languages Act. The implementation of this act in its current form would, in my opinion, have been a serious constitutional step backwards for the Yukon, and would have resulted in official bilingualism being imposed on Yukoners by the Parliament of Canada.

As well, an existing court challenge to the Yukon’s constitutional status has been put on hold pending the introduction of a territorial act and the implementation of this agreement.

The federal-territorial Languages Act before us today represents this government’s commitment to the terms of that agreement. Essentially it provides the recognition of our aboriginal and French languages and guarantees certain rights for the use of those languages. Specific services to be provided to our aboriginal and francophone communities are not detailed in this act, because they will be the subject of further consultations with Yukon aboriginal people and Yukon francophones.

Although this act will allow the creation of many useful language services, it does not establish official bilingualism in the Yukon. It is very much the contrary. The services to be implemented will be practical and will be limited to specifically defined areas where there is a clear need and demand. I must reiterate that this act should not be construed as an indication that this government embraces the concept of official bilingualism for the Yukon.

In many areas, such as in the provision for the use of French or aboriginal languages in the Legislature, in the provision of the right to use English or French in the courts, the act simply confirms our acceptance of existing situations and practices. The act does not provide for, nor does it contemplate, the written translation of Hansard or simultaneous oral translation of the business of the Legislature except where prescribed. It does provide for the translation, in an orderly fashion, of the legislation of this House, and for the recognition that each version of that legislation shall have equal force and effect.

As Members are aware, the translation of the Yukon’s statutes has been an ongoing effort of the federal government for many years. The acts and regulations of this House are required to be tabled in the Parliament of Canada in both official languages. This new act provides deadlines for completing and bringing up to date this translation effort that will be funded by the federal government.

The act also provides the right for Yukon francophones to receive services in their language at the head or central office in the Yukon government and from any other office where there is significant demand for those services. These services, and the way in which they are delivered, and the identification of those offices which should provide these services, will again be the subject of consultation with Yukon francophones and may be confirmed by regulation. There will be practical agreements where there is significant demand and which can be justified expenditures in the Legislature.

This act represents a real advance in our efforts to ensure the cultural integrity of the Yukon’s aboriginal people.

We believe it will do much to preserve the linguistic heritage of the Yukon while at the same time recognizing the language rights of our francophone minority.

It is an act that does not in any way impose unreasonable demands upon this government, and it does not imply any degradation of our constitutional status.

I am confident that this act is good for the Yukon aboriginal people, good for Yukon francophones, good for the legal standing and good for the future of the territory.

The consequences of the alternative situation, the imposition of Bill C-72, an act that is now before the federal parliament, are considerable. Should that act pass unamended, official bilingualism would be the rule in Yukon. If that were the result, not only would simultaneous translation of our debates in this House be required, but we would require the recruitment of many, many bilingual public servants. All documents produced by this government would have to be in both official languages. Francophones would be entitled to demand bilingual services from any and all offices of this government. Costs would be enormous, the practical consequences considerable, the arrangements that would result would be entirely unnecessary in my view and inappropriate for this territory in this day and age.

Passage of this bill will, according to the agreement with the federal government, permit them to amend Bill C-72 in order that official bilingualism will not be the rule in the Yukon. Instead, practical arrangements for services to linguistic minorities in this territory will be the order of the day. Practical arrangements funded by the federal government will be the rule rather than a devicive and frustrating and debilitating debate about the status of languages, we will have sensible arrangements for the provision of services to linguistic minorities.

In closing, I want to say something about the nature of the debate between the Government of the Yukon and the Government of Canada. I want to put clearly on the record the positions of these two governments throughout these negotiations.

I can do that best by quoting briefly from two letters addressed to me by the Minister of Justice, the Attorney General of Canada, Mr. Raymond Hnatyshyn. I would quote the first one as follows: “As you know, the position of the federal government in these negotiations is that any agreement should parallel the essential provisions of the 1984 Canada-Northwest Territories Language Agreement.

“In particular, since the inception of these discussions with your government, we have sought an agreement that would confirm French and English as the official languages of the Yukon. You have, on a number of occasions, made it clear to me that the Government of Yukon will not accept our proposals on the status of the two languages. I understand that continues to be the position of your government at this time.

“The Government of Canada acknowledges that in its present form the agreement represents a very important advance towards the full recognition and use of Canada’s official languages. This agreement has been firmly endorsed by the minority communities concerned. We, therefore, accept that the interests of the francophone community of the Yukon and of its aboriginal people will be enhanced and protected very substantially under the agreement. We also recognize the very positive spirit which you and your government have brought to the discussions of these issues.”

I want to say one other thing about the timing of this legislation. I want to say that we are under considerable pressure from the federal government to pass this legislation as soon as we can. I understand it is the wish of the federal government to appear before the parliamentary committee later this week to indicate to the committee the wishes of the Yukon Legislature in regard to this legislation and this agreement, so the federal government can recommend to that parliamentary committee particular amendments to Bill C-72 that arise out of our agreement. I am sure all Members know the Prime Minister has indicated this bill is legislation that must pass Parliament this summer, before July.

I would quote again from a letter from Mr. Hnatyshyn, as follows: “The purpose of this letter is to confirm the steps that we have agreed to undertake to give effect to today’s agreement. Your government will present the necessary legislation to the Assembly of Yukon for enactment as soon as conveniently practical.”

We are bringing this legislation here today because the federal government wishes to be perfectly clear about the intentions of this House, this Parliament, with respect to this agreement and this law. The text of this law has been the subject of not only consultation with the federal government and the groups affected but, also, the Government of Yukon has attempted to listen to concerns of Members in this House communicated in Question Period and privately, and adjust the text accordingly to deal with the concerns. We have also had to have those particular drafting changes okayed by the people in Ottawa.

I believe the agreement we have, the agreement that is reflected in this bill, is a good one for the Yukon. I believe the only alternative to this bill - the only alternative to the passage of this legislation - is the imposition by the Parliament of Canada of official bilingualism of the Yukon Territory. Given the choice between the two, given that these are the only two choices for us, I have no hesitation whatsoever in recommending approval of Bill No. 7, in principle.

Mr. Phelps: With regard to the principle of the bill, there is of course no question where this party stands on Bill C-72. In fact, as all here will recall, it was a motion put forward by me and debated several months, and passed unanimously, that was forwarded to the Parliament of Canada. That motion spoke, in no uncertain terms, about the displeasure of Yukoners with regard to Bill C-72 and what it would attempt to do to the Yukon in future. When it was announced in this House that an agreement had been reached between this government and the Government of Canada, an agreement whereby Bill C-72 would be amended, an agreement whereby there would be certain rights entrenched in the Yukon, falling far short of official bilingualism, an agreement whereby it was said that all expenses would be borne by the Government of Canada, an agreement that placed, we are told, a great deal of emphasis upon the protection and preservation of aboriginal languages in the Yukon, our first reaction was very straightforward and very clear. It was one of some joy and some satisfaction. I have listened to the explanation of the principles of this bill, just given by the Government Leader, and the principles, as communicated by him to this House, would be entirely satisfactory to this party.

Since the first announcement of the deal, however, we have had an opportunity to read what was in fact negotiated, and not for the first time when we have actually looked at the package as negotiated, we felt extremely let down indeed by the language in the agreement, and the language in the bill. Once we had read the proposed bill in some detail, as the Government Leader has said, we raised some of our concerns in Question Period in this House.

Those concerns remain. We would be seeking clarification and quite probably amendments to the bill in Committee of the Whole. Our concerns can be broadly summarized as follows:

First is the issue of clause 6 in the bill. That clause raises all kinds of questions in our minds. We will want a full debate on this clause in Committee of the Whole, and we will be asking that we have a legislative counsel appear before this committee as a witness. I give notice now. Right now I really do not see much difference between the practical implications of this bill and official bilingualism insofar as the services that will be required in the Yukon and, in all probability, in this House. So I have very grave concerns about clause 6. My colleagues and I do not feel that it does what the Government Leader feels it will do.

The second concern, in broad terms, are those regarding the financial implications of what we are getting ourselves into. The provisions of this act, once passed, will be enshrined in the Yukon Act, and the Yukon Act is the constitution of this territory. Yet, the financial agreement for the aboriginal language rights extends only until 1993-94 and the obligations of the federal government end at that point, except to discuss what they might do from that time on. With regard to the obligations of the federal government at that time, and after that, under the provisions of this bill taken with the provisions of this agreement - well, we are going to want a little clarification on that too, because we have some concerns. We will discuss those particulars in Committee of the Whole.

The third issue has to do with the privileges of the House and the independence of the Legislature. We are concerned with clause 12.(b), which seems to degrade that principle by allowing government to make regulations regarding the translation of debates in this House and other proceedings in the Legislative Assembly.

In the brief time that we have had since we have seen the provisions of the bill that was tabled yesterday, we have checked with three provinces. In those provinces, the principles of House privileges are not debased, so we will have some questions about that. I look at Beauchesne, Control over Publications, page 17, under the chapter, Privileges of the House, it states: “The control of the House over its publications is absolute”, a fundamental principle that, at this point, seems to be violated and debased by language in the bill.

There has been a lot of lip service paid to the aboriginal language rights that are supposedly protected in this legislation. There definitely are some modest gains in that regard, but in no way are aboriginal language rights placed on an equal footing to French language rights. That ought to be disclosed in an open, forthright and honest fashion so that people are not confused about that aspect of the bill.

We are looking forward to debate in Committee of the Whole. We are looking forward to asking questions of a legal expert about certain clauses. If it turns out that this bill is really a bootlegged official bilingualism act,  then it certainly will not receive our support.

Mr. McLachlan: On the whole,  I do not have as many concerns as the Leader of the Official Opposition at the moment. I have been lobbied by some constituents from eastern Canada about some advantages of the bill. I have to admit though that more of that lobbying is carried on by the French language people than by the aboriginal language people in Faro.

On the whole, I see the bill as one with constructive measures. There is no doubt in my mind that there is going to be a period of grinding for about three or four years to move forward on this. On the principle, my party supports the bill and the agreement that was signed in Ottawa at the end of April.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I want to thank both Members who participated in this debate for their very constructive observations. I would like to say to the Leader of the Official Opposition that if I believed for a minute that this bill amounted to the imposition of official bilingualism in the Yukon, I too would vote against it.

I am absolutely convinced it does not do that. I am absolutely convinced it is a long way from that. I could be in a situation like Premier Devine was, where you admit, as we do in the agreement, this is movement in that direction. I concede that. It is movement in that direction, in that it improves the services and the situation for francophones. I say that unashamedly, but it is not official bilingualism, nor is it even close to it. I will say a little bit more about that in closing.

The Member says he has some concern about the language in the bill. I believe we can deal with the questions of the history of the language. Much of the language in the bill comes out of other legislation or other agreements. As he will know from his experience, Ottawa likes to build on a foundation of previous agreements, a foundation of phrases and forms and linguistic constructs in making arrangements like this. That is, perhaps, not surprising.

He indicated the nature of his concerns would require a legal counsel as a witness. I have not had the chance to discuss this with my colleagues, but rather than having Ministers answer questions with advisors beside them, we could have witnesses come before the bar of the House to answer questions if that would expedite passage of this bill. I think my colleague and I, the Minister of Justice, will be prepared to consider, with a very open mind, making whatever arrangements necessary to do that.

He expressed he had some concerns. We heard some concerns expressed in the House. One of the concerns I heard him express in connection with official bilingualism was whether we would have to have simultaneous translation in the House. Clause 12(b) was added, to which he may appropriately object, to deal with the question of the services in this House, the regulation-making power, as a result of his concern that there would be some unfettered right to demand simultaneous translation.

He is quite right that it is an inappropriate power to ascribe to Cabinet. We would have no objection whatsoever to bringing forward an amendment giving the power to the House to deal with its own procedures. The reason that is in there is because of his concern. We are told by everybody involved in drafting there is no such right implied by the clause in the bill that talks about the right to address the House, a right that has not been previously challenged here.

I want to talk about those rights. It seems to me that the arrangements about those things will be practical arrangements and will be made by this House, as will be the arrangements for the French language services and the aboriginal language services. There will be practical arrangements limited by real demand, limited by budgetary considerations and defined in regulations.

He raises the question about the aboriginal rights, and he did that in both directions. He raised it in terms of expenses, that we are having rights and services put into this act that will be ongoing, but the funding is not ongoing. The federal government is absolutely clear that their commitment to this is ongoing. We have a specific amount provided for for five years. We will renegotiate the amount in 1992. Let me be also clear that, if there is not funding provided, the capacity of this government to provide those services is limited. That is obvious.

At the same time, we cannot talk about the lack of parity in terms of status, because, as I already explained to the House, the position of the federal government is that this territory should become - not officially multilingual, not officially trilingual, not officially septilingual, but - officially bilingual.

What we have done in this agreement is to escape that consequence, escape the irreconcilable difference this government and the federal government as to the status of languages, by concentrating on the provision of services where they are needed by the minority groups. That is what we have done. We have avoided the question of status and, as a matter of constitutional fact, I am told that, at this moment, because of the peculiarity of how the Yukon Act was created, Yukon has no official languages. That was something that I did not realize until I got into discussions about this. Unlike the Northwest Territories and Saskatchewan, which inherited the old provision of the old Northwest Territories Act, which made them officially bilingual - or the nineteenth century equivalent of official bilingualism - that section was completely expunged from the Yukon Act when it was introduced into Parliament.

I want to say, in speaking to the Member’s concerns and the clarifications that he wants, we will try to deal with them specifically. I want to try to deal, very frankly and very directly, with the language in clause 6, which is language that comes to us from other agreements and other legislation. It is not, however, official bilingualism. I repeat, official bilingualism would mean that signs, services, publications, debates, Hansard - the entire complexion of this government - would change from top to bottom, instead of a few departments, perhaps such as Education or the Executive Council office, having to provide services in French where there is significant demand, services that we believe we may be able to provide through a central translation service. In other words, perhaps Education may have a bilingual officer to itself to provide service - and that is probably appropriate when you are providing French language programs. Another department may have translation that is heavily in demand, such as the Department of Health and Human Resources and may have some person who has a bilingual capability. Where there is no demand, say the Yukon Liquor Corporation, we would not have to provide the service. Under the federal system of official bilingualism, however, every office, every agency has to provide those services. We are talking about where there is significant demand. People who are considerably more expert than the Leader of the Official Opposition or I on this question have reiterated and emphasized to us - such as M. Roger Tasse, who is a gentleman whose legal learning he would respect and who was the Deputy Attorney General of Canada and who was a consultant for us in this legislation - has reaffirmed again that we do not have, and will not have, as a result of this legislation, official bilingualism, or anything close to it.

The Member is saying that the Franco-Yukonnais do not agree. I do not know how many meetings that he has had with them, but they understand perfectly that we do not have official bilingualism. At least in the conversation that I had with them as recently as last week, that was perfectly clear. I wonder if the dialogue that the Conservative caucus had was in French or in English. There may have been a translation problem.

I want to emphasize again that the services we are talking about in clause 6 are practical services where there is a significant demand, services that can be provided where there are a number of people, and we will decide these in consultation with the Association des Franco-Yukonnais. They will be funded by the federal government and will mean that a few people will have to be hired in our public service who have a bilingual capacity. We will probably have to have some translation facility, and we will provide the services where there is real significant demand.

It will mean a few people will have to have these skills, as opposed to many. There will be services that will be defined by regulation, by consultation - the Member is nodding his head, but everybody who has had any agreement with this bill says that the Member is wrong, dead wrong - and I hope when we provide people, perhaps whose opinions he respects more than he respects mine, to the House to provide him this information - in fact I am quite prepared to arrange a conversation between he and Mr. Hnatyshyn, he and M. Tasse, he and the people who put together the bill, and they will tell him that Tony Penikett and the Government of the Yukon have not agreed to official bilingualism.

The Member suggests that perhaps we get Mr. Hnatyshyn here, and if I could I would. I have a lingering suspicion that perhaps Mr. Hnatyshyn could not sway some people on the other side on what this bill means.

The services will be practical ones. They will be where there is real demand, limited by sensible arrangements, it will be as a result of consultation with a group, there will not be official bilingualism.

The Member has mentioned a couple of things where there may be arguments for amendments. I have already indicated that on clause 12(b) I think the point the Member makes is a reasonable one. I do not think we are quite prepared to suggest an amendment in that area, but there may be others. Because the particular agreements we have have been the subject of a lot of consultation with a lot of different people, including the federal government, if there are major amendments proposed we would obviously have to take our counsel on these, but I want to say I believe we can deal with the concerns of the Member opposite. I hope we can, and I hope that I yet can persuade him to take the position he first took when this agreement was taken - because nothing has changed since then - that this is a sensible practical arrangement for the good of the territory, for the good of the aboriginal people in the territory, for the good of the francophone community in the territory, and yes, for the majority of the people in the territory, the English speaking majority in this territory. In fact, it is an agreement that is good for the territory as a whole. It is in the public interest.

Speaker: Are you prepared for the question?

Some Hon. Members: Division.

Speaker: Division has been called.

Order, please. It has been moved by the hon. Government Leader that Bill No. 7, entitled the Languages Act be now read a second time.

Mr. Clerk, would you please poll the House?


Hon. Mr. Penikett: Agreed.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Porter: Agreed.

Hon. Mrs. Joe: Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: Agreed.

Mr. Joe: Agreed.

Ms. Kassi: Agreed.

Mr. Webster: Agreed.

Mr. Phelps: Agreed.

Mr. Brewster: Agreed.

Mr. Lang: Agreed.

Mr. Nordling: Agreed.

Mrs. Firth: Agreed.

Mr. Phillips: Agreed.

Mr. McLachlan: Agreed.

Clerk: The results are 15 yea, nil nay.

Bill No. 81: Second Reading

Clerk: Second reading, Bill No. 81, standing in the name of the hon. Mr. Kimmerly.

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: I move that Bill No. 81, entitled, Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 1988 be now read a second time.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister of Justice that Bill No. 81, entitled Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 1988 be now read a second time.

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: This act provides for amendments to various other acts, as is characteristic of miscellaneous statute law amendment acts. Those acts are the Distress Act, the Elections Act, the Electrical Protection Act, the Insurance Premium Tax Act, the Legislative Assembly Act, the Mediation Board Act, the Motor Vehicles Act, the Municipal and Community Infrastructure Grants Act, the Personal Property and Securities Act, and the Workers Compensation Act.

In each case, the act corrects inaccuracies, typographical errors or situations where the law, as it is printed in the revised statutes, does not accurately reflect the law as it was passed and intended by the Legislature. I trust that it will be considered carefully by all Members. I will stand ready to answer any questions in Committee of the Whole or elsewhere about the specific provisions.

Some Hon. Members: Division.

Speaker: Division has been called.

It has been moved by the Minister of Justice that Bill No. 81, entitled Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 1988, be now read a second time.

Mr. Clerk, would you please poll the House?


Hon. Mr. Penikett: D’accord

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Porter: Agreed.

Hon. Mrs. Joe: Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: Agreed.

Mr. Joe: Agreed.

Ms. Kassi: Agreed.

Mr. Webster: Agreed.

Mr. Brewster: Agreed.

Mr. Lang: Agreed.

Mr. Nordling: Agreed.

Mrs. Firth: Agreed.

Mr. Phillips: Agreed.

Mr. McLachlan: Agreed.

Clerk: Mr. Speaker, the results are 14 yea, nil nay.

Motion agreed to

Speaker: Motions respecting Committee Reports?


Motion Respecting Committee Reports No. 1

Clerk: Item No. 1, standing in the name of Mr. Phelps.

Speaker: Is the hon. Member prepared to proceed with Item No. 1?

Mr. Phelps: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts

THAT the Ninth Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, presented to the House on May 2, 1988, be concurred in.

Mr. Phelps: It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak to this, the Ninth Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. I would like to begin by saying that we have enjoyed a lot of cooperation and hard work from all Members on the committee and from all those who have assisted us throughout the course of the year.

Because of obvious concerns among members of the public, and because of the obvious and very significant increase in recent years of the capital side of the government’s budget, we decided to depart from the usual format of the committee, which has normally been to review in depth two departments of government. We departed from that and embarked upon an intensive examination of capital project management.

It is quite true that capital project management has been the source of some concern of previous committees, and we certainly noted that concern in the report.

From time to time, in our follow up of recommendations of previous committees and of this committee, we have attempted to find out what procedures and processes were in place but never really did receive adequate answers.

We began our hearings this year with a general overview of the process and then moved to specific projects. Once again, all committee members are very conscientious in their work and all recognize the ongoing problems of project management. They unanimously had, as their goal, the ultimate improvement of the system. That has been the hallmark of the Public Accounts Committee since its inception. The fact that it has had, as a committee, a very significant impact on this government throughout the 1980s is something that is recognized as being unique by the other provincial governments and by the federal government in Canada as well as by the Auditor General.

The committee would like to thank all of the officials from the departments who appeared before it. There were some rather tense moments during the hearings. Of course, there would be when we were talking about millions of dollars, overruns, under estimations and that kind of thing. The committee felt that the witnesses were, for the most part, very straight forward even when they knew that their testimony may not be music to the ears of their Minister.

We appreciated this directness and felt that it provided the base for a very strong report. We have made 17 recommendations regarding Capital Project management, and we believe that if these recommendations are accepted and followed, that project management will improve dramatically and that ultimately taxpayers’ dollars will be spent with more economy, efficiency and effectiveness.

The report speaks for itself. I am not going to dwell on the details, but there are a couple of points that bear emphasizing. Firstly, the committee has placed particular significance on front-end planning. While recognizing that there is already some money allocated for pre-engineering studies, the committee strongly urges that much more emphasis be placed on this. Throughout the hearings, it became very evident that problems experienced during the life of a project were the direct result of inadequate information and analysis at the very beginning of the job.

Although it may take longer to get a project to the implementation phase if our recommendations are followed, if the preliminary work is carefully done, we believe the end result will be a better facility that should come in without major scope changes, on time and on budget.

Secondly, the committee is convinced that if the roles and responsibilities of the various players, the roles of the various people and various departments involved are clearly defined, the whole system should run more smoothly. Poor communication and lack of accountability have been a major factor contributing to the project problems of the past. If the committee’s recommendations in this area are implemented without delay, the committee feels confident that great strides can quickly be made in the improvement of project management.

I again want to emphasize the fact that the findings and the 17 recommendations were unanimously supported by all Members of the committee, Members from all parties of this House. I trust Members will keep that fact in mind during the debate and not get into a political point-getting, partisan debate.

As usual, this committee has worked hard and consistently throughout the year on follow up to try to ensure that recommendations of the past were being implemented and accepted by the departments. Once again, I think that all members of the committee as well as the clerk, Missy Follwell, are to be commended for their hard work. This meant meetings throughout the year, a lot of correspondence, a lot of time spent trying to ensure that the bureaucratic machine creaked and groaned towards goals that we felt desirable for the government and for the taxpayer.

Again, as has been the practice with previous committees, we ask questions and investigated the Auditor General’s Report on “any other matter” and our finding in that regard are to be found in this report.

We would like to thank Raymond Dubois, Don Young and Vincent Poon from the office of the Auditor General’s Department of Canada. As well, I would mention that for the first time this committee did hire an expert assistant, a person who teaches project management and that sort of thing, on a consulting basis through the hearings, Mr. Walter Wawruck, and we certainly want to thank him for his contribution in giving us insights into rather technical areas. We  perhaps might not have found our way without that kind of assistance.

I feel that this report is perhaps a more exciting report than others that I have had the honour to chair the creation of. I think that the subject matter is certainly sensitive, but it is an area that would make much better bedtime reading than would previous reports dealing with all those issues and areas that only accountants find exciting - and we all know how exciting accountants can be in daily life. Once again, I thank the Members and all those who helped, and commend this report to the House.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I am not sure whether the Member for Hootalinqua is going to be attacked by a plague of accountants on his way out of the building or not, but as Minister of Economic Development, I have the pleasure of hanging around with economists a bit more than I used to. I do know that at the first staff meeting with them, they took offence to me passing on the old saw about an economist being a person who was good with numbers but did not have the personality to be an accountant.

I am pleased to join the debate on the report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, and Members will all be aware of my interest and my past involvement in the activities of this fine committee. Needless to say, the committee provides an invaluable service to the Legislature and to the government. It is a very important non-partisan function providing for debate between the Legislature and the administration, which does not happen either in this House or in the working of the government on a day to day basis. The committee enables the Legislature to examine the government’s accounts and financial procedures fairly informally with the input of officials, rather than doing so in a full-blown Legislative sitting. Even though the issues before the Public Accounts Committee are issues of administration, rather than policy, it does not mean, of course, that Ministers are not ultimately responsible for issues raised by the committee and that have occurred under their stewardship.

I think that what was most interesting about this year’s report is that it did the unusual thing of looking at a function, an activity as opposed to a department, and this function was examined in detail. There is no question in my mind that capital project management is an item worthy of special attention; it has been, and will be, inside this government, and I think that it should be in the Legislature and its committees.

I think that it is important for no other reason than that the growth in capital expenditures by the Government of Yukon since 1981 has been quite substantial. The greatest growth ever has occurred in the last few years, and I think that that has had some consequences that have been good in the public, but that have also tested the limits of our system, internally.

We have spoken in this House a number of times about the reasons for the increase in capital expenditures. I will not repeat them now, except to remind Members of the severely deteriorated condition of our capital infrastructure. In some cases, this deterioration had reached crisis proportions by 1985, the year in which we concluded the formula financing agreement with the federal government, which gave us the means to do something about the state of our capital plant.

Something had to be done about the situation. It was very apparent to all Members of the House. I say this in a non-partisan way, and I say this to the Leader of the Official Opposition, being mindful of his caution on that score a moment ago. As long as I can remember, and as long as I have been a Member of this House, there have been problems, to one degree or another, with project management in this government.

It may be that any organization expending large sums on capital will have similar problems on occasion. When one looks at the numbers on page 3 of the committee’s report showing the increase in capital expenditures over the years to the present level, it is not surprising that we would experience, from time to time, some problems with particular capital projects.

Excluding the extraordinary grant in 1987-88 to the Yukon Development Corporation, capital expenditures before that year show more than a four-fold increase over the fiscal year 1980-81. It is plain that an expansion of this magnitude cannot be accommodated without some dislocation in the system, and dislocations inevitably cause problems. If I could divert my attention a little bit, when Keynes talked about pump priming and stimulating demand and dealing with a cyclical problem of employment with counter-cyclical measures by government, he perhaps did not understand well the limits, both in the private sector and in the public sector, to increasing the capacity in an area like public works or construction, as much as we have done in the last few years. Some day, some graduate student will want to take a look at our experience here, because I think it is an interesting experiment in the limits in growth in public works, even in response to a recessionary situation.

I make the preceding comments only by way of background, because I believe the matter should be put into its proper context. Having said this, I would be the first to admit that this government is aware and concerned about the problems that have been experienced with capital project management. We have been able to solve some problems that were in existence when we took office, but others have not been solved. With the expansion of the government’s capital programs, I think it is true to say that new ones have surfaced.

The committee’s report may paint a picture that is somewhat more pessimistic than I would be. That may be a reflection of my present role in this House as opposed to my former role, and I am quite prepared to admit to some subjectivity when we get into these situations.

We have been addressing some of these shortfalls. As officials from the Department of Government Services testified before the committee, work is currently in progress to put in place systems to rectify some of the shortcomings identified by the committee.

The committee’s report correctly identifies the Procedures Manual and project management as the key issue in the whole matter. The responsible Minister will be able to speak to this far better than I in a few minutes, but I can offer a few comments on the subject.

It is fair to say that the existing manual is far from perfect. It would operate quite effectively if it were followed in every case. The report of the committee confirms this impression. However, it has apparently not always been followed, and this a led to a number of difficulties on some projects. It is likely that most of the problems identified by the committee flow from this particular problem.

I speculate, but the reasons that the manual has not always been followed in all cases is perhaps due to pressures on limited staff time available. The project management organization has not been able to expand its capacity as rapidly as our capital expenditures, and the number of capital projects has expanded. This is arguably an unfortunate occurrence, but not an uncommon one if my limited knowledge of other organizations that have been in a similar position is any guide.

We are now near to attaining an adequate level of organizational capacity to handle our projects, and this fact alone should make a significant difference in the future. I expect the interim and long-term measures that we are now undertaking, combined with the increase in our administrative capacity, will go a long way towards rectifying the problems that we have encountered in the past.

Of more importance in the long run is the view of the entire project management system that is currently underway in the department. This will involve a review of, among other things, the Procedures Manual, and will address all of the concerns and recommendations in the report before us today. The committee’s recommendations are very useful and very interesting. They will invaluable to the individuals involved in this review. My colleague, the Minister of Government Services, will speak to these measures in more detail. Suffice it to say, we expect the product of this review to be a far better and tighter project management system than we presently have or have ever had.

I would like to turn, for a minute, to comments in the report about matters other than project management. I am pleased to see that a large number of past recommendations are now considered to be fully implemented by the committee. There are some recommendations not considered implemented, but progress is being made on these, and I want to assure the House that their completion is a priority of the government. I would like to take several moments to speak more specifically to the status report on outstanding committee recommendations as they relate to the Department of Finance.

One outstanding matter relates to the department ensuring that financial agreements entered into by the government are adhered to. I spent some minutes talking about this during the Main Estimates with the Leader of the Official Opposition, but I would like to add to what I said then.

The Department of Finance has obtained a copy of every agreement that this government has entered into that results in an inflow of funds to the government. These agreements will, on a test basis, be checked to ensure that they are being adhered to, most notably to see if billings are being made under them. This process began on a limited basis in the last fiscal year but will be more fully implemented this year. We especially want to ensure that year end billings are being made under the agreements.

Test basis auditing will have to be the norm until the new person years approved for this year are hired, at which time we hope to go onto a more comprehensive monitoring system.

The revision of the financial administration manual is mentioned in the report. A plan for the revision has been established and discussed with the departmental administrators liaison committee and a manual review working group comprised of members of that committee has been established. The rewrite has already begun and will be complete by the end of this fiscal year. It is worthwhile noting that this rewrite is being done in-house for a very significant saving in consultant fee and, we feel, a better end product.

The ongoing review of all contribution agreements is a matter that is still on hold. We do not perceive there to be a significant problem here since the department already sees all such major agreements. We are, therefore, giving priority to items of a more pressing nature. This matter will be looked at again later in the year when the more important issues we are currently dealing with us are behind us.

I have already spoken in this House on the commitment control system, and we have provided the committee with a written update on its current status. As indicated, the system will be phased in over the first three months of the fiscal year with a target date of June 30 for full implementation. There is currently no reason to think that the target will not be achieved. It is expected the system will help prevent unauthorized over expenditures, a matter that was of some concern to the committee during this year’s sittings.

With that I would like to resume my place and thank the members of the committee, the staff, the Auditor General’s staff for their work and thank the Leader of the Official Opposition, the chairman of the committee, for bringing the motion before the House today.

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: I want to say in introduction that I appreciated the fact that the Leader of the Official Opposition centered on two general issues in his speech, which to reiterate, are firstly front-end planning and secondly, the clarification of roles and responsibilities, or accountability. I would like to say that it was exactly those two issues that I also chose to emphasize in my speech, however, I will not do so in exactly the same way because it has already been done.

I should say for the record that I certainly agreed with those comments that were made about those two central issues and the government also agrees with those central issue comments.

It was appropriate to centre on public works management this year, as has already been mentioned by the Government Leader. The very rapid growth in expenditures and activity in this area makes that appropriate.

During the January hearings, the public officials who testified readily identified to the committee areas of project management requiring improvement. For this I would like to publicly thank those public officials for their openness and for their professionalism in this regard. With this attitude, on behalf of the officials, and, I might add, the elected politicians in this House, we will overcome the difficulties and the transitions that are occurring and will continue to occur, I am sure, to some degree, in the future.

Improved project status and financial status reporting is called for by the report. With the amalgamation of the property management and public works functions into a single branch, which has already been announced and has already occurred, a more comprehensive and integrated approach to these issues is now being taken. I will comment, albeit briefly, on each of the recommendations in the report.

The first two referred to the need for a policy and procedures manual on capital project management. The committee states that this manual should be developed by a cross-departmental task force reporting to Management Board. The Government Services department presently has two such manuals. They are titled “Procedures Manual on Project Management”, which is being used and “Draft Procedures Manual, Design and Construction Section”, which is still under review.

The government certainly agrees that a revised manual, one that will apply government-wide, should be developed. It is, in fact, presently being prepared and will go through the normal review and approval processes before being fully implemented. The procedures manual, or the procedures document, cannot stand alone. There must also be the commitment to develop the organization and the resources that can effectively carry out the procedures contained within the manual. It is our present belief that such implementation will have implications for both Government Services and the other departments in the government, for staff and resources to fully implement the recommendations.

The third recommendation ties in with the fourth. The committee is talking of a two-step budget process for capital projects. This is around the general issue of front-end planning, or pre-planning, or pre-engineering. The Department of Government Services and the government are in complete agreement with these initiatives. It would make our lives much easier. It is imperative that projects are developed early and planned well enough to establish firm requirements and not, incidentally, the development of alternative solutions for consideration in the final decisions to proceed.

I have long felt that it is closer to an ideal situation that we do the pre-planning, or the pre-engineering, or the pre-design work in one year and the construction in the next. A practical way to achieve this is that Management Board approvals might be received first as approval in principle and, again, later as specific approval for projects that are well defined and the engineering work and similar work is already done.

An option that might be considered here, and is a related question, is the securing of multi-year project funding for major projects. I raise that as an aside, as improved project management procedures may well be a result of project approval for multi-year funding for large projects.

If the capital program remains at a high level, which we fully expect it will in the immediate future and beyond, more technical expertise will be required for this additional planning. Good planning is cost-effective. However, it has a price tag as well. To reduce the cost at the back end, more will have to be spent at the front end.

This principle leads right into recommendation five, which is about the life cycle costing of projects, and value for money considerations and costed options. It is appropriate that life cycle costing capability be improved, and we totally agree, as a government, that Management Board decisions should be based on the life cycle costing for projects.

I am sure that all Members will agree with this principle. The ability to set standards, do the research and identify and solve the problems in both the new and the existing facilities will ultimately develop better technology that in turn will lead to improved building quality and improved value for money in the long term.

The present resources within the Property Management Branch are not today sufficient to fully and completely implement this recommendation. The planning and estimating components of this recommendation are extremely significant and will require consideration of Management Board, not only the Department of Government Services.

The sixth recommendation calls for verifying the reliability of capital project estimates by consulting with the private sector and/or other governments. Unfortunately, there is not a good discussion in the committee report as to how this could be achieved practically. There is no identification of the issues of differing public and private sector standards. Perhaps that is one of the major issues in this area that is identifying, coordinating or bringing together the public and the private sector building standards.

We recognize the obvious intent and comment that the recommendation will receive further analysis, so that some of the questions that I have briefly identified can be answered.

The seventh recommendation calls for changing the current system used to engage architects and the consultants around the issue of an allegation of inducements to over design. The Yukon is not so large as we can change industry and professional standards in the country or in the western world, although there is some reason for this kind of a recommendation.

I should comment that the present system of establishing clear terms of reference for consultants, and hiring consultants on a quoted fixed fee basis, based on the scope of the work and the budget, largely eliminates over design due to this factor. However, after saying that, we will continue to further investigate this particular recommendation.

Historically, most of the changes to the established budgets for capital projects originate with the client department and come, generally, as a result of increasing size of the project, or changing in some way the original design.

The eighth recommendation is around the roles and responsibilities and accountability of the key players, and we have already addressed that in the general comments. The government agrees, and I would suggest that this recommendation is largely common sense and should be uncontroversial.

The ninth recommendation is that a project manager be appointed for each capital project. This is already the case. According to the committee, the project manager would act as an agent for and report directly to the client department. If it is intended to place the project manager under the direct control of the client department, that very well may encourage duplication within the government.

I should say that it is my personal opinion that if this were to be the case I would predict greater expenditures for projects, as opposed to lesser expenditures, as historically and practically the pressures for greater expenditures come from the line department rather than the central agency.

Project managers cannot function in isolation. They are part of the engineering team from the beginning. They are part of the conceptual design process, and they take the lead in the preparation and evaluation of design concepts, of final designs and the tender documents. Using the project status reports, the project manager keeps both the senior review committee and the building department informed of the project’s status. A monthly financial statement is prepared and is reviewed by the project manager, the project team and the senior review committee.

The tenth recommendation is that a project team be appointed for each project and remain for the life of the project. Composition of teams depends on the nature of the project. For example, an energy management specialist expertise is needed only at certain stages of a project. The specialist rotates in and out of several ongoing projects as required. This is the most cost efficient and effective use of limited resources. The general intent of that recommendation is obvious and is sound. I would be remiss if I did not mention that slight improvement.

Eleven recommends that the project team should deal with all major issues related to the project and document its decisions. This, the government believes, is perfectly sound and should be uncontroversial. I will mention that when pressed for time it is easier to pick up a phone than write a memo. In the past, written documentation has not been complete as perhaps it might be and action has been taken to now ensure that minutes of project team meetings are taken, that discussions are logged and properly documented and recorded in the project file. Major issues not resolved by the project team go to the senior review committee. That recommendation then is well taken and is in the process of implementation.

The twelfth recommendation is that the project manager should report to the client department and the project team on the progress of the project in relation to “milestone dates” established in the project brief. We totally agree. A monthly project status reporting system to client departments has now been instituted. This report includes the financial status of the project, details of any problems that may be foreseen and, of course, it clearly states the present status.

The thirteenth recommendations is that project briefs be prepared for all capital projects prior to the implementation phase. This is a good recommendation. The committee is correct in its observation that a project brief, as detailed in the committee’s report, is not being prepared for a majority of projects today. Project briefs are prepared for the consultant selected to undertake the conceptual and detailed design.

The project briefs are not as comprehensive as the committee would like to see. It is realized that more detailed project briefs are desirable, in order to provide more effective and more accountable decision making. I would also add that, in addition to the points that were raised by the committee, I would also add considerations such as energy conservation, the use of alternative energy sources, and the use of the local materials and labour. These issues should be clearly identified and incorporated into the project brief, and we will do that as well.

The fourteenth recommendation calls for comprehensive, timely financial reports, on an ongoing basis, for review by the building, the line or the client department, and for Management Board. This issue was resolved long before it was raised, in fact, and monthly financial reports on capital reports were being submitted to client departments before the committee’s hearings, and that practice is continuing now.

The next recommendation, which is the fifteenth, is that a senior review board be established for each capital project. The review board would resolve any interdepartmental disputes about project decisions that cannot be resolved by the project team. Senior review committees have been established for the Departments of Education, Community and Transportation Services, Health and Human Resources, and Government Services. Government Services’ representatives on these committees include the deputy and assistant deputy ministers, the director of public works, the manager of design and construction, and the project manager. The client department is represented by its deputy minister and the appropriate staff. Meetings are held on a monthly basis, and senior review committees for other departments will be established, as required.

Recommendation 16 calls for a review of the work order system. This is to ensure that a clear mandate that reflects the intent of the legislative appropriation is given to the performing department by the client department. It should be noted that prior to this recommendation in fact the work order system was under review and a new, simplified form was put into place on May 1. It very well may be that further refinements will occur as part of the revision of the manual that I spoke about earlier.

The last recommendation is that all significant project cost increases, or scope changes, should be reported to Management Board.

I would indicate that Management Board Directive No. 6/84 already lays down approval levels for cost increases to contracts for projects under construction. This final recommendation appears to be addressed to departments other than the central agency, and it appears to be addressed to the practice of robbing Peter to pay Paul or reallocating funds among projects approved for the current year.

The committee’s hearings and the resulting recommendations contained in the report cover four main areas. They are the need for improved and documented communications between Government Services and the other departments of the government, refined decision-making capabilities in the project management area, specifically the front-end planning or pre-planning, and a review of the government’s budgeting process for capital projects. I emphasize the need for more front-end planning or an increased capability in the pre-engineering phase.

The Department of Government Services acknowledges the work of the committee. We will seriously consider every single point, as I have indicated. Many of the issues are on their way to being resolved or improved. Some have already been solved.

We continue, as do all large organizations, to improve the accountability and the efficiency of this capability of building and maintaining public works. I thank the officials in Government Services specifically, who, in a most professional and forthright way, gave evidence before the committee. I am especially appreciative of the attitude of the public servants of being open to improving the system, which I am sure will occur as a result of the committee’s work.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I will be considerably more brief. The body of the report deals primarily with capital project management as opposed to reviewing specific departments. As the Minister of Education and Community and Transportation Services, both client departments, in capital project development lingo, I was particularly pleased to see the committee address this area. This is largely because the government had significantly increased its commitment to infrastructure development.

I generally concur with the official recommendations of the committee and welcome them. I will endeavour to ensure that Education and Community and Transportation Services implement them. However, before commenting further, I would like to respond to one issue that I think is unfairly represented in the report, that being the implications of unreasonable increases in the construction costs of Yukon College.

For the record, the Yukon College construction project was first introduced in 1985-86 Capital Estimates tabled by the government in November 1984 at a total estimated cost of approximately $40 million. In a press release from March 1985, the Minister of Education is quoted as announcing the approval of a design concept for a cost of $24,599,000. This is a misleading number, in that it does not include the other costs associated with this major capital project, such as site work, architect fees, project management fees and Government Services administrative costs and, therefore, does not reflect what were even then known to be the estimated total costs of $40 million for the college construction project.

A cost estimate of $49,477,000 applies to the larger complex we are temporarily call Yukon Place, which includes the Yukon art galleries and Yukon art centre, and a larger student residence. The cost estimate now accounts for actual inflation costs not previously considered and an extended construction time table. This information is essential in acquiring an understanding of the actual costs of college construction.

I agree that there is much value in government departments working together to establish a clearly written and clearly defined policy and accompanying procedures manual on capital project management to guide project planning and implementation. In fact, the Department of Community and Transportation Services has, for its own purposes, published a project management manual in the last year. It is desirable to provide adequate time to develop a detailed plan and estimate of major projects that can generally occur through budgeting for project design in year one and construction in subsequent years - the practice that has been followed for a number of projects to this point.

Life cycle costing, value for money considerations and costed options should be presented to Management Board when requesting a decision on a capital project. At the same time, we should remember the government is committed to working with communities to address their priorities, and that this may mean that the lowest cost project may not always be selected in the end as the most suitable project, although cost effectiveness will always be a very important consideration.

With respect to establishing the reliability of project cost estimates, I and the departments agree that it is appropriate to verify estimates by consulting with and comparing with other governments and the private sector. In so doing, we must keep in mind, as the Government Services Minister pointed out, those differences in circumstances that influence costs. Through careful and knowledgeable in-house preparation and tracking of various costs included in the overall estimate, we can continually improve our ability to accurately cost out various project components, and to better monitor and manage the projects underway.

It is important to define document and adhere to roles, responsibilities and relationships of key players and projects, and consideration should be given to assigning a project manager reporting to the client department, in certain cases. A project team responsible for a project, from beginning to end, is a good approach, though its use and effectiveness can be compromised by staff turn-over.

Improvements are needed in the provision of financial status reports to client departments, and I know the departments have been working with the Department of Government Services to make such improvements.

The Yukon Housing Corporation has reviewed the recommendations on any other matter and steps have been taken to implement them. An outstanding issue is the establishment of market rents for staff housing. The board is initiating a review process in consultation with user departments to develop a comprehensive policy regarding staff housing. This must incorporate staffing recruitment as well as housing issues and rental rates cannot be changed until the review is complete.

My remarks are brief. I know that Members will expect me to comment briefly on the celebrated dispute that briefly punctuated the hearings between the chairperson of the committee and me. I would like to say on the record that I do support the committee process. I have always counted myself as one of the defenders of the faith in supporting the Public Accounts Committee. I do believe that the non-partisan nature of the committee is essential to good public administration and wish that the conduct of its business maintains the traditional non-partisan character. Clearly I would like to thank all the members of the committee, and also especially the staff of the committee, including Missy “Trojan” Follwell, for the efforts that they have put into putting forward this report. I look forward to reports of future public accounts committees and will support their endeavours to seek from the public administration the information they require to ensure the processes of operating the government at the administrative level are done efficiently, effectively and in accordance with political directions.

Hon. Mrs. Joe: As always, I look forward to reading the reports from the Public Accounts Committee. It is a constructive forum for members of all parties to explore matters of interest to them about the effectiveness of government. I continue to believe that there is still room for: one, improvements in the level, quality and cultural appropriateness of health and social services in rural Yukon; two, more community involvement in the planning and delivery of health and social services; three,  greater management effectiveness overall including aspects of local hiring and training and development activities within the department of Health and Human Resources.

I also continue to believe that we are making considerable progress. My department provided information to the committee on activities during the year prior to the committee hearings this winter. Each year we will demonstrate further accomplishments in these areas.

Community social services delivered in rural Yukon are part of the Community and Family Services Branch. However, effective May 16, 1988 an acting director of regional services has been appointed, given regional services branch status and a direct presence in the department’s senior management group.

Together with this change, the position of supervisor for the southern region will be relocated to Watson Lake. I have already advised the House of our plans to relocate a social worker position to Carmacks this summer. These changes will strengthen our community social services. We have been working actively with the federal Department of National Health and Welfare to promote better coordination of services at the community level.

I look forward to continuing improvements in this area. The 1988-89 Operation and Maintenance Budget includes additional funding to support training of our staff, including specific provisions for rural personnel.

I am hopeful we will be able to build on the positive relationships with Yukoners gained through the young offender consultations, the current child care consultations, the Champagne Aishihik Child Welfare Pilot Project, interagency committees in Watson Lake and other communities, the Ministerial Advisory Committee on Substance Abuse and our day to day business of working with Yukoners to achieve continuing and meaningful participation in the planning and delivery of health and social services.

I would like to thank the Members of the Public Accounts Committee for their work on behalf of all of the Members of this House and the people of the Yukon. Thank you.

Mr. McLachlan: This year’s Public Accounts Committee process was indeed a learning experience and a tremendous experience of tremendous proportions for me. Nobody in this Legislature or in the public of the Yukon stands to benefit politically or financially from capital projects that are delayed or that run seriously over budget. Everyone here has a sense of the cost of real estate, whether we are building it, operating it, or buying it. Inefficiency, neglect, and mismanagement in any one of these three areas can only lead to a wasteful expenditure of government funds.

I want to turn to two critical areas that I will refer to in the report continually and that I think are critical to the whole process: the manual and the man - if in fact that is the process in the latter, with all due respect to the Women’s Directorate. The key element in making the whole process work lies in the procedures manual and the project management. To develop the procedures manual in theory is one thing but to implement it, practically, is quite another thing, and often a horse of a very different colour. Without the procedures outlined in the manual in place, understood and followed to the letter by both officials and Government Services and the client departments, the whole exercise sometimes becomes so much window dressing.

One of the funniest things that often came out of the perceived errors in the process was the original starting point for the capital project, to which they refer to, of course, as the front-end planning. Once one had determined the need for a project that could be financing within the capabilities of the capital budget, it should automatically kick in a process that establishes some degree of reliability for the public that the project would be completed on time, on budget, and within the original scope of the perceived design and need for which it was created in the first place. There were instances when this simply did not seem to be happening. The fact that this has to happen is simply based on the time-honoured and age-old adage that any job worth doing is worth doing well.

Reference has been made in many instances to the critical role of the project manager in the overall project, and I agree 100 percent, but it is clear that the project manager’s role, and his interplay, in the whole process must be clearly stated in the manual. To do otherwise would simply allow the process to break down again. The Minister of Government Services has referred to hurried telephone conversations without notes. I want to simply say to the Minister that there is another age old saying that if you did not write it down, you did not say it. Telephone conversations are too often forgotten and often the agreements over the telephone fall through the cracks two or three days later. There has to be a procedure whereby the agreements are noted, understood and passed on to others.

The Leader of the Official Opposition has indicated that thanks are due to the witnesses who appeared before the committee. Under intense cross examination by all Members of this committee, they sometimes had to ‘fess up to what they often knew were uncomfortable situations. It was not from any ill-perceived direction of questioning; it was for the betterment of the Yukon government and capital expenditures, in general.

I am looking forward to this summer’s meetings of the Canadian Public Accounts Committees in Halifax, so that we can assess the weight and the recommendations and the impact our work over the past winter has had with other committee members, and to discuss what I hope will be similar improvements that they can pass on to us for capital expenditure projects in future.

Mrs. Firth: I have been listening this afternoon and making some notes. I am very interested in the comments that have been made. I was almost beginning to wonder if there were any problems. It sounds like everything is under control, everything is being addressed, the project management system is alive and well and the government is agreeing with all the recommendations and saying what a tremendous job the committee has done. It almost makes it sound as if there is no problem here.

Well, I do not think that we should lose sight of the fact that what the committee, in spending all its energy, time and long hours debating issues and raising points, was trying to assess was the government’s ability to manage the money that they have. The report that is before us today for debate confirms what members of the public have brought to the attention of committee Members. The concern of many Yukoners is that all is not well when it comes to managing many of the capital projects in the government. That reflects on the government’s ability to manage the public purse. It also reflects on the performance of the government in managing the public purse.

When the report talks about the fact that there is management by omission and management by dilemma, I cannot honestly say that everything is well with the system and that the projects are being managed in an efficient and effective way. They are not being managed in a way that is of benefit to the taxpayer and in a way that is not causing increased costs for the taxpayer. This was always foremost in the minds of the committee Members. We were there to serve in the capacity and to serve the functions, protecting the taxpayers and their public purse. We were there to see how the government was spending the money and what the taxpayer was getting for that expenditure.

We talk about government spending and careful spending. The former chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee, who is now the Government Leader, talks about the cornerstone of good government being careful spending. We have to take a look at the spending record of the government. Because of concerns that had been brought to the attention of all of the committee Members, we decided to examine the management of capital projects and the capital budgets of the government over the last three years with the increase in allocations of capital budgets.

A couple of Members have mentioned how capital expenditures have increased over the last seven years. Some have referred to it quadrupling. The report points out very specifically that the capital budget has increased from $42.9 million in 1985 to $52.7 million in 1986, $91 million in 1987 and up to $143.1 million in 1988. For people to recognize the impact and the significance of the amount of dollars we are talking about, the numbers of dollars have to be stated. That is why I have done that.

When we began the Public Accounts Committee process this time and were having the hearings and receiving the testimony from the various departments, the officials were always very cooperative and straight forward in the comments they made to the committee, and they were very open and honest. The report reflects that. When one of the officials was asked whether or not he felt there was a system in place, and he responded that no, he did not.

We were suspicious of that, as committee Members, and the confirmation was presented at the committee hearings. I say again, we are speaking in the House this afternoon like there were no problems. When we started asking questions as committee Members, we found there were many problems. Aside from the technical difficulties of the whole project management system, which the committee determined was not alive and well - and I am talking about all the technical recommendations regarding the process of having a more efficient and effective system of spending money - those technical issues have to be addressed.

Also, what has to be addressed is the direction that is being given not only at the central agency level, when you come to communications between the central agency and client departments but, also, the direction that is being given at the political level. The government Members are ultimately responsible for the management of the funding and the spending.

The Government Leader made a reference to the Public Accounts process and, because of the non-partisanship atmosphere of the committee, that we dealt simply with issues of administration. That is not entirely true, because the administration has to be given some direction. The Government Leader was well aware, after having been the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and the Leader of the Official Opposition, that there were some difficulties with the whole project management system, and that there had been some incidents in the past where the projects had not turned out as they should have.

With the tremendous increase in funding, it would be interesting to know what priorities were set immediately to see that the money was going to be spent in an efficient and effective way.

That would be very interesting information because the administration arm of government will only be as flexible as the political arm of government encourages or allows it to be. I have said before that all of us as members count on the Public Accounts Committee to protect all of us when it comes to justifying the expenditure of public funds to the public, the voters, as well as the taxpayers. The committee often identifies issues that enable a Minister or a private Member to go back to the department and say that this is an issue that has to be addressed, and addressed right away.

A perfect example of that is the problem that the committee discovered with the work orders being out of order because there were interpretive problems regarding the Financial Administration Act, or whether the work orders were even sound. I feel very strongly that at the ministerial level it is the Minister who has to say we are not prepared to have the system working with these work orders not up to par. The Minister has to give some direction to his officials to say that it is a priority, that we cannot continue spending taxpayers money with a deficient work order. This should be addressed immediately. That is the kind of direction I am talking about at the political level. I am not trying to politicize in any way the committee’s functions or recommendations.

It is interesting to know whether that kind of direction is being given. I was looking more for comments from the Ministers whose budgets were under scrutiny as to whether they thought that the committee had made recommendations that were of a priority and would be addressed. In some instances we have received that kind of reassurance.

This addresses the issue of long time outstanding recommendations and whether or not there was direction given that those issues be addressed as a priority and be addressed as soon as possible.

Some of the problems identified regarding the capital project management was the concern that the projects were out of control, that there did not seem to be any control mechanism, particularly when it came to user groups having input later on in the construction of the project, at the time when all the decisions about allocation of space, scope changes and modifications should have all been addressed. Every time there is a change it costs the taxpayer more money because it involves restructuring and redesign.

We were very concerned about an issue that the Minister of Government Services touched on this afternoon, which I referred to as a juggling of the books, and I believe one of the officials referred to it as a juggling of the books. The Minister of Government Services called it “robbing Peter to pay Paul”. I think that is something again where some direction has to be given as to how much flexibility the administrative wing of government is going to have when it comes to juggling the books and robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Sometimes it is impossible to follow. Even when we had the work orders, it was impossible to determine where the officials had taken money to pay overruns on one project. They had an excess of money in other projects - projects that were delayed, that were not going ahead, and it just became a maze of trying to track money  and follow it around. I do not think that the public would perceive that as tight fiscal management.

The decision-making process is in a crisis situation. We found quite often that when there was a decision to be made, it was not made in a controlled situation. It would quite often be at a time when there would be conflicts between the departments, usually the central agency and the client department. Quite often the client department would be burdened with choosing among unpalatable options, which would be either that the project go ahead, or that it not go ahead. Ultimately, those decisions reflect upon the Minister, and the Ministers or Government Members are put in a position where they have to publicly take the criticism for projects either being delayed or not going ahead.

I emphasize again that the function of the Public Accounts Committee is a protection mechanism for the Minister, so that projects are running smoothly, and so that the public impression of the way that the government is managing their money is one that is positive. I do not think that we have been able to give that impression; definitely not from the results of the Public Accounts Committee report, this time.

The intentions of the committee were to come forward with reasonable recommendations that could be implemented, that were not impossible to implement, that were not going to be extremely costly to implement. The Minister for Government Services has already indicated that some were going to be implemented and that some were already the policy and were taking place. We will have to see if that is going to be the case.

I just want to finish up by saying that we will be following the commitments that have been made by the Ministers on the side opposite regarding their identification of problems and their commitment to resolve the problems. We will have to wait until the Public Accounts Committee sits the next time, in order to see if those recommendations have been addressed and implemented, and if the system is indeed operating and is alive and well then.

Mr. Webster: I too have to agree with the Member for Riverdale South that there are indeed problems as were identified by the Public Accounts Committee. These are incorporated into our report in the form of 17 recommendations for various government departments to follow. This should not be surprising because this is the nature of the Public Accounts Committee, to interrogate people to find out how their departments are operated and to raise some oversights, to bring to their attention that some things could be done more efficiently or in a more effective manner in the spending of public funds.

These problems are not new. They are ongoing, and they arise every year as new departments are being scrutinized, as programs are being looked at, and this year, several capital projects are being looked at very closely. The Public Accounts Committee has tended to dwell on the problems of the administration of government and not so much on the successes. We do not see a lot of praise in these reports. We see a running total of a number of problems. Recommendations are made on how to correct them, and these recommendations are followed up on. The follow up is where some good news is reported in saying that a recommendations has been fully implemented.

When this Legislature began and the new Public Accounts Committee was established, there were many outstanding recommendations from the previous Public Account Committee reports that had not been acted upon. I would like to go back to a couple of speeches that were made by members of the Public Accounts Committee on April 17, 1986 when we debated the first Public Accounts Committee report.

Beginning with the chairman, in his introduction, he said that, “We, as a committee, are concerned about the number of recommendations outstanding from Public Account Committee reports from previous years. Prior to the 1986 hearings, there were 25 outstanding recommendations. After hearing testimony, two were deemed to be fully implemented, one was revised to reflect partial implementation and one was withdrawn. The committee therefore intends to and has started to take a more active role, through an ongoing review process to ensure that its recommendations are either implemented or that there are sound reasons for a lack of implementation, in which case the committee will withdraw or revise its recommendations.”

That was a very important point for the chairman to make and a wise course of action for the committee, as a whole, to follow. Over the next couple of years, the recommendations were taken seriously in many areas. They were followed up, and as a result, some progress was made. For example, in that first debate on April 17, 1986, the chairman raised the concern about the general lack of progress made by many departments in developing and utilizing performance management indicators as a basic tool in managing the day-to-day operations of the various departments. Most of these departments now have come a long way to introduce and to use these performance indicators to get maximum efficiency from its workers and the maximum use from the dollars spent by those departments.

The Member for Faro, the vice-chairperson of the committee, was concerned about the Department of Economic Development: Mines and Small Business. He wanted to see it reorganized and restructured in such a way as to make better use of its personnel and all the funding that it had for its various programs.

I think we would all agree that much has been done in this case to ensure that has occurred. I raised concern over the Department of Tourism, the Heritage Branch. I said the committee was somewhat surprised that the operational plan of the Heritage Branch is determined by our budgets, to a large extent. Additional evidence indicated the branch did not appear to have any fundamental planning tools in place to assist in establishing priorities. The committee concluded that, generally speaking, the branch lacks a clear focus on where it is going and how it plans to get there. Given the ever-increasing level of funding, the committee is concerned the branch does not have a more comprehensive plan for the future of Yukon’s heritage and, consequently, made the following recommendation: “The Heritage Branch should develop an operational plan with clearly defined priorities.’

Within the last year, the Heritage Branch has done this, and that recommendation has been fully implemented. Having said that, I went on further in my speech on that particular day to talk about the Department of Government Services, which was also called before us as witnesses in our Public Accounts hearings held in January 1986. We were acting on an outstanding recommendation going back as far as 1983 to continue with the formalization of procedures, stating that the department should formalize the duties and responsibilities of client departments and the Public Works Branch, as well as all management procedures to be followed during the project and have them incorporated in the policy manual. It is the same policy manual we are looking at this year in the Public Accounts Committee, looking at its imperfections, looking at the fact that in many cases it has not been followed, in many cases.

I went on to say that, based on written communication and on testimony before the committee, this recommendation is considered to be fully implemented. However, because of the far-reaching nature of the procedures manual on project management, and the impact it has on extensive resources being used efficiently, the committee will, in future, check to ensure that the manual is being used properly and all the steps in planning, construction and operation of a building project are followed as they should be.

That was said in 1986. The purpose of this round of public hearings was to investigate the management of capital works and large projects because, as has already been mentioned by previous Members, of the large number of capital dollars we are now spending. In the course of doing so, the whole question of the manual being used properly, the effectiveness of the manual itself, its completeness, was raised.

It was raised to the extent that we made 17 recommendations, many of them applying to improving the procedure for government to follow in looking over the management of capital works projects. I am very pleased today to hear from the Minister of Government Services and some other ministers on the front bench that they do plan to incorporate and act on some of the recommendations that have been suggested. There has been general agreement here that the whole notion of front-end planning is an excellent idea, and the funding of a project should be made in two steps.

There are obviously two good, sound recommendations that I feel, if properly followed, will go a long way to ensuring we get maximum efficiency from our staff and maximum use of the public dollars in the construction of capital projects.

I would like to look at my own riding of Klondike. There have been a variety of projects that have been undertaken since my coming to the Legislature in 1985. Some very diverse in nature, like the construction of the dike, and the restoration of the Old Territorial Administration Building. These have gone off well. I think they have gone off well because they were well planned in the initial stages. They were well designed, had good engineering, good budgetary planning and as a consequence, as I say, they have gone off very well.

There were others that did not enjoy the same fate such as the Dawson train roof, which was a subject of the Public Accounts Committee. That was an excellent example of the work in the very first stage, that is assessing the needs and completing the design, that was done very poorly. As a consequence, the project took longer than expected and, of course, cost a great deal more money.

Because of the excellent pre-planning that has gone into the new school project over an eight month process, involving 12 various user groups from the community, I would like to stick my neck out right here and predict that that project will go very well. Certainly the needs and the design have been well accepted by the community.

I know this is in writing. That is why I suggested that I was sticking my neck out.

I am also encouraged to see that in the speech given by the Minister of Government Services a number of things have already been done. He mentioned recommendation 15, the senior review board, recommendation 16, work revision order system has been revised, recommendation 17, scope changes be directed to a management board for final approval. I commend the Minister for bringing them forward and saying he is acting on it, but again, what I want to stress is that one of the rules of the Public Accounts Committee is to ensure that these things are being followed. It is nice to have, as we had in 1983, a recommendation fully implemented, that being the management procedure, but if it is inadequate or incomplete, such as the new revision work orders, or if they are not followed, I think you will find just as many errors made in the future.

I want to put the Ministers on notice here that committee members will continue to take their role of being watchdogs and making sure these recommendations are being followed seriously.

To conclude, I want to thank all the officials and witnesses who gave testimony in the public hearings, for their cooperation, their forthright and frank answers, to the auditors from the Auditor General’s office for their invaluable assistance to the committee, and to the clerk of the committee, Missy Follwell, for her outstanding patience and dedication.

Speaker: The hon. Member will close debate if he now speaks. Does any other Member wish to be heard?

Mr. Phelps: I will be quite brief. I thank each of the Members who spoke for their comments, and in following up on the Member for Klondike’s comments about follow-up, I think that the follow-up work that the committee does is probably more arduous and more time consuming that the two weeks of hearings that we prepare for and go through in January or early February, because each time that we meet we have to bring our thoughts back and recall what the issues were several months before.

One of the 17 recommendations that was fairly dear to my heart is number six, the idea of consulting with the private sector and other governments. It is something that just does not seem to have been done very much. Given that there are certain standards that may be higher in some government structures and buildings, nevertheless it really makes sense for project managers and engineers and so on, to have a handle on what the general costs are for similar kinds of buildings. Part of that is knowing why it might be more expensive for a government project. I think, for example, of when we started looking at capital project management, someone had come up to me on the street and said, you know, it cost a little under $400,000 for the arena at Mayo, and it was done by so-and-so, and I pricked up my ears at that. The estimate for Ross River was revised several times. It started out at around $500,000.

I happened to be watching television one night - Fifth Estate, or something - and there was a big program on problems in northern Saskatchewan. A number of arenas had been built in Canada’s centennial year, and they were collapsing for various reasons. They were the life blood of these small towns. The interesting thing was that, in discussing the rebuilding of the arena with the officials from one of the small towns, the figure of $400,000 came up again. I think there are ballpark figures that really would stand out if you were comparing costs. I recall looking at the cost of the swimming pool in Carcross, which was done back in 1984-85, and being amazed that nobody really had a handle on why it was costing so much, or why it had to be designed to such a high level, in terms of the mechanical room, and all of that kind of thing. That is one recommendation that I really feel quite strongly about. I would feel much more comfortable if more officials in the government were able to respond very quickly and understand the costs of buildings in the private sector, compared to the government sector, and have that kind of familiarity and confidence in estimates that you see so often with counterparts in large corporations that do this sort of thing all the time.

With regard to the recommendation 9, I have a sense of some hesitancy in the comments from the Minister of Government Services about the validity of that recommendation. It is something that we, as a committee, discussed in very great length. One of the issues that is always there is the one of who turf it is between departments within the government and to have a project manager acting as the agent for the client department relinquishes some of the power and authority of the central department. As Members, we have to struggle to overcome that reluctance from time to time. That is natural in large organizations.

I am very pleased with the comments from all of those who spoke. I am also very happy that the recommendations in the report have been so widely accepted. We will look forward to following up and ensuring that the recommendations are implemented, that the procedures are adhered to, and I look forward to doing this again in a year’s time.

Motion agreed to

Motion to extend sitting hours

Hon. Mr. Porter: I move that the Assembly be empowered to sit from 7:30 p.m. until such time as it is agreed to adjourn for the purposes of considering the following bills: Bill No. 37, Bill No. 66 Bill No. 95, Bill No. 55, Bill No. 22, Bill No. 4, Bill No. 31, Bill No. 7, Bill No. 81 and Bill No. 50.

Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Government House Leader that the Assembly be empowered to sit from  7:30 p.m. until such time as it is agreed to adjourn for the purposes of considering the following bills: Bill No. 37, Bill No. 66, Bill No. 95, Bill No. 55, Bill No. 22, Bill No. 4, Bill No. 31, Bill No. 7, Bill No. 81 and Bill No. 50.

Motion agreed to

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

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

Motion agreed to

Speaker leaves the Chair


Chairman: The Committee of the Whole will now come to order. We will recess for 10 minutes.


Chairman: Committee of the Whole will come to order.

Mr. Lang: Prior to beginning general debate could I just have some notice from the Minister of Government Services when the infamous report on the Yukon Human Rights Commission will be available?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: At the very instant I get it; I hope tonight.

Mr. Lang: My understanding was that report was going to be made available today for us. Now the Minister says he hopes he will get it tonight. I find it unacceptable. We were prepared to deal with the budget and carry it through. Is there some possibility we may not receive it tonight? Is that what the Minister is telling us?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: Recognizing the spirit of doing the business expeditiously I would answer this way: If we do not have it at 7:30 p.m. I will be able to address that question.

Mr. Lang: We will be looking forward to addressing that question, believe me.

Bill No. 37 - Motor Transport Act

Chairman: We will begin general debate.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I gave a fairly succinct review of the process leading up to the Motor Transport Act, the reasons for the Motor Transport Act and an explanation of what was in the Motor Transport Act during second readings debate. To recapitulate a little bit, the process started with a memorandum of understanding that was signed in 1985 by all ministers of transportation across the country calling for the reregulation of the transportation industry in this country. The purpose of the memorandum was to deregulate - or reregulate - the transportation industry in this country, debureaucratize the application process for requiring certificates of authority to operate in the various jurisdictions and to provide for uniform regulations across the country. The federal government passed the National Transportation Act, which called for the regulatory regime with a reverse onus principal for all extra territorial trucking activity and the provinces and territories have been accommodating their legislation, practices and procedures to the new act.

At the same time, the jurisdictions have all attempted to ensure, in the interests of a uniform regulatory environment, that the regulations are more or less uniform, so that wherever you travel in the country, you are dealing with more or less the same regimes.

The act, itself, is very simple to understand. It is very clearly laid out, in clear language. The consultation process, both nationally and territorially, was very extensive, and was even incorporated in the final stages clause by clause review of the Transportation Association and the Federation of Labour. I believe we have an act here that is not only easy to understand, but is accepted by the major players in our community who will be affected by the act.

Having said that, given that I have already explained what is in the act, and the act speaks for itself, we will discuss the matter with the Members.

Mr. Lang: With respect to the authority of the board, and the ability to levy fines or costs to the applicant, I do not see to what extent. I just see the authority being provided in the act for doing that. Could the Minister explain a little further with respect to what is intended through that section?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: The levying of fines is determined by regulation. In the past, the board has had the latitude to levy fines it deems appropriate. Now, the level of fines will be determined by regulation. I know the section the Member is referring to, and the point of the regulation-making power in this particular case is to ensure the fines that can be imposed by the board are going to be consistently applied and will not be onerous.

Mr. Lang: What is the situation with respect to the deregulation of pilot cars?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Pilot cars are not considered to be carrying goods for hire. They are considered to be warning of the existence of other vehicles that carry goods, so they are not considered to be regulated under this act. That matter was discussed with the Transportation Association. My understanding is that they have accepted our interpretation that pilot cars are not covered. Apparently, there was a court case where the ability to regulate pilot cars was challenged, and I believe successfully.

We are not attempting to regulate pilot cars under this act, because they are not considered to be carrying goods for hire.

Mr. Lang: Just going on memory, though, was it not regulated before under this act? I can see, in this particular case, where so few are involved, that if those who are in that kind of business do not come under some sort of legislation, we could wind up with pilot cars being provided from Dawson Creek, or Vancouver, or whatever the case may be, as opposed to having our own people working here and providing that service. I just want to express that concern and ask the Minister how the bill deals with it, because I do not see how the bill deals with it.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: It does not deal with it. The reason that they are not regulated under the new act is because they are not considered to be carrying goods. The legal people in the department believe that there is every reason to suspect that if there was a legal challenge in the NWT, there could be a legal challenge in the Yukon, for exactly the same reasons. Because they are not, in fact, carrying goods, they would not be covered under the act. The act is for vehicles carrying goods for hire, and because they are only simply warning the existence of goods of oversized vehicles, they are not considered to be covered under this act. Basically, it is free range. Tow trucks are not covered under the act.

I can give a list of the kinds of vehicles that would not be covered. I can provide a list; I know that I have one somewhere here. For example, exempted operators would include tow trucks, sewer eductors, garbage trucks, mail trucks and government contracts. They would be exempted under the act, but the pilot car would not even be considered under the act, because it is not considered to be carrying goods, and that is basically the only reason.

Mr. Lang: Did the Yukon Transportation Association support that principle?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: My understanding is that it was discussed at the Transportation Association general meeting. Two pilot car company representatives were at the meeting, and they, at that time, did not disagree with the decision at the meeting. I do not know whether I would call that a strong endorsement of this, but I think that there is recognition of where the rest of the country is moving, and that for the purposes of this act, they would not be covered.

Mr. Lang: Does the date September 11, 1988 mean that Alberta, BC and Saskatchewan’s legislation will be in place around the same date?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I will get that information. I believe that they have legislation in place right now, but I am not certain. We chose that date because we wanted to ensure that all carriers knew the new regime. It was a familiarization period, and we did not want to rush people into the situation given that many of the truckers and other people in the industry are working and it is difficult to get their undivided attention. We wanted to make sure that they knew exactly what was coming down the tubes and when.

Mr. Lang: I just wanted the assurance of the Minister that Alberta, BC and Saskatchewan will be under this legislation prior to us going under it. Otherwise, we would be in the situation where we would not be protected, and our truckers would be very severely hurt. I am sure that the Minister understands that.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I sympathize with the Member’s concern. It is a bit of an anomaly in the Yukon, where the board has by board policy operated under reverse onus for the last three years or so. They have determined that there are no serious effects as a result of the reverse onus test. I had the concern initially that what would happen when other provinces adopted the same regime and truckers, in the early stages of the regime, would enter into the market. That would have an impact on the Yukon.

The CCMTA did a national study that suggested that there would be very little dislocation. It did provide a slightly ominous note by saying that they were  not sure what would happen in some of the very low-volume areas. Rural Yukon probably counts as a low-volume area. However, the Transportation Association and the board feels that, under the circumstances, there is not much that we can do about it in the sense that the other jurisdictions are going to be adopting reverse onus. We have already adopted it, and it is next to impossible to introduce a new regulatory environment that is separate from what has been agreed to under the memorandum of understanding. For all our fears, the most we could hope for is that when the shakedown comes, if there is a shakedown, we will be covered.

Chairman: Is there any further general debate? Are there any questions on the definitions?

On Clause 1

On Clause 2

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

Mr. Lang: Is there any responsibility at all? I notice it is not only in this act, but it is in the Municipal Act as well where, if you are acting on behalf of the municipality or, in this case, you are acting on behalf of this legislation, you bear no responsibility whatsoever in the carrying out of your duties. It seems to me that, if someone is in the employee of YTG and is negligent in their duties, the public who has been hurt, willfully or otherwise, should have some recourse of some kind.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I agree entirely. What the clause is saying is that if the board members are acting within the parameters of their authority, and they are acting without negligence, then they are covered. However, if they are doing something that is not lawful, or they are doing something negligently, they will not be covered, and they will be liable for their actions.

Clause 17 agreed to

On Clause 18

Clause 18 agreed to

On Clause 19

Mr. McLachlan: With respect to 19(2)(c), may the inspectors just show up and demand the information? Are they not required to give sufficient notice? In some areas, that is called a raid.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: This is not a raid. The inspector has to come at a time when the operator is open for business and, like anybody else, they come to the front door and ask for whatever it is they request. There has been some controversy in the past about how accessible the places of operation will be when inspectors come forward. We have had debates in this Legislature even, I remember, about the ability to break open locks and that sort of thing. The only civilized approach here is to have the inspector come at normal business hours. They are expected to know when the business hours are and, when the person is open for regular business, the civilized thing is for the inspector to attend when the person is open for business.

Chairman: Order, please. Pursuant to the motion passed respecting extended hours, the Committee will now recess until 7:30 p.m.


Chairman: Committee of the Whole will come to order. We will continue with Bill No. 37, Motor Transport Act, clause 19(2)(c).

Hon. Mr. McDonald: So that Members can collect their thoughts for a second, let me supply some additional information with respect to the some of the discussion that took place earlier this afternoon.

If we are to provide an instrument with any kind of precision with respect to the levying of costs of hearings, it will be necessary to say that the regulation covers the board’s power to levy costs of hearings not to exceed $75.00 for each half day, plus out-of-pocket expenses. Fines can only be levied by the court.

There is no way of knowing, with any degree of certainty, when BC, Alberta, and Saskatchewan will be implementing their bills, but we expect that it will be this year.

Mr. McLachlan: I just want to make sure that there is no power, as I read it, of seizure of any of the material from the office of the business, under section (d). I ask that because tobacco tax inspectors, under the Department of Finance, have been able to walk into some Whitehorse businesses and seize tax records. Some fuel is purchased tax exempt, but that is why I am asking the question. It is just photocopying and does not involve the removal of any records of the business?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: That is correct.

Clause 19 agreed to

On Clause 20

Clause 20 agreed to

On Clause 21

Mr. McLachlan: What is the reason behind clause 21?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: The reason behind it, essentially, is that should an objector object without providing sufficient information to justify the objection, or do it for frivolous reasons, there has to be some incentive that the board can wield - in this case a penalty - should it be determined that the objector is not putting forth their objection in good faith.

Mr. McLachlan: Could the board not determine for themselves if it was a genuine complaint? Does the board not have that power to rule whether or not they will hear a complaint in much the same way that the Supreme Court can decide if they hear an issue?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: This is basically section 35(3) of the existing act. In the past, the board has awarded costs to one party - and  usually against the objector - and usually, in cases where the objector did not bother to appear or where the board found the information to be false or completely inadequate. In the existing act, the costs are left to the discussion of the board.

We are saying in this clause that the costs cannot exceed that which is set out in the regulations. It is not open ended for the board to determine whatever costs they deem appropriate. There has to be some consistency and some limit to what they can levy. The proposal in the regulations would be that it would be a maximum of $75.00 for each half day plus out-of-pocket expenses for the party who was forced to come to the hearing and defend themselves.

Clause 21 agreed to

On Clause 22

Clause 22 agreed to

On Clause 23

Clause 23 agreed to

On Clause 24

Clause 24 agreed to

On Clause 25

Clause 25 agreed to

On Clause 26

Clause 26 agreed to

On Clause 27

Clause 27 agreed to

On Clause 28

Clause 28 agreed to

On Clause 29

Clause 29 agreed to

On Clause 30

Clause 30 agreed to

On Clause 31

Clause 31 agreed to

On Clause 32

Clause 32 agreed to

On Clause 33

Mr. McLachlan: The Minister was going to bring back some information on temporary certificates. I do not see a procedure that prevents a person who may not be intent on setting up a permanent operation and obtaining a permanent certificate of operating authority from coming back again and again to get a temporary certificate of authorization to cover short periods of time.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: That is correct, except in the act there is a limitation of six per annum.

Mr. McLachlan: The six per annum is something like a moving company moving short trips in, is it not? I am thinking of a locally based operator in that situation, as opposed to someone coming in from Edmonton or Vancouver on short, interim trips.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I am not sure what the Member is getting at. Now, it is a relatively easy process to apply for a permanent certificate. There has to be some allowance for temporary certificates and, historically, the board has tried to determine whether or not they were local carriers who can carry the goods. They usually ask the person making application, because there has to be some allowance for temporary certificates. The board has recommended, and the department has recommended in the act, to limit the number to six, so the legitimate cases can be covered off, and there will be some sort of arbitrary number, which will encourage people who are hauling in and out of the territory regularly, and are applying for temporary certificates regularly, to apply for a permanent certificate, which means they have to go through the same process as everyone else.

There has to be some allowance for temporary certificates. We are proposing that there be a limitation on the number, so the privilege will not be abused.

Mr. McLachlan: Which section specifies only six?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: It is a regulation.

Clause 33 agreed to

On Clause 34

Clause 34 agreed to

On Clause 35

Clause 35 agreed to

On Clause 36

Clause 36 agreed to

On Clause 37

Clause 37 agreed to

On Clause 38

Clause 38 agreed to

On Clause 39

Mr. Lang: In the last few years, have there been any applications turned down after it was proven that the operation being requested would harm the public interest?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I do not know of any. I will have that verified, but no application has ever reached the political level through appeal as a result of rejection.

Mr. Lang: In time, then, the board will become irrelevant if people meet all the requirements for insurance, et cetera. Does the Minister agree?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: For all practical intents and purposes, I think the Member is right. The board will conduct fewer and fewer hearings and will be less involved. The existence of the board will provide some assurance that people who are serious about getting into the business will have at least this hurdle to cross. They will also be the people responsible to see that the safety requirements are met, and that sort of thing.

It ensures that people do apply for their plates and cover all of the basic bases. I am speculating, but there may be some tribunal in the future that handles it, but in deciding the public necessity and convenience test, I think it has become more passe, and experience will show that there will be more of an open market. There will only be a rare case where the political level may try to control the market.

My feeling is that there is no surgical instrument fine enough that can allow the political element to really control the market without disrupting it in some negative way. If it is used in the future, it will be used sparingly.

Clause 39 agreed to

On Clause 40

Clause 40 agreed to

On Clause 41

Clause 41 agreed to

On Clause 42

Clause 42 agreed to

On Clause 43

Clause 43 agreed to

On Clause 44

Mr. Lang: Does the review of certificates mean that all the licences will be reviewed every two years? If so, will it be a requirement for someone to go before the board, and all the things that are required?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: No. They will be reviewed to determine whether or not they are still active, but there will not be a special requirement that they have to go before the board. To the official’s knowledge, there has been no application for operating authority refused under the fit, willing and able test.

Clause 44 agreed to

On Clause 45

Clause 45 agreed to

On Clause 46

Clause 46 agreed to

On Clause 47

Clause 47 agreed to

On Clause 48

Clause 48 agreed to

On Clause 49

Mr. McLachlan: Will the regulations supersede government regulations regarding school bus service? The Department of Education has special circumstances regarding the insurance of buses on bad routing. Does clause 49 take precedence over the department’s requirements?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Under this section of the regulations, the insurance requirements would be established as a minimum insurance requirement. Under contractual arrangements between anybody and a busing company, in this case the Department of Education and Diversified Transportation, they can set requirements that are higher than that if they wish, as the purchaser of a service.

In the case of the school busing policy, the department requires $10 million insurance on school buses. That is under policy, not under regulation. Here, the projected liability insurance per bus would be $1 million. The same is true for taxis and trucks.

Clause 49 agreed to

On Clause 50

Clause 50 agreed to

On Clause 51

Mr. McLachlan: With respect to clause 51(1), it sounds nice, but how is the Minister going to enforce it?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: That is the problem with the existing act. There is no possible way in the world that a busing company that is going out of business can be forced to continue to operate. That is ridiculous. However, there could be situations in the future where a busing company chooses not to undertake a particular route; it has no intention of going out of business and has every intention of maintaining its operating authority in the Yukon. It is only in situations like that where this section would have any kind of relevance at all.

Mr. McLachlan: That is why I think there is a clause missing in front of this one. “Without the approval of the board” should cover it, but it should take the individual to come forward say they are going under the $2,000 a day and should not have to continue operations. I do not know how strong a case that really is. It seems to me that a clause in front of that that says, upon extraordinary circumstances, a holder of a certificate may apply for release from his operating authority, then a clause saying that you cannot do it without being cleared by the Motor Transport Board.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Under the circumstances, the busing company would apply for an amendment to their operating authority if they felt they could no longer justify it, and the board would consider that application. If the busing company was going out of business altogether, there is clearly nothing very much the board could do about it, or anybody else could do about it.

Clause 51 agreed to

On Clause 52

Clause 52 agreed to

On Clause 53

Clause 53 agreed to

On Clause 54

Clause 54 agreed to

On Clause 55

Clause 55 agreed to

On Clause 56

Clause 56 agreed to

On Clause 57

Clause 57 agreed to

On Clause 58

Clause 58 agreed to

On Clause 59

Clause 59 agreed to

On Clause 60

Clause 60 agreed to

On Clause 61

Clause 61 agreed to

On Clause 62

Clause 62 agreed to

Mr. McLachlan: There are at least two certificates of operating authorities that have been issued to carriers now in the territory that are not being used. Under this act, what happens to them in the six months and the 24 months? What happens to the operating authorities issued for a bus service from Whitehorse to Faro, Whitehorse to Haines Junction, which are not being used, once this legislation is passed?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: They will be reviewed and, as I understand it, they will not be considered in force after they have been reviewed under the act.

If an operating authority right now is not being used, then the Motor Transport Board wants to know about it and will take steps to rescind the certificate. If any operating authority is not being used when it is expected it should be used, then there is no point in maintaining the certificate, and the person holding the authority will be notified by the board and asked for reasons why they are not operating. If they have no intention of operating and no intention of living by what is expected of them, then that certificate will be removed.

Clause 1 agreed to

On Title

Title agreed to

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I move that you report Bill No. 37, entitled Motor Transport Act out of Committee without amendment.

Motion agreed to

Bill No. 66 - An Act To Amend The Municipal Act

On Clause 1

Hon. Mr. McDonald: An Act To Amend The Municipal Act is a conglomeration of miscellaneous amendments to the act. That made it rather difficult to try to define it through an explanatory note. There are a number of issues that have cropped up and there were requests to change certain provisions, from the municipal administrations and also from the Association of Yukon Communities. The proposed changes have been discussed extensively with the Association of Yukon Communities and there is agreement that these are the changes that we should proceed with at this time. As I said in the second reading speech, the changes do cover a fairly broad range of areas and all of them I would consider not to be earth shattering. Probably the majority are very, very minor indeed.

On Clause 2

Clause 2 agreed to

On Clause 3

Clause 3 agreed to

On Clause 4

Mr. Lang: I want to register a concern again. I see us as legislators forever saying that if you are part of government, then you are once again exempt from any possibility of liability. It really does concern me about how far we go with this. It is a similar concern that I had about the Motor Transport Act - how far, under far, we exempt our employees, other than being willfully negligent, from bearing any responsibility. Could the Minister tell us why this is in the bill?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I guess the major reason is that people  - municipal councillors, et cetera  - have been spooked by the rise of court cases and claims against municipal councillors over the course of the last few year. I think that it has been obvious that some of the claims and most of the court cases have been engaged in in the United States. There should be no reason to suspect that there would be any overlap onto the Canadian side of the border. However, it has affected insurance rates; it has spooked municipal councils across the country, and certainly the ones in the Yukon.

The identification clause does not protect them from negligent activity. It does say that if they are doing their job and are acting in accordance with the duties as established by the act they are protected. However, if they are negligent, they will be open to prosecution, - I am not sure about my terminology here, and all the lawyers in the room are probably agonizing over it - and they are subject to being held liable for their actions. That is really the reason for the clause.

Chairman: Is there anything further on subclause (2)?

Clause 4 agreed to

On Clause 5

Clause 5 agreed to

On Clause 6

Mr. Lang: Could the Minister just outline to us where the municipalities are investing the money that they have?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: The municipal governments have to invest in guaranteed securities and investments authorized under the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act (Canada). This amendment allows them more latitude to invest in other securities similar to those that are authorized by the Government of Yukon under our Financial Administration Act. That allows them to invest in other areas that are still secure investments. The significant change is 6(1)(b), which allows them to go to a bank and invest money in whatever savings plans the bank has to offer or in securities that might be guaranteed by Canada or by the territory.

Mr. Lang: Will this section allow a municipality, if they wanted to, to invest in conjunction with the Government of Yukon in the various investments that the government makes? I am specifically thinking about the individual who transfers monies in the middle of the night and is responsible for presenting this government with about $3 million or $4 million a year in finances. I raised this question two years ago in the debates on the Financial Administration Act.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I wish the Minister of Finance was here to provide some guidance. I do not know whether the Government of Yukon would consider investing money on a municipality’s behalf. Perhaps we can find out shortly. I personally do not know, but I will find out.

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

Mr. Lang: Could the Minister explain why he wants this regulation-making power?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: It is largely because there is a need to provide for a separate statement for the capital block fund account, which did not previously exist. By regulation, we can stipulate that, when we are seeking information to be included in the municipality’s audited financial statements, we can also now include a statement on the block fund.

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

Mr. Lang: Could the Minister outline exactly what his intentions are here?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: The intention here is that where a community has gone through the exercise anticipated under the Municipal Act to establish an official community plan, and goes through all the hearing processes, it is felt to be unnecessary for the Executive Council Member to approve zoning changes, because the zoning changes, in order to be legal, would have to conform to the community plan in any case to be legal. If a municipality wanted to change the community plan, then they would have to seek Executive Council Member approval.

Any minor zoning changes that would be possible under an official community plan would have to conform to the community plan, and it is perceived that the Executive Council Member has already passed it. If he has passed judgment on the official community plan, he does not have to do it again.

Clause 15 agreed to

On Clause 16

Clause 16 agreed to

On Clause 17

Clause 17 agreed to

On Clause 18

Clause 18 agreed to

On Clause 19

Clause 19 agreed to

On Clause 20

Clause 20 agreed to

Clause 1 agreed to

On Title

Title agreed to

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I move that you report Bill No. 66, entitled An Act to Amend the Municipal Act, out of Committee without amendment.

Motion agreed to

Bill No. 95 - An Act to Amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act

Chairman: Bill No. 95, entitled An Act to Amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act. General debate.

On Clause 1

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: I have already identified that the provisions of this act are the subject of a substantial negotiation and a consensus among governments in the country labour and industry. I am ready to answer questions. Pursuant to the second reading debate, there were questions about the regulations. At least the Member for Faro has taken advantage of the briefing, and I am ready to explain any further questions.

Chairman: Is there any general debate?

Mr. McLachlan: Does the Minister know why explosives are not covered under the regulations for identification, whether they be explosives used in an underground operation, for example, or if they are explosives used in an openpit mining operation.

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: Explosives are covered by another act. I believe it is called the Explosives Act.

Mr. McLachlan: Is the requirement for labelling fully contained within that act? Is that why it is not in this one?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: Yes. In the Explosives Act, there are specific and very onerous provisions about handling explosives.

On Clause 2

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

Clause 1 agreed to

Mr. McLachlan: I have a question concerning the regulations. Every year at this time, there are some people who object to what the Minister for Community and Transportation Services is doing with the spraying of substances for mosquito control. Obviously, it would be impractical for all of these people to see the labelling of the chemicals used for the control of the mosquito larvae. Do individuals have any recourse under this type of legislation if they object to that type of thing?

Every once in a while someone on the radio makes a big case out of it. Since we will now have legislation that further protects the use of that type of chemical, what kind of situation could we get into?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: The short answer is no. This act, or the regulations, does not create a right to object, or even any basis to object. One of the ways in which I can explain this is that one of the most dangerous substances that we handle, in fact, is gasoline, because it is explosive, and if it is not handled properly it is poisonous, and it is extremely inflammable. If it is handled properly, we manage very well. Because of its common usage, there is not much concern about the way we handle gasoline, because the required safety precautions are well established. This bill extends that kind of an information system to all of those other and more seldom-used chemicals, practically speaking, and it does not create any right or any particular regulations. Perhaps that is the best way to explain it.

On Title

Title agreed to

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: I move you report Bill No. 95, An Act to Amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act, without amendment.

Motion agreed to

Bill No. 55 - An Act To Amend The Legal Services Society Act

On Clause 1

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: I have said at second reading all that I think I can say. I will answer questions.

Mr. McLachlan: I want to rehash the reason for the deletion of the expression, “who are not members of the public service of the Yukon or Canada”.

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: Presently there are two members of the board, one who is a federal civil servant, and one who is a territorial public servant, both of whom have jobs unrelated to their service on this board. The intention is to pay them and any future employees in a similar situation in the same way as all the other board members are paid.

Clause 1 agreed to

On Title

Title agreed to

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: I move you report Bill No. 55, An Act To Amend The Legal Services Society Act, without amendment.

Motion agreed to

Bill No. 22 - Arts Centre Act

On Clause 1

Chairman: Is there any general debate?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: In the second reading, I explained the procedures that led to this act coming forward to the Legislature. I indicated the reasons for the act and the consultation with, primarily, Arts Canada North for the establishment of the act and the wording. I believe the wording here fairly represents a good piece of legislation that provides for a body at arm’s length from the government to manage the affairs of the arts centre, and does so in a way that allows for the board’s operations to be directed, in major part, by the arts community, which the arts centre is destined to serve.

Mrs. Firth: I have been in touch with Arts Canada North, which has been working very hard with this government and coming to see us, also. They tell me they are in general agreement with this bill, if it is the one they were given as a draft to look at and if there were no changes. Can the Minister comment on whether or not this is the original one the Arts Canada North group had an opportunity to review? Have there been any changes?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: This is the act.

Mrs. Firth: On the good word of the Minister, I am quite prepared to deem the act to be read, if the Member for Faro also agrees. If not, we will proceed as he wishes.

Mr. McLachlan: I have a question on clause 4(4). How much of a vacancy in the membership of the board will not impair the capacity of the committee members to act? Must there not be a quorum of some sort to allow them to reach a decision?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Yes, there would have to be a quorum. The board will set the quorum that is necessary for its operations. As is appropriate in corporations, the rules of the corporation are established by the corporation. We do want them to establish bylaws that will determine those things, but they can determine for themselves what their rules of operation will be.

Chairman: Is there any further general debate?

It has been moved by the hon. Member for Whitehorse Riverdale South that Bill No. 22, entitled Arts Centre Act, be deemed to be read. We need unanimous consent for this.

All Hon. Members: Agreed.

Chairman: Do all the clauses carry?

All Hon. Members: Agreed.

On Title

Mrs. Firth: Just before we finish it off, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the efforts and energies of all those individuals who have worked so hard to get the arts centre off the ground, so to speak. I know they have been having meetings and talking to the government for the past five years at least to see the arts centre become a reality. I can recall when we were the government, they were certainly in our offices seeing us and lobbying just to get the money to do the feasibility studies and to set up the plans. They have continued with their labours and their objectives, and they continued to work extremely hard. I have some confidence that they will also work very hard to see the arts centre is a successful and viable entity unto its own. I just want to put that on the record and congratulate the efforts of those volunteers and individuals who have worked on this project.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: The Member did not mention the government specifically, but I will consider her comments regarding individuals include the individuals of the government who put so much time into this. This is the labour of a lot of people, and we all agree we are looking forward to a completed arts centre and the corporation that will be doing its duty in respect to promoting arts in the Yukon.

Title agreed to

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I move that you report Bill No. 22, entitled Arts Centre Act, out of Committee without amendment.

Motion agreed to

Bill No. 4 - College Act

Mr. McLachlan: Bill No. 4 goes before Bill No. 31? That is not the order presented this morning at the House Leader’s meeting.

Chairman: Bill No. 4, Bill No. 31, Bill No. 7, Bill No. 81, Bill No. 50.

Mr. McLachlan: I asked the Government House Leader what his recollection was of the order, because Bill No. 4 is much more significant than Bill No. 31.

Chairman: We have unanimous agreement to revise the order.

Bill No. 31 - Cabinet and Caucus Employees Act.

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: With the permission of Members present or with their concurrence I can answer any questions about this act as I believe I have had as much if not more involvement with it than the mover of the bill so I will answer any questions that come forward.

Chairman: Is it the will of the Committee to proceed with Bill No. 31 at this time?

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.

On Clause 1

On Clause 2

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

Mr. Nordling: On Clause 13. Perhaps my copy is not a final draft because I go from clause 12 to clause 14.

I see that it has been corrected and the definitions clause is clause 13.

Clause 13 agreed to

Clause 1 agreed to

On Title

Title agreed to

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: I move you report Bill No. 31, Cabinet and Caucus Employees Act without amendment.

Motion agreed to

Chairman: Committee of the Whole will now recess for 10 minutes.


Chairman: The Committee of the Whole will come to order.

Bill No. 81, entitled Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 1988.

Bill No. 81 - Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 1988

On Clause 1

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: I explained in second reading that these are definitely in the nature of changing very minor inconsistencies in the various acts. I will respond to questions as best I can.

Mr. Nordling: On the explanatory note page, under Legislative Assembly Act, this change corrects an error that crept into the revised statutes. Can the Minister explain when errors took on a life of their own and started creeping around?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: The reference to the word, “crept” is justified. Because of the statute that enables the revised statutes, the revised statutes as published become the law. The way they were published created an error that did not exist in the prior law. It was an error in the copying of the revised statutes. It is therefore necessary to pass a corrected law to solve the problem.

Mr. McLachlan: I live in some fear that someone in the hinterland will come forward at election time, or three months before, and show where it says “six months” in their copy. Will this cover all future potential challenges, sources of embarrassment, trouble, court challenges, et cetera?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: Yes, it will. It will make it absolutely, abundantly crystal clear that the intention of the Legislature is, was and remains that the residential requirement to vote is 12 months not six months.

Chairman: Is there any further general debate on clause 1?

On Clause 2

Clause 2 agreed to

On Clause 3

Mrs. Firth: We are on clause 3, Electrical Protection Act. I would like to ask the Minister whether or not this is a policy change. I understand the explanatory note that says that they want the expression to most accurately express what has always been intended as the meaning for both sections, that there is an inconsistency. I gather that the other section is clause 17(2) that they are referring to. The expression is “engaged in the same work” versus the expression “engaged upon the same piece of work”. When I read it, it indicates to me that there must have been some problem that they wanted to make it so specific. Could the Minister explain if there were some problems and why did they not opt for the expression “engaged in the same work”, as opposed to “engaged upon the same piece of work” to make it consistent?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: I am not aware of any practical problems at all. It has come to the attention of the people who read the act, who are primarily the inspectors. The intention here is to be absolutely clear, because the phrase “engaged upon the same piece of work” is more specific than the phrase “engaged in the same work”. “Engaged in the same work” may mean, and could mean, electricians who do the same kind of work, but who are in fact working on different projects. The intention here is to be consistent, exactly as the Member properly pointed out, and to talk about the same piece of work in the context of the same job. I am informed that that always was the intention, and that this simply clarifies it.

Mrs. Firth: It is just a point of clarification as to why they took that option, as opposed to deleting the word “piece”. The clause 13(5) says that “any person who is not himself a qualified electrician shall not perform electrical work to which this act applies, except as an assistant to, and under the continuous supervision of a qualified electrician engaged in the same work.” They want to change it now to “the same piece of work” to make it consistent with clause 17(2), which talks about “continuous supervision of a qualified electrician engaged upon the same piece of work”.

It seemed quite restrictive to me, if I looked at it in the practical sense. If there was an electrician apprentice and he was being supervised, I understand that by using the word “piece” that the supervisor practically has to be there over his shoulder with every piece of work that he is working on. The practical application is if they were wiring a room, say, and they were putting in electrical sockets, I think that the apprentice can do that without the supervisor standing there over his shoulder saying that he has to be under constant supervision on the same piece of work. Therefore, the theory that the same general kind of work would apply; however, it would not be pushing it to the extent that the Minister says his officials have brought to his attention. The whole electrical job, once it is completed, has to be inspected. I just thought that it was rather restrictive. As the Minister says, if there were no practical problems in the first place, why are they being so restrictive as to it being exactly the same piece of work, instead of the same work generally? I interpret it that it would be same job, that two people would not be able to go into a room and wire a room, one a supervisor and one the apprentice, without the supervisor being there. They would be doing the electrical work together, as opposed to one doing one section and one doing the other.

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: I understand the question. I am informed that the original intent and the intent that remains is that the assistant must be supervised by the electrician on the same job, not an electrician engaged in the same work. The phrase, “engaged in the same work”, is capable of the following construction: that the supervisor is not actually on the job, but is a person who is engaged in the same kind of work. It is to avoid that construction in the law which never was the intent.

Mrs. Firth: I am not going to try to make an issue of it; I just wanted to express my concern. It is on the record now. Perhaps we will see how it works in a practical sense.

Clause 3 agreed to

On Clause 4

Clause 4 agreed to

On Clause 5

Clause 5 agreed to

On Clause 6

Mrs. Firth: Perhaps the Minister could tell us why the change was originally made that it would no longer be the Executive Council Member but the deputy assistant? This Mediation Board Act is to make it consistent with the change in the Assessment and Taxation Act, and I gather it was the same change. Can he tell us why it was made originally that they do not report to the Executive Council Member but to the deputy head of Community and Transportation Services?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: I know it was to make it consistent, but as to the reason for the first change, which is not made here, I do not know. I can provide that in writing. I will ask the department and provide that.

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 Title

Title agreed to

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: I move you report Bill No. 81, Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 1988, without amendment.

Motion agreed to

Bill No. 4 - College Act

Chairman: Bill No. 4, entitled the College Act.

On Clause 1

Hon. Mr. McDonald: While Members are shuffling papers and getting ready for this act, I will try to capture the spirit of the second reading speeches. The act before us is to establish a separate entity for a corporation that is to operate the Yukon College and campuses under the direction of a board. The board members and board responsibilities are defined in the act. The relationship between the Minister and the board is defined. The act also allows for a transition period between the time that the board undertakes full responsibility for the operations of the college.

There were a number of questions that I might be able to respond to right now, firstly with respect to the regulations. The regulations pursuant to this act will be  outlining the transfer of assets and responsibilities from the Government of Yukon to the Board of Governors. Those regulations will be developed and passed over the course of the next couple of years. A transfer period of a couple of years is expected to be a responsible time frame for the transfer of employees, financial operations and programs to the college board.

The board is established in the act. The advisory structures are established in the act, and the role of the campus committee is established in the act. Those are the people who are named in the act. The actual administration of the act will be the Board of Governors and the president, who is one of the members of the board.

There was a question on the need for an interim board. According to our advice, to establish a board immediately would confer all the powers stated in the act on that board. Instead, the proper approach would be to establish an interim board to which powers could be transferred through regulation as the administrative arrangements are tied down.

An implementation time is not specified in the act, partly because it is impossible to say exactly how much time the transfer will take. It is anticipated that the transfer will take approximately one and a half to two and a half years. This allows the administration the flexibility to ensure, for example, in dealing with the transfer of employees, that details from such matters as their employee benefits and superannuation to the role that they will play in the new college prior to the transfer officially taking place are tied down.

There were some questions with respect to the composition of the board. Maybe Members can identify their concerns and I can respond.

Mrs. Firth: The Minister has just said something this evening that is quite interesting. I understood from the bill that the interim board would immediately have the power bestowed upon it. The Minister said that it may not be so, that the powers may be given to the board on a gradual basis as the regulations are developed. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: That is correct. The board will have powers without authority, without control. There will be no programs and no funding. For example, the administration of personnel will be conferred to the board through regulation. The financial administration of the college will be conferred to the board through regulation once the administrative arrangements are tied down. That is the intention of this transition period. For all practical intents and purposes the interim board will be the permanent board, but the interim board is only there for the transition period while the transfer of authority takes place.

Mrs. Firth: Then the clause that refers to the interim board of governors that says, “Notwithstanding section 4, the Commissioner in Executive Council may establish an interim board of governors whose powers may be the same as...”. I gather what the Minister is saying is that the powers that will be given will not be the same as the board to be appointed under section 4 until the whole process of developing regulations is completed, and that could take up to three years from what the Minister said in press conferences.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: That captures the intent of the interim board and what is intended with respect to the transfer. I think an outside limit would be three years. I would hope it would be a good deal sooner than that, but there are some areas that I know there will have to be detailed discussions, especially with respect to employees, the employee benefits and their status. I know they will want it to be tied down to the last detail prior to the transfer taking place so there will be no anxiety on their part as a result of the transfer from employees of the government to employees of the board.

Mrs. Firth: There is anxiety now. I have had representation made that people do not want me to agree with this act because they do not have any guarantees. They do not know what is going to happen with their jobs. I do not understand what is going to happen either from the act. All it does is specify that it will be the board that will do the hiring and then every other advisory committee and campus committee is going to be involved in that whole process.

In some of the newspaper articles where the Minister was interviewed, he was quoted as saying that if the board felt it needed more of a certain type of instructor and fewer personnel in the college’s central office, for example, it would be free to juggle its budget at mid-year to make those adjustments. That is exactly the kind of thing that causes the concern with these individuals. A lot of them are clerical staff and regular staff and, right now, their jobs cannot be juggled in the middle of the year without certain provisions and certain guarantees. It does not look like that is going to be any more.

It also says that the employees would be negotiating agreements with the board. I would like the Minister to explain if the board is going to have the same kind of authorities as the Public Service Commission has to do that kind of negotiating. I am sure the Minister can appreciate that five or six years ago, the Yukon Teachers Association handled their own negotiations, and we started involving the Public Service Commission more and more in that capacity, until they were quite involved. This seems to be a step where we are again going away from the Public Service Commission being involved in those negotiations, and we are going to be allowing this board to act in that capacity. What legal authority are they going to have to do that? Is there going to be any consultation with the Public Service Commission?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: The Member has asked a whole mouthful of questions. Firstly, it is obvious from the act that the employees are going to be employees of the board and the corporation. They are not going to be employees of the government. Especially I can appreciate any anxiety they may feel. As employers, the board will be responsible for the employee management at the college. That is like colleges elsewhere in the country that are run as corporations - BC, Alberta, NWT - where they do negotiate with their employees for employee benefits, et cetera. They will be the responsible agent. They will be the employer.

It is new in the Yukon. There is no doubt about that, but it is old hat in other jurisdictions. We are saying the employees will be employees of the board.

Currently, the employees are employees of the government. Should the government determine that they would want more of one classification of employee and less of another, then the government, as the employer, can, within the constraints of the Public Service Act, and within the constraints of the collective agreement, manage its resources to ensure that the public is provided the best service with available resources the government has.

Sometimes that means that if you have, for example, been operating a hairdressing course, and you have saturated the market for hairdressing, then you need to have the latitude to put your resources into areas other than hairdressing. You take the resources from the hairdressing and put them into other areas. That has always been an expected flexibility of an employer and of the college. Otherwise, we would start programs and keep them forever, irrespective of whether or not there are any students. Clearly, that is the latitude that the board will have to have, as well. I cannot even conceive of a situation where they hire somebody and that person is on a tenure track for life, simply because they have been hired. The board has to have the flexibility of a typical employer in order to meet the public’s expectations of them. That is the short answer to the question.

In the transition period, the government will be transferring responsibility for employees and for other things, through regulation, once the details associated with the employees and financial arrangements, et cetera, are established. The government will be discussing quite extensively with the union, for example, in the area of employee benefits and status, all matters relating to the employees, and ensuring that necessary bylaws and rules are established by the board in order to assume the transfer. All existing contracts will be honoured by the board. That includes employee contracts, labour contracts. Once the board is in place as the employer, I would suspect that the employees will choose, again, to be unionized, and they will be bargaining with their employer. Like other colleges, the employer and the employees will bargain collective agreements, which will, it is hoped, be satisfactory both to the board and to the employees.

Mrs. Firth: Some of the things that the Minister has expressed are exactly the concerns that people have. First of all, he told us that this transition period could take as long as three years, and that this is new in the Yukon, but that this is the way that it works everywhere else. It is new in the Yukon, and it is particularly new to the employees. They look at facing a transition period of three years, during which time regulations are going to be developed. What do the employees do in the interim? He said something tonight about them getting to choose whether or not they unionize. What happens to the employees in the interim? Do they still come under the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission for the transition period, or are they in limbo for the three years of the transition period? How do they know when they will be hired? The new board will be appointed and chosen. I would like to know whether or not their benefits will be transferable. The Minister said that they will be transferred through the regulations, once they are established. The Minister has said that that could take three years. What do we transfer in the interim?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: The employees will fall under the Public Service Act until there is a regulation that makes them, under this act, employees of the college board. All employees will be offered employment with the board. Until such time as the details have been tied down, the regulation is passed transferring the employee management to the board, they will come under the Public Service Act.

There is no nether world or twilight zone where they will be placed for the transition period. The transition applies to the period where the...

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, allow me to speak, please. The transition period applies to the period where various responsibilities are transferred to the board. Until that time, they will be responsibilities of the government and will fall under all the rules of the government. Once they are transferred to the board, they will fall under the rules of the board.

The purpose of the transition of the board is to ensure that, prior to the transfer of employees taking place, all the procedures, rules and bylaws are established in order to accept the employees and to ensure that the benefit structures and the rights of the employees to work at the college are established in advance. The transfer will then take place.

Mr. Lang: Is the Public Service Alliance aware of the intention of the government? Have there been discussions on this matter with them?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: There has been a lot of discussion with the YGEU on this matter. It has been committed that they will be in all matters affecting employees. They will determine what does and what does not affect the employees, not the government. They will be involved in all transfer discussions of areas that affect the employees.

Mr. Lang: Does the union support the move that the government is making?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Yes.

Mrs. Firth: I know the Minister wants us to let him talk, but he goes around and around in circles, and we get a bunch of rhetoric about transferring responsibilities through regulations. The  Minister can surely see that that is no reassurance to people who are employees and who are waiting for some mystical transfer of responsibilities through regulations when they are not written yet, and when the Minister talks about a three year transition period before the board is going to be authorized the powers that they should have.

He must be able to see that it is no reassurance to the individuals affected, particularly after hearing comments about how the personnel could be juggled. I want some more specific time lines so that I can tell these people that they will be under the jurisdiction of the government and the Public Service Commission. There must be some plans as to when the first set of regulations is proposed to be done and when the first moves will be taking place. Is the transfer of the personnel and the responsibility of hiring first, second or third on the list of priorities?

All the regulations are not going to be done in the first six months so I would like the Minister to be more specific as to where those people fit in and what kind of time frame they are looking at.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: There is a collective agreement that runs for a total of three years. The collective agreement will apply because the act says that all contracts will be honoured including labour contracts. So we know what is going to happen for the period of the collective agreement with respect to employee benefits.

With respect to the transition, when the next collective agreement is negotiated it will be done with the board and not the government.

Mrs. Firth: I want to register that as a concern. Can the Minister could give any indication of the plan for the implementation of the regulations? Maybe there is no plan, I do not know, but I would have thought that the Minister could have said we cannot present the regulations, they are going to be done on an interim basis and the priorities are going to be done first for staffing, authority for hiring and firing. Perhaps that is not the first priority. Perhaps he could outline what this interim period of time involves as far as setting priorities as to what is going to be done first.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Firstly, the regulations are not there and I have indicated why. As I understand it, the first round of priority is the transfer of financial administration to the college. The transfer of employees, and programs will happen after that.

Mr. Lang: I want to go back to the people involved and whether they know what is going on. Have the individual employees of the present Yukon College been notified that this is going to take place?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Yes, they have. They have been notified quite extensively. Assurances have been given with respect to the role that the union is going to play in the transfer negotiations. When the White Paper came out last year it made it very clear that the employees would be employees of the board, not of the government. That was adopted and people expressed support, even in this Legislature, for the principles established by the White Paper. Since then there have been discussions about how the transition will take place and who will be involved, but never about whether the employees will be employees of the government or board. That was established right up front.

Mrs. Firth: I know I am not going to get anywhere talking to the Minister so I will tell the employees who have expressed concerns to me that as far as I can ascertain they are somewhere in the middle of the priorities: the transfer of financial administration is first, then the transfer of employees, then the transfer of programs, as the Minister has stated. I want him to know that sometimes his department officials have discussions with union officials and everybody sits around the big table, but nobody ever asks the employee what their opinion is or reassures them as to what is happening. Those are the people who are coming to me saying “nobody has asked my opinion, I am concerned, I have a family, I have a job, and I thought I was going to have that job for some time and now maybe I am not going to have it.” That is what the concern is.

I would like to be able to give some reassurance to those people.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: As I said at the beginning, I am very sensitive to the concerns the Member expresses and the anxiety the Member has expressed. As natural as the anxiety is, it is not a well founded anxiety. I can understand it and I can appreciate it. I have been doing everything I can to dispel the anxiety with respect to this matter. Everybody who now works for the college will work for that board. That is guaranteed.

Mrs. Firth: I will tell the people that is what the Minister said.

I wanted to ask some questions about the salaries of the board. How will that be determined? I am sure the president will be getting a salary, as well as the board members. Will the other committee members also be eligible for that?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: They will not be getting salaries; they will be getting honorariums. It will be a board that is expected to meet once a month, much like the Workers Compensation Board. They will be receiving honorariums. They have not been set yet. I would suspect they would probably be the same or similar to the honorariums for the Yukon Development Corporation Board. I do not know exactly what they would be. I suspect they would be around $200 per day.

Cabinet will set the regulation, and they will be paid honorariums plus expenses.

Mrs. Firth: Will the president be paid on that basis as well?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: No, the president will be paid a salary. I do not know what the salary level will be. It will probably be similar to a director. The board itself would be paid an honorarium.

Mrs. Firth: Is the board then not going to set the salary for the president? Who will be making that determination? Who will the president be considered to be an employee of? Will he be an employee of the board or the government?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: He will be an employee of the board. In the initial stage, the president’s salary will be determined by the government until such time as the transfer of employees takes place, after which time the salary levels will be determined by the board.

Mrs. Firth: We take it that the president will be responsible to the government because they are paying the salary. How long will that last? Will that last for the interim period and the transition period? When will the board become the employer of the president, determine the salary of the president and pay it?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: In the initial stages, until the transfer takes place, the president of the college will be like other employees of the college. They will be government employees. When the transfer takes place, they will become board employees. The president will work for the government until such time as the transfer takes place, but they will work in kind of a dual role for the new board in assisting the new board take on its responsibilities for the period of transition. The president will play an integral role in terms of carrying on the day to day functions of the college, and will assist the new board and report to the government until such time as the formal transfer takes place.

Mrs. Firth: Can the Minister tell us when that will take place?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: The formal transfer, with respect to the employees, would happen at the same time as for the president. I do not know exactly when it will take place. It will take place during the transition and it will be by regulation, as well.

Mr. Nordling: Is “it will take place within three years” the closest that the Minister can come?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: As I indicated, the outside limit - and I guess that we have now adopted three years as the hard and fast rule, I was afraid of that - could be as little as one year for the full transfer, and as much as three years. The purpose of the transition period is to ensure that the details are tied down. The transfer will take place when the details are tied down. We will ensure that the transfer arrangements are satisfactory to all parties concerned.

Mrs. Firth: The three-year period that we are talking about comes from the Minister’s comments in the news conference about the planned three-year life span of the interim board - if may be shorter, but it sounded pretty much as if he was planning on three years, at that time. The bill talks in terms of two years, so we will just have to wait and see, I guess.

According to the Minister, he will still have veto over budgetary and curriculum decisions. How will the board be involved in the whole budgetary process? What kind of budget consultations will take place?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: The Minister will be responsible for approving the budget amounts, and will be responsible for coming into the Legislature and seeking approval for those budget amounts. During the period where the board is requesting money, for all practical intents and purposes, it will not be the board submitting a proposal one day and expecting satisfaction the next, one way or another. There will be extensive consultations between the Advanced Education Branch and the board itself, in future years, to satisfy the government that the budgetary requests are, in fact, desirable.

The government, which will ultimately be responsible for seeking the money from the Legislature, will know what the details are, with respect to budget requests and will feel comfortable with them. My expectation is that the discussions are going to be undertaken on a year-round basis, but to be sure, the board report and financial report is expected to be produced prior to the next budget request being made in the Legislature. For example, the fiscal year for the board ends in the summertime, and the annual report and financial report is expected to be produced within six months. Prior to coming into the Legislature, there will be a report in the Minister’s and in the Members’ hands, prior to budget considerations for the board in the ensuing year.

That was done deliberately so that the Legislature and the Minister could have that formal document prior to making decisions on the budget. For all practical intents and purposes, the budget deliberations will be undertaken in detail in terms of the analysis of the board and program activities on a year round basis.

Mrs. Firth: About 65 percent of the budget that we will be talking about will be for employees’ salaries. I do not imagine that the board will have a lot of maneouverability within that budget because of that very large amount of money that goes towards salaries. The Minister appreciates that, I am sure. He has the same problem in Education with the public schools where the majority of the money goes towards salaries. Therefore, there is not as much maneouverability for curriculum development, initiatives and so on unless more money is given to do those kinds of things.

Can the Minister give us any indication of how well the public consultation process through the White Paper was responded to? Can he give us some idea of how the public participated? How many presentations were made? Can he give us some indication of who made those presentations, without saying the individuals’ names but the groups or organizations?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I do not have the names of the individuals or groups. There was widespread support for the board composition. There were suggestions from special groups that the board should have representatives from industry, business, labour, women, the disabled and various components within industry, et cetera. That probably garnered the most comments of all on the White Paper.

The one area where the public response differed from what is in the act is that some people felt that the chairperson should be determined by the board, not by the government. While I appreciate that sentiment, it is my view that the first chairperson should be chosen by Cabinet. It cannot sway the board decisions, but given the very significant responsibilities and resources that will be transferred to the board, it is appropriate that the government have some handle on who the chair is, as we do with many other groups, such as the independent Lottery Commission.

Some suggested that the board should be a little smaller, some suggested that the board should be larger. There was a general feeling that the larger the board gets the more diluted the decision making becomes, the smaller the board gets the lesser the representation of various interest groups is afforded.

There was general agreement there should be an interim board. From the rural communities there was a fairly widespread view that the community campus committee should play a larger role in determining what happens in their community campus, and that is reflected in the act.

There was support for a program advisory council. Again from special interest groups there was the belief that the program advisory council should represent all interests of those persons who expressed an interest in this group. That was basically what the summary of responses amounted to.

Mr. McLachlan: That area the Minister was just talking about is where I see a lot of problems: the board, the size, the numbers and designation of the groups. Unless the Minister can clear some of those things up tonight there could be a plethora of amendments tomorrow and we could still be sitting here this time tomorrow night.

If the Minister looks at articles (a), (b), (c) and (d) under clause 4(1), the English has changed between the first two to the last two. The first two use the term “at least” and the second two just designate the number “one”. When you use the term “at least” it specifies the minimum but no maximum. That is at least three must be on but possibly nine. When we went down to (c) and (d) it is quite clear that there should be only one in those two areas.

Why does the English change? Why should not (a) and (b) be uniform with the wording in (c) and (d)? Three shall be chosen from the people nominated by at least one Indian band in the Yukon. Three shall be chosen from people who are members of and have been nominated by a community campus committee. It may revolve around how the Minister sees the total makeup of the board, I am not sure. I wanted some explanation of the wording “at least” in (a) and (b).

Hon. Mr. McDonald: The (a) and (b) sets minimums for persons who might be of aboriginal origin or representatives of Indian bands or community campuses. It may be that there are more in both those cases. I think there is an interest we do not load the board with college employees. I think there is an interest we appoint as many of a variety of groups as possible.

It is reasonable that college employees be represented on the board. It is reasonable that students be represented on the board. It is reasonable that the general public be represented as well. The (a) and (b) set minimums and, in some respects, (c) and (d) can be interpreted to set a minimum as well, because there is nothing that precludes the government appointing, in its discretion, other persons who may be employees of the college but who may not even be nominated from the employees. It does not preclude that, from my reading of this clause. In some respects, they are all setting minimums. The reason for the minimum is that there is the discretion that more people from that group can be appointed to sit on the board. For example, it would be unreasonable to say you cannot have more than three native people on the board. A minimum of three native people on the board would be appropriate as representatives of Indian bands. It would inappropriate to say there shall be three, and no more, people who are representatives of community campus committees.

It simply states there shall be a student and there shall be an employee of the college on the board as well.

Mr. McLachlan: I have no problem with the minimum. I have the problem with not specifying anything on the upper end. I do not want to suggest anything that is going to negate what the Minister had in his intentions in distributing the make up of the board.

What is wrong with deleting in (a) and (b)? What is wrong with saying three shall be chosen from people nominated by at least one Indian band in the Yukon?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: If I may be so bold as to answer this, the concern here would be it could very well be the case that an individual who is chosen by a community campus, who is also a student, is also nominated by an Indian band, in which case that person would be a well-nominated or well-qualified person. If we said three, that would create a confusion in that this wording allows that particular individual to be in any or in more than one of those categories.

Mr. McLachlan: The Minister has made reference to the public, and I agree that there should be representation from the general public on the board. The article specified under (a), (b), (c), and (d) do not specify the general public. The numbers summarized in (a) to (d) total eight. Would it be the Minister’s intention to have some of the remaining board - the remaining three, because one is the president - a member from the general public? How does the Minister intend to get a member of the general public on the board? Does it require adding part (e)? He has never explained that.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I am not sure that I understand the Member’s question. The purpose of the balance of the three is to appoint persons from the general public who are not necessarily nominated by either an Indian band or a community campus committee, or who are not nominated by the employees or the students or is not the president. It allows the government the flexibility to appoint persons who may not be nominated by any of the groups cited in this clause. For example, there may be an interest by the government to promote a specialty.

Perhaps the government is even concerned about the effect of tourism training in the college and wishes that the board be particularly sensitive to the needs of the tourism industry. It may be that no-one is nominated from the Indian bands, from the community campus committees, who has expressed any interest whatsoever in tourism training, and it may be the government’s interest to appoint someone from that industry. There may be other good people who have certain skills that the government would like to see incorporated onto the board. The (a), (b), (c), (d) clauses are the limiting clauses, but there is also the flexibility to appoint others, to a maximum of 12.

Mr. McLachlan: The Minister has his own ideas, but I see no problem with three. Let the rest of the chips fall where they may. Three under (a), three under (b), one under (c), one under (d) - let the Minister pick the remaining three, because one will be the president. I rest my case when you say “at least three”. That specifies the minimum but it also says that there is no reason why six could not be chosen from people nominated by community campus committees or Indian bands in the Yukon. I think that there is a potential for overloading it too much, one way.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: There is nothing in this act that is going to allow the government to be off the hook, with respect to the appointments. The government is still going to be responsible for making the appointments. If the balance is not struck, then there will be every opportunity for people to rightfully criticize the government. This is expected to ensure that certain minimum interests are on the board, and it is a limiting clause for the government, but the appointment process will ultimately be the government’s and they will simply have to take it on the chin if they make mistakes.

Mr. McLachlan: That is this Minister of Education’s feeling, but he is not going to be there forever, and another one may view the picture differently. The only way to make it a permanent fixture is to change the existing legislation when it goes into effect. I realize what the Minister is saying when he says he must strike a balance, but some other Minister of Education may feel differently six years from now. That is my concern.

The wording is unfair in putting “at least” in (a) and (b) and not doing it in (c) and (d).

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Theoretically, if the three campus nominees, the student and the employee are native, the whole board could be native. There could be all kinds of imbalances. I do not dispute that, but it is like other boards, balances have to be struck. If we are to receive community support, we will have to strike a balance. For example, the mining industry is a significant element of our territorial economy. They have definite interests. If we appoint someone who is from the mining industry or who are familiar with the industry, they will ultimately be responsible for that.

That is true of this board. The various interests are going to have to be balanced. Not every industry can be represented. The board would be ridiculously overloaded. There are three appointments, three from Indian bands, three from community campus committees, the president, the student, the employee and three more make twelve.

Mr. McLachlan: The Minister mentioned that he has some concern about having the Commissioner in Executive Council name the chairperson. I have no problem with that, but I want to pursue the issue with the Minister. It was, I hope, not his intention to make the president the chairperson.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: That is correct.

Mr. McLachlan: Is that for now on the interim start-up board, or is that forever?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: If the public would agree to elect me forever, I will say forever. I will not answer for future Ministers of Education or for future Cabinets. That is the case for this Cabinet.

Mr. McLachlan: Would there be anything wrong with enshrining what the Minister has just said in Legislature - exempting the president from being the chairperson?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: It is the government’s preference not to have the president the chairperson. It is the preference that the chairperson be a citizen chairperson. I think it may be the case elsewhere that the presidents can be chairpersons of the board, as chief executive officers. I do not see any reason, unless the Member can make a very compelling case, why it is considered extraordinarily dangerous to have the latitude to allow the president to be chairperson of the board. That ultimately ought to be a discretionary item. I have indicated where this government is going, and I have not heard a compelling reason which would necessitate us making special provision in the act to especially preclude the possibility of the president also being the chairperson of the board.

Mr. McLachlan: That is exactly why I brought it up for the English or the language the Minister just used. It would be my preference not to have the president as a chairperson. This Minister will not be here forever, fortunately, therefore, I suggest that the clause be amended by putting in the clause that the president cannot be the chairperson or the vice-chairperson. He seems to have no objection to that if I read what he said correctly.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I am suggesting there be flexibility. I have told the Member the extent of the government’s preference. I have never heard any compelling argument that suggests we should remove the flexibility from the government of the day appointing the president as the chairperson of the board. If the Member can come up with some compelling reasons why the president should never be afforded, despite the government’s wishes, the possibility of becoming chairperson, perhaps we can consider it. I have never come across any compelling reasons which would limit the government’s flexibility in dealing with this matter in a manner that they see appropriate.

Mr. McLachlan: The compelling argument would simply be that in a small board of 12 people, the chairperson possesses extreme power as both the president of the college and the chair of the board, or as the vice-chair. That is the argument. It has only 12 people and he or she would hold two critical positions.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: There are many boards that have the chairperson also the chief executive officer of the organization. The powers are limited by the board. The chairperson or chief executive officer has to operate by the direction of the board. There are bylaws of the board which govern its operations. There are rules set out how the board must operate. Even though the chairperson of the board is only the person who convenes meetings, if the chairperson of the board is also the chief executive officer, it does not accord them some special authority to simply disregard the board. The board is still the board, and they have the voting power to do basically what they want.

Chairman: Is there any further general debate?

Before we go on to clause 1, Committee will recess for 10 minutes.


Chairman: Committee of the Whole will now come to order.

We will continue with general debate.

Mrs. Firth: Concerns have been expressed by the students about buses to serve the college. The territorial government and the city government have been looking at the problem. Can the Minister tell us whether there is going to be a busing service provided and, if it has been resolved, what problems are involved?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I am involved as Minister of Community and Transportation Services and as the Minister of Education. Discussions are continuing. The objective of the Department of Education and, consequently, the Department of Community and Transportation Services, is to have direct bus access to the site. How we achieve that objective is to be negotiated with Whitehorse Transit and the City of Whitehorse.

Mr. McLachlan: With respect to article 4(c), appointing students to the board, there are no students who are in a three year course at the college. They are just two year courses. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I believe the maximum course period is two years.

Mr. McLachlan: The concern comes up that the student who is a representative on the board would be of some advantage if he were a senior student which, in this case, is year two. If it is a first year student, has just arrived and is on the board, has the Minister thought about that situation and thought about making it a second year student on the board? A first year student would be relatively green, as far as the college is concerned.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: That is a good argument for candidates who want to put their name forward to make with the rest of the students. Their experience will be perceived as being a useful asset on the board. When the students of the college get together to nominate one of their own to represent them, I am sure the people who can make the best case with respect to experience and knowledge will get on the board.

I am sure the students will take experience into account.

On Clause 1

Clause 1 agreed to

On Clause 2

Clause 2 agreed to

On Clause 3

Clause 3 agreed to

On Clause 4

Mr. McLachlan: With respect to clause 4(1)(d), I have an amendment.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: As the Member has gone to all the trouble of preparing an amendment, we should do him the courtesy of going back to clause 4(1).

Chairman: We shall return to clause 4(1). Will the Member please read his amendment?

Amendment proposed

Mr. McLachlan: I move

THAT Bill No. 4, entitled College Act, be amended in clause 4 at page 2 by deleting paragraph 4(1)(d) and substituting for it the following:

“one shall be a member of the faculty of the College and shall be chosen from the people nominated by the faculty of the College.”

It is not intended to be a major problem, but I believe the intent of the legislation is to have one on the board of directors who is familiar with the academic program at the college, rather than someone who is on security, who is a cook or who is in custodial work. I have been approached by people who are on the faculty and are concerned that it was their view that was being sought by the board, not those who are non-academic staff. It is in that vein the amendment is proposed.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Consideration was given to this matter in the deliberations that led up to this final draft. In some colleges, there is a representative of faculty and a representative of employees other than faculty on the board. That is a common occurrence elsewhere in the country. It should not be a surprising occurrence. However, given the size of our board, it was perceived there should be one representing persons who are employed by the college.

First of all, as I indicated to the Member privately, for all intents and purposes, the faculty outnumber other employees of the college quite significantly. I believe it is about 60 or 70 faculty versus 30 or so other employees at the college. I think it would be wrong to freeze up the opportunity for the other employees to have a say, as they do in other institutions in the country. Not all college boards have employee representatives on the board, but some I am familiar with in Ontario do.

It would be wrong to negate the possibility of employees other than the faculty having a say as to who will represent faculty interests on the board. The board will be dealing with things other than programming the curriculum. They will be dealing with all aspects of operating a college.

I am of the view that the employees together can collectively make a democratic decision as to who will represent them. For all practical intents and purposes, the body of votes from the faculty - if there is any kind of organization of the faculty - are going to carry the day, and the faculty will be determining who will be the representative. In saying so, and recognizing that practical reality, we are not indicating the other employees have no right to a say. It would be appropriate to allow everyone to have that say, and it will be fair. The practical reality is going to meet the intent of the Member’s amendment.

Unless this Member has further information, I do not see why we should amend this. The reality is going to meet the intent of the Member’s amendment, and the act allows everyone a vote. What we have here is appropriate.

Mr. McLachlan: I am surprised. If the Minister looks at the make-up of other university boards of governors and boards of directors, he will see that the intent is to have representation from the academic staff. When the Minister refers to other cases where all members should have a say in running the college, the intent is the programs, not the kind of wax that goes on the floors. It is my understanding in anything I have ever seen that the representation comes from people who teach at the college, not from those who are employees of the college.

If what the Minister told us earlier about representation by union is true, the people who are custodial workers, security workers, and involved in other aspects of the physical running of the college, would also have a vote and a voice through their union representatives.

It is my understanding and intent that the people who are on the board are representatives of the academic staff and the faculty, not the non-academic staff.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: It is true that the employees, whether they be faculty or non-faculty, will likely be represented by a union of their choice. I know of situations in Ontario where the employees are represented on the board. The board has to make decisions with respect to programming, but they also make decisions with respect to the operation of the campus and all matters related to the college.

I see no good reason why all employees cannot be given the right to a vote. I do not see any reason why the faculty, or any person on the faculty who may have expressed concern about this, or anybody in the future who might express concern, would be afraid of a democratic process, especially when the numbers are in favour of the faculty. I know that employees of colleges in other areas and other jurisdictions do have representation in some cases. I do know the faculty has representation in some cases. We are simply combining them here. We are denying no one a vote. We are recognizing the practical reality that the faculty will be in the driver’s seat. It is appropriate that we are denying no one a vote. No one should fear the democratic process at the college, and I do not see why we should be restrictive here.

Chairman: If there is no further debate on the amendment, I will read the amendment:

THAT Bill No. 4, entitled College Act, be amended in clause 4 at page 2 by deleting paragraph 4(1)(d) and substituting for it the following:

“one shall be a member of the faculty of the College and shall be chosen from people nominated by the faculty of the College.”

Amendment negatived

Mr. McLachlan: With respect to clause 4(3), how many constitute a vacancy?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: A vacancy could be one or more.

Mr. McLachlan: If six are vacant, it impairs the capacity of the board to function. I am trying to nail it down more specifically. Is the Minister throwing out the same argument that he used before, that the board will write their own bylaws and determine that?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Yes, the board will establish its own rules of operation, as per section 5, with respect to the establishment of quorums and the meeting of boards and committees. The point of this is that, should there be vacancies on the board because a number of persons resign, it should not necessarily mean the board is not empowered to function and, that the time it takes to appoint new members will be a time when the remaining board memberss will be acting. If for some reason the number of members resign and it takes some time to appoint them, it does not mean the government has to do something drastic like appoint an administrator in order to keep the college functioning.

I understand this is a fairly standard provision, because vacancies do occur and, sometimes, there needs to be some time to fill the vacancy.

Clause 4 agreed to

Mrs. Firth: With respect to the clause about the Executive Council designating the members of the board to be the chairperson, clause 4(4), I was of the impression the Minister was encouraging the members of the board to appoint their own chairperson. Now, the bill states the Executive Council shall designate the member of the board to be the chairperson. When did the Minister change his mind?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I did not change my mind when the act was tabled in the Legislature. As I explained once before to the Member for Faro, like other boards, it is appropriate that the government will appoint the chair. For practical intents and purposes, the vice-chair, who is appointed by the board itself, will be named to the chair in the future. For the same reasons the government appoints the chairperson of the Lottery Commission, the chairperson should be appointed here. It is important that the chairperson of a board have a good relationship with the Minister of the day, given the significant powers of the board. The Minister has to have ultimate confidence in the board, and it is appropriate that, of the board members, the government appoints the chairperson.

On Clause 5

Clause 5 agreed to

On Clause 6

Clause 6 agreed to

On Clause 7

Mr. McLachlan: How is the Minister so sure he is not recreating school committees as the same animal with no power under this community campus committee?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: The Member may note that the community campus committees, in this act, have more power than existing school committees. To my knowledge, school committees do not have the authority to approve expenditures of money allocated to them for the purposes of training in their community. They do not have any formal authority to hire staff. It is a matter of departmental policy that school committees have the authority to determine who is in the administration of a public school. A school committee is purely advisory in function.

The community campus committees do provide an advisory function. They are not independent agents. They are not getting their own campuses. They are part of the corporate hall of Yukon College, given the size of the territory and the size of the college. They will be allocated some responsibility to approve resources for training in their own community, depending on budgets, and they will participate in the hiring of staff.

They are not autonomous bodies, nor were they intended to be under the act. As the territory matures, I am sure that may change. Presumably, there may be cases in the future, as communities grow, where a community campus may become larger and may want more autonomy. The government of the day may respond in legislation if the college itself cannot administratively arrange it so the community campus has that autonomy. At the stage of evolution of the community campuses, I think this is an appropriate saw-off of responsibility.

Mr. McLachlan: Are Destruction Bay and Beaver Creek designated as community campus areas? Are other similar small communities? Give me an example of one that is.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: There is a community campus in Haines Junction that serves Destruction Bay and Burwash Landing. There is some formal relationship with Beaver Creek. That is part of the one community campus committee out of Haines Junction. They include Old Crow, which is probably the smallest community that is serviced by a community campus. Ross River has one; Faro has one; Carmacks, Carcross, Mayo, Dawson.

Mr. McLachlan: I have some reservations about getting 10 persons on the community campus committees from some of the smaller rural communities. That is quite a large number. The Member for Kluane has often said that volunteer groups’ efforts are spread very thinly, and we have to get 10 on each community campus committee to make it function.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: That is right, and that is why the clause specifically says no more than 10 shall be appointed. Some communities will have fewer people who are interested in serving. They can have up to 10 persons on the campus committee.

Clause 7 agreed to

On Clause 8

Mrs. Firth: With respect to clause 8(2), it refers to the community campus committee consisting of no more than 10 persons elected or appointed. What kind of election process is this going to be?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: It will be very informal. It would be the same sort of general election process that determines school committees. It will be by general election at posted community meetings.

Mrs. Firth: Is the election process going to be designated in the regulations?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: That is correct. My feeling right now, and I think it is the feeling of most rural areas, is that things can be left alone unless there is a difficulty, and that we do not have to provide these communities with rules and regulations about how they conduct their business. In the future, if there is a request made to establish a community campus area, and it is an issue, the government of the day will have the vehicle to establish the election procedure and the district in which the vote shall be determined.

Mr. McLachlan: Why is the community campus representation larger than the school committees in some of these areas, which we already have problems trying to fill with three, four or five members?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: They do not have to be. In the clause, it says no more than 10. It could be less than 10. A lot depends on the particular community. Some school committees have indicated an interest in having up to a dozen members on the school committee. Other school committees have extreme difficulty finding three. It depends on the interest of the community. It is incumbent upon the Legislature to be as flexible as possible to allow the community to decide what it wants for itself.

Mr. McLachlan: I have an outstanding question from second reading debate on clause 3. To refresh the Minister’s memory, how is he going to make regulations, rules and procedures that govern performance?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: The Member is referring to clause 3(b). There is nothing particularly mystical about this. It is anticipated that the community campus committee rules of operation will be by basic administrative arrangements. That is what is anticipated here, and that is what it means by “to perform the functions of the community campus committee”.

That would be determined by the community. If the government is doing its job, it would be providing rules for governing the method by which the community campus might operate. Section 8 establishes the election and the appointment of members, and section (b) speaks to the issue of the way the community campus committee operates. It does not tell the community campus what to say or what to do. It just talks about the administrative operations of the community campus committees.

Mrs. Firth: With respect to clause 8(1)(c), where it says there shall be a community campus committee whose function would be to participate in the hiring of staff. What does participate mean? Does that mean they make recommendations, they get to sit in on the hiring process, or they have a veto over it?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: It means only that they can participate in the hiring process. The employee would be an employee of the college, not of the campus. There would not necessarily be a veto, but they must be involved in the hiring. By administrative fiat, it could mean a veto. According to the act, a minimum would have to be involved.

Clause 8 agreed to

On Clause 9

Mrs. Firth: There is the same question here. The board of governors shall consult with and consider the advice, but that is all they have to do is consider it. There is no veto power or approval authority attached here?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: That is correct. It only means that the board of governors cannot completely ignore the program advisory council. They have to consider what the council says, but they do not have to follow it. It does not confer any second stage legislative review of board decisions.

Clause 9 agreed to

On Clause 10

Clause 10 agreed to

On Clause 11

Mr. McLachlan: It is surprising why we would invest money in swap deposits in the United States. Why is that in there?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: It is my information that this is here because it is consistent with the powers of the Yukon government. In fact, it is consistent with the agreements with Canada and the Yukon.

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

Clause 18 agreed to

On Clause 19

Mrs. Firth: When will the act be proclaimed?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I do not have a specific date when the act will be proclaimed. I presume the act will be proclaimed as soon as we possibly can. There are a few regulations that will have to be made immediately, including the honorarium for the board of governors, and a few other minor regulations. Beyond that, there is no reason why it should not be proclaimed very shortly.

Mr. McLachlan: Why does the Minister say it should take three years, rather than two years, to complete the interim transfer? It still seems long.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I guess it was an unguarded comment I made to the press when I said it could be up to three years. I should have said it could be anywhere from one to three years. I think it could be as little as a year from now. If I were to say two years, I would not want people to be fixed on two years. As soon as the administrative arrangements are in place, I would expect the transition period would be complete.

Clause 19 agreed to

Clause 1 agreed to

On Preamble

Preamble agreed to

On Title

Title agreed to

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I move you report Bill No. 4, entitled College Act, out of Committee without amendment.

Chairman: It has been moved by the hon. Minister of Education that Bill No. 4, entitled College Act, be reported out of Committee without amendment.

Motion agreed to

Bill No. 50 - Second Appropriation Act, 1988-89 - continued

Department of Justice - continued

On Human Rights

Chairman: Page 200, please. General debate continued.

Mr. Lang: I raised the question of the Management Board Directive 15/84 with the Government Leader with respect to who was responsible for paying the amount of money that was outstanding, vis a vis the policy, and whether Management Board had made such a decision. Could the Government Leader report to the House?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I believe, as the Minister indicated the other day, no question has come before Management Board yet. The matter has been drawn to the attention of the government by the Member opposite. The Minister directly responsible for the issue, in the sense he is the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Government Services, has indicated that, having been apprised of the matter, he will now deal with it in some discussions between the Human Rights Commission and the Department of Justice. Following those discussions, there may be representation coming towards Management Board and, then, we would deal with the matter. At this point, in advance of those discussions, I cannot say what the conclusion of the matter would be.

Mr. Lang: I am very concerned about going back over to Management Board. We are dealing with an act that was supposed to treat people equally. You have a policy that is in place that is designed to treat people equally to ensure that everybody is given an equal shake, as far as hiring in this government is concerned. Now, I understand that perhaps preferential treatment is going to be given to the position that is known as the so-called “position of equality” in the Human Rights Act.

I want to go on the record here by saying that I believe the incumbent has a responsibility to pay his bills, like anyone else. I do not accept this principle that you have to scurry around and organize a committee meeting. A  Management Board directive was put into place. The Government Leader stood up only days ago and said how important it is that there be policies like this and that they be enforced. To start making exceptions now is totally out of order. There is no question that the policy has been violated. I raised this issue with the Government Leader by letter, thinking we could have private correspondence over the question and be finished with it. Now, I find out in the House that the information given to me is wrong. I had other information that was contrary to what was initially put on the public record.

It seems to me we, as politicians, are being snowed all the way along here. This is a little kingdom we are sitting outside of; it is beyond the Legislature and is not responsible to anyone.

I am making representation to the Government Leader, and I would like to hear his comments on this because, as far as we are concerned, there has been a violation of the policy, and it is our position that the incumbent should pay for the overage, just like everybody else.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: First of all, the matter was not known to me until it came to my attention. I believe it was not known to the Minister of Justice until the Member opposite brought it to our attention last week. I hope the Member is not implying we did not act on the matter. When the matter was addressed to me, I immediately checked with my responsible department, the Public Service Commission, to find out if they had any dealings with the matter whatsoever. They had not dealt with the matter, because the person was not a public servant. I then referred the matter to the Minister of Justice. As the Minister of Justice reported, the issue was handled by that department and the commission. The Member has now raised the question. I have indicated, as has the Minister of Justice, that the issue will be taken up by the Department of Justice and the Human Rights Commission. Following that, if there is some Management Board submission, it will then be dealt with at that point. That is all I can say at this point, because I do not know what the conclusion of the matter is, except to say I have heard the Member loud and clear, and he has made his point very well.

Mr. Lang: I have a question for the government that is duly elected and responsible to the Legislature. As soon as a decision is made, will the Government Leader notify me in writing of that decision?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: If a Management Board decision is made, I will do that in my capacity. If it is made, or there is information to report that comes by way of the Minister of Justice and that department, I will give an undertaking on his behalf that the same will be done in that quarter.

Mrs. Firth: Will the Government Leader take it one step further? In light of this authorization that has been made, that would not have been made if the Human Rights Commission was abiding by the same procedures and rules that other departments, corporations and agencies of the government are required to abide by, will the Government Leader give an undertaking that he will seek a legal opinion regarding the Financial Administration Act, and whether or not the Human Rights Commission should be under the jurisdiction of that act, as those other departments are?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I will give an undertaking that we will deal with the question. I do not know whether a legal opinion will satisfy the concerns raised by the Member. There may have to be a policy judgment. Since the Member has raised the question, I have had an opportunity to talk about it with my officials. There may be a problem of a legal nature, in that there are two pieces of legislation in this House, the Financial Administration Act and the Human Rights Act, which say in their act that they shall take precedence over other legislation, unless there is some specific provision in the other legislation that says otherwise. I think that leaves something open to interpretation on that score.

However, having indicated that there will, in due course, be an audit of the commission, and the question raised by the Members will inevitably be subject to an audit, which will come back to the Internal Audit Committee and, ultimately, to Management Board - perhaps also to Cabinet - there will have to be some decision made by Cabinet. Rather than a legal interpretation, there will have to be a policy decision. I would give an undertaking to the Member that that decision will be taken.

Mrs. Firth: I would like to recommend to the government that they very seriously consider that the commission be financially accountable as the other departments are. That is a position that we would be able to support. I would like to ask the Government Leader to extend the same courtesy to me that he has given a commitment to extend to the Member for Porter Creek East. Could he let me know when that policy decision is made and provide me with a copy of the policy?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I would be happy to go on record that the decision will be reported to the Member by correspondence if the House is not sitting. I hope that the proper people in my office are reading Hansard and taking note of these things.

Chairman: Is there any further general debate?

Mr. Phillips: Yesterday, the Minister gave us an undertaking that he would come back with the figure of how much the annual report was going to cost. Could he do that, and, as well, tell us how many copies are printed?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: There will be 1,000 copies printed. The cost was projected at $7,308. However, because of the efforts of the commission to speed up the process in order to be finished while the Legislature sat, that cost will be increased by overtime costs incurred by the printer. Those are not finally known. It will be 28 pages, four of which are in colour.

Mr. Phillips: Does that include the transportation, freight and the handling? This is a little shocking.

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: Yes, it does.

Mr. Phillips: Can the Minister tell us why they printed 1,000 copies of an annual report? I do not think that there is an annual report in this government for which we have had inquiries for 1,000 copies. What is the reason?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: If the Member looks at and reads the draft of the report, he will see that it has very substantial information value, as to the procedures that are followed on complaints, for example how complaints are handled. There is information on the jurisdictions and agreements relating to human rights entered into by Canada. This document will have a substantial public information value.

It is interesting, when one reads the report from the chairperson, there are comments about the value of public education and the emphasis on education as a preventative measure to discrimination. That is obviously appropriate. That direction will be lauded by all Members in the House as it was one of the things that was agreed to at the time of the debate on the bill, as to the appropriateness of educational measures. This is one of the vehicles by which that can be achieved.

Mr. Phillips: Obviously, this Human Rights Commission is far too fat for its own good when it can spend $7,000 on 1,000 copies of an annual report. Last year, the budget for setting up the Human Rights Commission was over $400,000 for 25,000 people. Then I see that we have had eight complaints, one that has been dismissed, one unpublished settlement. There were 121 inquiries, 47 of those were directed to departments. I cannot believe that anyone in the Yukon could sit here and justify an expense like that for what has happened here.

In the report, it says that in January, February and March, the Executive Director or someone in the Human Rights Commission was running around the territory drumming up business. I would suggest that this is an awfully fat cat, and it should be trimmed a lot more than it is now.

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: I understand the position of the other side. They were opposed to human rights at the beginning. They were opposed to the bill. They are opposed to the enforcement of these measures, to the enhancement of these anti-discrimination measures. The fact of the matter is that they are opposed, and we support a modern progressive Human Rights Commission. There is a political difference here, and I understand that very well.

The Member opposite failed to point out, however, the other activities of the commission that are mandated by the law, specifically in the areas of pay equity and public education.

Mr. Lang: I would like to correct the record. I do not think any Member in this House is against human rights. That is not the case. It is a question of how one goes about ensuring that there is equality within our society. We, on this side, maintain that the side opposite has gone way over what anybody ever thought would happen.

There is the situation in Watson Lake where a man has been embarrassed publicly because he chose to serve his community in the capacity of an elected representative with no pay. He was a volunteer who ran for public office. Then we have this individual running around investigating like this. This person was prepared to serve, at no cost, on behalf of their children. The Minister has the audacity to tell the public and the Members of this House that he feels that this goes along with the principle, and I quote, “The effectiveness of the human rights law depends on four elements. First, it must set a standard which the community regards as right and desirable”.

Does the Minister believe it to be right and desirable to try and publicly destroy people like that in the public forum? Is that what that piece of legislation was written to do? That is what it has done. That is exactly what it has done. All that has happened in the past year, at the expense, the time and the effort and the incriminations of both sides of this House. What have the results been? What have the results been? Is it social harmony? Is that what you call it? I do not call it social harmony.

The Minister responsible for human rights says that if you do not agree with him, you are against human rights. Talk about arrogance. Talk about bigotry. That means freedom of expression. If you do not agree with the Minister or the new Lone Ranger from Ottawa, then you are bigots.

He is not prepared to discuss the significance and the ultimate outcome of what is going on. There is a real world out there. We are dealing with a board that is totally out of control. There are no rules. Management Board directives do not apply.

We have, not 100 copies run off for the general public, but 1,000 copies of their annual report with four colours. It was even too good to be printed in the territory. Then the Minister says, “Who cares?” There are only a few guys in business out there; I bet they did not even get the opportunity to tender, but they are insignificant anyway.

There are 1,000 copies. Let us shake our heads. There are 25,000 people in the territory. There are 6,000 children in our school system and another 4,000 or 5,000 up to six years of age. So we are talking about 15,000 to 18,000 adults. Do we need 1,000 copies of this? That is one for every 14 adults in the territory.

It does not seem to bother the Minister that $8,000 was spent on printing these things. I am  Member of the House and a dinosaur, as the Minister would say, and there are a lot of us out there. It is unfortunate that we are seen in that respect. He thinks that what has occurred over the past eight months has created social harmony throughout the territory, he had better find out for himself, because it just is not so.

I can even speak for the Member for Klondike’s riding. People there are wondering what the Human Rights Commission is and what it is doing. The people in Watson Lake are definitely asking. I am sure the Member for Watson Lake would like to express his view about what it has done to his community, if he felt that he could.

Chairman: Is there any further general debate?

Mr. McLachlan: The year-end report contains a statement that talks about seven municipalities. By my count, there are actually eight municipal administrations. Which one got exempted by legislation?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: Dawson was exempt by legislation.

Mr. McLachlan: Why was Dawson separate from the others? What is the significance.

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: That municipality chose not to participate.

Mrs. Firth: On the statement of revenues and expenses, there is an amount of $11,700 for commission honorariums. Can the Minister tell us how many meetings that represents? How many times did the commissioners meet and get paid their honorariums?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: I do not know the number of meetings, but the figures include the travel costs. The rate of the honorariums is the same as for other boards. That is $100.00 per meeting.

Mrs. Firth: I thought that the commission travel for $6,699 was for travel costs. Now the Minister is saying that it is included in the $11,700? The Statement of Revenues states, commissioner honorariums - $11,700; commissioner meetings - $731; commissioner travel - $6,699. If the $11,700  represents only meetings and honorariums paid at $100.00 per day for three commissioners, a quick calculation would give us approximately 39 meetings. Did the commissioners have to meet for 39 meetings to discuss eight human rights complaints? It does  not seem to make sense that they would have met that many times.

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: I can give the Member a list of the meetings, perhaps by date, and indicate how this was done. I would indicate that this is an audited statement, and the practice of the honorariums is similar to other boards.

Mrs. Firth: I raise the concern firstly because we were told that the commissioners were going to be volunteers; therefore, I was surprised that the commissioners were getting honorariums. Secondly, I would like to know how many meetings that amount of money represents. I do not have all the dates.

I was of the impression that the executive director and his staff do all the preliminary work and that the commissioners would simply have to meet and make decisions about cases of discrimination. I would not have expected that they would have had to meet 39 times to resolves the issues. A quick calculation, based on what the Minister has said, it represents approximately 39 meetings. We would appreciate knowing what these amounts of money represent, as well as the travel amount of $7,000 for the three commissioners. I would like to know where they went and what else that amount of money represents.

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: I will provide that.

Mrs. Firth: I was taken aback when I saw the 28-page report. I really do not think that a lot of people in the Yukon are going to read it. Some of the Members will probably agree with that. When we try to get messages out, all the advertising experts tell us that the briefer the message and the more practical and common-sense approach there is to the message, the more chance of it being read and of people understanding what the message is.

I do not see the annual report as an educational tool. I thought that the commission would do something more constructive like presenting pamphlets or whatever. There would be more of a likelihood of someone picking them up to take a look at them. The report is excessive. A lot of people will not read it. There definitely will not be a demand from 1,000 people for this report. Perhaps, the commission should go back to the drawing board before they publish another annual report like this. Maybe they should consider presenting one that was more in line with the objectives of the act and of the commission.

We do not need to have 1,000 copies, and I do not know why we have to have it in colours. I would be prepared to accept a report like this or similar to the ones that the other departments publish. The Public Accounts Committee, when it published its report, was very careful that it was not excessive with the expenditure. People do not really need glossy, fancy reports to get a message about human rights.

We should really be practicing what we preach. I make those observations and recommendations on behalf of the constituents that I represent.

I will make sure that some people in my constituency get copies of the report and that they have a chance to give me their observations on it. There are not going to be a lot of people who read every page of this report. I see the Minister of Health and Human Resources sighing. I would be surprised if she read the whole report either. I will report later as to my observations.

Hon. Mrs. Joe: I had to get up and speak. I have read the report. It is very interesting and informative. It will be well read by people out there who are interested. I have not yet recovered from the tirade from the Member for Porter Creek East. It was unexpected; I did not think it was going to be as it was. I feel sorry for the man in Watson Lake who was hurt very badly. I feel much sorrier for those individuals who have been discriminated against for years. The Member for Porter Creek East does not take those into consideration at all.

I would like to give the Human Rights Commission credit for the job that they are doing. They are doing something that is hated by many people, but it will benefit a number of people out there. They are doing a fine job, and I would like to compliment them.

Chairman: Is there any further general debate.

On Human Rights Commission Grant

Human Rights Commission Grant in the amount of $200,000 agreed to

On Human Rights Adjudication Board

Mr. McLachlan: If the Adjudication Board does not use the $42,000, do the unexpended funds in this line revert to the first line item in this budget.

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: No.

Mr. McLachlan: That would appear to be the case under the first description, Expenditures. It would not, however, appear to be the case under Allotments. It is all lumped in as $242,000. Why does the Minister say no? How does one know that that will not happen of if one runs over that it can borrow from the other?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: The Board of Adjudication and the commission are independent of each other. The expenses for each are entirely independent. The commission receives it expenses from a grant from government. The Board of Adjudication does also, and there is no ability to transfer monies from one to the other in either direction.

Mr. McLachlan: Did the Commission ask for more money than the Minister allowed in the initial budget preparation?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: I have already answered that some time ago: yes.

Mr. McLachlan: Are all substantial expenses of the office and building completed now, or is there more work to be done there?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: The answer is yes. There is always a little bit of repair work on an older house, but the substantial answer is yes. I gave, yesterday, the budgeted figure for the repairs and the life, and, if my memory serves me, it was $2,500.

Human Rights Adjudication Board in the amount of $42,000 agreed to

Human Rights in the total amount of $242,000 agreed to

Chairman: Any comments on the Revenue and Recoveries, page 201, Department of Justice?

Grants, Contributions and Other Transfer Payments, page 202?

Department of Justice in the amount of $18,199,000 agreed to

Chairman: The totals for all of the departments have carried; therefore, the total of $206,503,000 clears.

On Schedule A

Schedule A agreed to

On Schedule B

Schedule B agreed to

On Schedule C

Schedule C agreed to

On Clause 2

Clause 2 agreed to

On Clause 3

Clause 3 agreed to

Clause 1 agreed to

On Title

Title agreed to

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I move that you report Bill No. 50, Second Appropriation Act, 1988-89, without amendment.

Motion agreed to

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I understand that it is the will of the House to begin general debate on Bill No. 7, to allow Members of the House to put questions on the record, with witnesses, so that they can take notice of those questions and respond to them, if necessary, tomorrow.

Bill No. 7 - Languages Act

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I understand that we are to be joined by witnesses, at the request of the Opposition. Mr. William Byers, QC of the Ontario Bar and Deputy Minister of Justice in this government, will be appearing as an expert witness, and Mr. John Lawson, late of the Department of Tourism and the University of Alberta and Queens University, Ontario, will be joining us to elucidate on the fine points of this fine piece of legislation.

Chairman: Order, please. Before the Member continues, I would like to inform the House that the Chairman was prepared to make this announcement on behalf of the Minister, and that I have indeed had the certificates filed, but it being said in the preamble by the Minister that he was just going to receive questions, I did not think that it was necessary. Now that he has done this, however, I thank him for it, and I will allow him to proceed, if the Committee agrees.

Some Hon. Members:  Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: Thank you. I am sorry, if I have been excessively helpful, I apologize.

While the witnesses are taking their places, I will briefly respond to what I think was the major concern of the Leader of the Official Opposition in his address this afternoon, which was whether or not this bill before us constituted official bilingualism. I have provided him with my speaking notes, so he knows already as much about this as I do.

I want to make clear to Members, and, it is hoped, in a way that begins to address that major concern, what this bill is not. I want to do that by comparing this bill with the provisions of Bill C-72, as it would apply to us, and the particular arrangements, in terms of the Northwest Territories’ Languages Act.

First of all, in respect to Bill C-72, that bill states in its preamble that English and French are to have equality of status, and equality of status and equal rights and privileges, as to the use in all institutions of the Parliament and Government of Canada. For the purposes of that bill, the entire Government of the Yukon Territory was to be treated as an institution of the Parliament of Canada. Bill C-72 would have provided guarantees relating to the right of any member of the public to communicate with, and receive available services from, any institution of the Parliament or Government of Canada in either official language. Officers and employees would have equal opportunities to use the official language of their choice.

Under the section of Bill C-72, Proceedings of Parliament, it states that there will be simultaneous interpretation of the debates and other proceedings, the official reports of debates and other proceedings, which shall be in the official languages in which it was said, and translation into the other official language shall be included. Journals and other records shall be printed and published in both official languages. All instruments made in the exercise of executive power that are public and of a general nature shall be made in both official languages, and, if printed and published, shall in both official languages. All rules, orders, regulations governing the practices and procedures in the proceedings before a court shall be printed or published in both official languages. Any journal, record, act of Parliament, instrument, rule, order, regulation, treaty, convention, agreement, notice, advertisement, or other matter would be printed and printed and published in both official languages.

I could go on, but Bill C-72 would cover communications and services with the public. Any federal institution under Bill C-72 - that would have included the Yukon - reports directly to Parliament about any activities and has a duty to ensure that any member of the public can communicate with and obtain available services from all of its offices or facilities in either official languages. Where the services are provided by another person or organization on behalf of the federal institution, any member of the public is able to communicate and obtain services from that person or organization in either official language.

Where a federal institution identifies any of its offices or facilities with signs, each sign shall include both official languages, to be placed together with a similar sign of equal prominence in the other official language. English and French are the languages of work in all federal institutions and offices and employees of all federal institutions have the right to use either official language. Work environments are to be conducive to the effective use of both official languages and/or accommodate the use of either official language by its officers or employees. It goes on to talk about federal institutions having to ensure that work instruments are regularly used, that automated systems for data processing can be used in either official language, and so on.

I mention those provisions of Bill C-72 that would have applied to the Yukon to indicate how broad and all-encompassing would have been the provisions of Bill C-72 as they apply to us. I think, in fact, that it would not be an exaggeration to say that it would be considerable and, to the public of the Yukon, quite shocking.

I want to also briefly put into context the situation as proposed in this agreement and this law, as compared to that of the Northwest Territories, which is substantially different. The Northwest Territories act, as a result of their Language Act, now specifically provides for English and French as the official languages of the Northwest Territories, and confers upon French equality of status and equal rights and privileges. The Northwest Territories act applies equality of status and equal rights and services in all institutions of the Legislative Assembly and government. The NWT act calls for all records and journals, including Hansard, to be printed and published in English and French. Section 12 of the NWT act calls for all publications issued by or under the authority of the Commission in Council or the government or any judicial or quasi-judicial administrative body or Crown corporation to be in both languages.

I want to emphasize that no such provision exists in the Yukon legislation. What I want to indicate very clearly to Members is that, once again, we have got an agreement and a law, which does not provide for official bilingualism. It avoids the question of the status of the language, and concentrates on services to both the aboriginal community and the francophone community.

I want to make one last point before asking Members to put their questions, questions that may be in the form of notice, in some cases, either to myself, or through me to the witnesses, or through the Chair and myself, to witnesses. That point is the question that the Member raised about parity, today in second reading debate, which I do not think I answered properly.

It is true that the position of the federal government was that we should have official bilingualism. It was true that the position of the Yukon government was to try to get parity, in terms of treatment of services for both language groups. It is true that, arguably, the agreement that we have is a compromise between the two principles that we sought. I still submit, however, that it will be possible, with the funding arrangement provided by the federal government, to give rough parity in terms of services. They will not be similar or identical services, because the needs of the community will be different, but I believe that in the application and the implementation of this legislation, once it goes through, we will have something like equity, in terms of the treatment for both minority language communities.

With that, I would like to resume my chair and open myself to debate and the wisdom of the learned gentlemen who are with us, and the brilliance of the questions from the Leader of the Official Opposition.

Mr. Phelps: It is pretty hard to be able to live up to that - the poor old Member for Hootalinqua, the barefoot boy from Carcross.

Dealing with the last comment firstly, I do not think that the intention was really to attack the provision of the rights such as they are in the bill for the aboriginal languages. I think that it is important that no claim be made that there is more being done than there actually is, in the agreement as it stands. It seems very clear that, should funding dry up in 1994, because the services in aboriginal languages are clearly a result of regulations under the bill, the entrenchment in the Yukon Act may allow a drastic reduction in services, if the funds are not there. That would be my interpretation of section 11. It would seem to me that that possibility - I am not calling it a probability - does not exist with regard to French. I think that that is a basic entrenchment difference in that the French services, as spelled out in bill, particularly in clauses 3, 4, 5, and 6, cannot be diminished once this bill is passed. That is the point that I was trying to make.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I understand the Member’s point perfectly well, but I wonder if I could ask him rhetorically if he would not concede that in some sense the same dynamic may apply in 1992, that the federal government will be seeking to enhance and improve upon the status of French in the Yukon Territory. In respect to the most significant minority in this community, the government of the day, whoever it is, will be wanting to increase and to protect the situation in terms of aboriginal languages, and seek a continuation or an enhancement of the funding provided under this agreement. If there is to be an agreement about continuation of the funding and the services, and the levels of it, that at some point there will either be a marriage of those two principles or some accommodation of them.

The other point that I would make is that, as I said before in answer to a question in Question Period, I am absolutely convinced that the commitment of the federal government to the enhancement of aboriginal languages, described in the preamble of the agreement and in the body of this language, is not a commitment only for five years. The commitment from the federal government, it has been made very clear to us, is ongoing. What they have not committed themselves to is specific dollar amounts for a longer period than that.

Mr. Phelps: I do not think that we have a big disagreement with what the Government Leader is trying to say, but there is a difference between guarantees that are entrenched and hopeful signs and belief in the good will of our fellow Canadians and all of that sort of thing. I think that is all I am really trying to point out: the protection on the aboriginal side is not of the same quality in this bill, in my eyes, as the protection of the entrenchment of clauses 4, 5, and 6, at the very least.

I would like to turn briefly to the issues that concern us. They mostly centre on the meaning of clause 6(1)(a), 6(1)(b) and subclause 6(2). To start with, the interpretation I have of clause 6(1) is this, that any member of the public has the right to communicate and to receive available services from any head or central office of an institution of the Legislative Assembly or of the Government of the Yukon in English or French. That is the first point that is made in 6(1). It seems to me that the first part of 6(1) is not qualified by 6(1)(a) or (b). My first question is: is that opinion shared by the witnesses?

Mr. Byers: Yes. I would agree with what Mr. Phelps has said.

Mr. Phelps: That clarifies one concern. Again, looking at 6(1), the second thought is that any member of the public has the same right, with respect to any other office of any such institution where (a) there is significant demand for communications with and services from that office in both English and French, or (b) due to the nature of the office, it is reasonable that communications with and services from that office be in both English and French.

I would take it from that that if a member of a public in Dawson went to the government agency there to get a licence or something, he would only have a right to communicate with, and to receive available services in French, if either (a) or (b) applied. Is that a fair interpretation?

Mr. Byers: Again, yes.

Mr. Phelps: Moving to 6(2), my interpretation of that would be that the government  may make regulations prescribing circumstances in which for the purposes of subsection (1) significant demand shall be deemed to exist or in which the nature of the office is such that it is reasonable that communications with and services from that office be in English and French, so that it is permissible for the government to make regulations prescribing circumstances for the situation that I just described, of a member of the public going to the government agent in Dawson. That is permissible.

Mr. Byers: Yes.

Mr. Phelps: The concern that I have is that if the government, under section 6(2) were to prescribe circumstances -. Let us take an example. In any community outside of Whitehorse where there is a population of at least five percent francophone, that could be, presumably, a circumstance prescribing significant demand.

I realize this is quite hypothetical. If they were to prescribe that in a regulation, any member of the public who was not satisfied with the service could say they did not think there was a significant demand and want the court to judge what is. Quite possibly, they could get a ruling from the court that would give that person the right to the service, despite the regulation.

To give an example, if it were the requirement for at least 50 francophone members of the public residing in Dawson City, and there were only 30, a person could say that 30 was significant, no matter what the regulation says. It is possible the court would uphold the person’s right to the service.

Would that be a fair possibility?

Mr. Byers: Yes, it is a fair possibility. The key to the regulation-making power is that you cannot pass a regulation that would attempt to make the issue non-justiciable. The court would always have that right to review it and, as long as the Cabinet was acting in good faith, and the stipulation they made in the regulation was reasonable in the context of the bill, the court would probably not interfere with it. They would not interfere with Cabinet’s right to pass that regulation, as long as Cabinet acted in good faith and reasonably but basically, yes, the court would have the right to review it if someone felt aggrieved.

I could not comment on the two examples you gave. It would depend on the various circumstances.

Mr. Phelps: I was just trying to put the point across using a hypothetical example. It would be possible, would it not, to have a clause such as clause 6(2) to make the regulations define the qualifiers (a) or (b)? In other words, it would be possible by amendment of clause 6 to have the regulations prescribe, for all purposes, the situations in which a member of the public would have the right to communicate with and receive available services from offices other than the central offices. Is that not correct?

Mr. Byers: I am not quite sure I fully understand what you are suggesting. If you are suggesting it would be possible to make an amendment that would allow Cabinet to make a regulation under this section that was non-justiciable, I would disagree. You cannot do that. If we attempted to do that, the federal government would not approve the legislation.

Any regulation that is passed under section 6 would have to remain within the purview of a court to review it, and it would have to be reasonable within the context of what is significant demand. A court would not interfere and substitute its judgment for that of Cabinet, if Cabinet had acted in good faith and reasonably, whatever definition of significant demand they chose.

For example, if they said 100 percent of the community was required to satisfy the test of significant demand then, obviously, under most circumstances, the court would find that was an unreasonable exercise of that power and would substitute its own decision for that of Cabinet in those circumstances.

Mr. Phelps: It seems to me to be two issues here. Firstly, clause 6(2), to my mind, does not create a situation in which Cabinet is prescribing the only circumstances in which (a) or (b) would apply.

Whatever regulations are passed by the commissioner and council, there could be other circumstances the person could possibly think up and go to court on, in order to have an order giving him the right to the services?

Mr. Byers: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: We should understand that, from the federal point of view, expressions like “significant demand” are being defined as the result of the implementation of language provisions elsewhere in the country. I do not know if there is a body of case law, but there will certainly be some precedents in some cases that would constitute demand. For all practical purposes, we have to understand what is contemplated in the agreement here, where at this point there is one organization representing francophones, with whom we will be consulting and dealing about the services they require. The practical effect of what will come under clause 6, in terms of what is actually provided for - even with the full federal funding - is what the AFY tells us are their priorities, in terms of the departments from who the services are required and the kinds of programs on which they need information, and the kind of services that are required for their communities.

Practical situations may come up that use Dawson as a case, but it may well be a case. as in Faro, which has a significant number of francophones who could constitute a significant demand for a continuing range of government services there, and it might be that you would have to have a bilingual territorial agent in a community that had that number of francophones. In the first case, the francophones as a community will define these for us as a result of the consultation period we will now be going into. That will be the real guiding principle in terms of the actual services that are provided, rather than the precedents or the case law that may be established nationally.

Mr. Phelps: I understand what the Government Leader is saying. I want to try to get our concerns out in as clear a way as possible, given the hour.

First of all, under clause 6(1), dealing with central offices of an institution of the Legislative Assembly or the Government of Yukon, as of the date that everything becomes law, any member of the public can demand to communicate with and to receive available services from all the offices of this government, and the head offices of the institutions, in Whitehorse.

It is not a situation where it is something that is necessarily going to be negotiated with a society that purports to speak on behalf of francophones in Yukon. It is a right created that any member of the public can go to court on. That is the concern. Does the Government Leader understand?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I understand. I also understand that, since the Opposition Leader has reported to me his conversation with the representatives of AFY, there may be a substantial discussion between us and AFY as to whether we have a central translation bureau or information officers who, when a francophone comes in and says they want to find out about a housing program, instead of having a person come from the central office to assist that person in dealing with a corporation or agency in getting the information they want and providing a follow-up letter in French that describes the program they want to be informed about. I understand the AFY has indicated to the Opposition that their preference would be that such an information officer, or such a person, be located in each of certain major departments.

There would be substantial discussion about that, but the administrative arrangements by which we provide the service - which is a definable demand in the Yukon, with 560 francophones, according to the last census - is one that will be subject to negotiation. We are not attempting to qualify or fetter the right in any way. What we do want to do, and what this legislation provides, is to be able to make practical arrangements for the meeting of such demands without getting into the full apparatus of official bilingualism, which would mean there would have to be people in every single office, which I do not think is the concomitant of this provision.

Mr. Phelps: That is where our paths diverge. With regard to the head offices - or just call them the Whitehorse offices - the first part of clause 6(1) sets up a situation where, it seems to me, it is very arguable that the person would have every right to expect a person in each of the departments and central offices to be bilingual. It seems very probably that a court would find that, given the language here. When I say that, I am not trying to suggest the society is being unreasonable. I am not trying to convey that. I believe their understanding is that, at least for the major departments, they would expect there would be somebody to serve them. Any other person could come along and make those demands.

It seems to me that clause 6(1) would require a bilingual person in each of the central offices, and may require pamphlets, literature, forms and all that kind of thing in French to be available to these people.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: The two wise men we have in the witness chair may offer some useful comments on this to the Member. I would like to make a practical personal argument, rather than a legal one.

Whether we have six of the largest departments - those that have the most frequent dealings with the public - having a single bilingual information officer in them, a highly qualified translator, or whether we had a central agency - which might be our first preference - where a similar number of people would be providing those services for all government departments, it seems to me in some respects a matter of administrative detail.

The key question is whether we would be able to provide the service to the public. The Member talks about literature. I believe the federal understanding of the agreement and our understanding of the agreement, would mean that we would not be printing randomly all documents and all information. We would be printing information in French, at federal expense, where there was the demand, where AFY and the francophone community had indicated to us there was some demand. I do not believe there would be a right here for a francophone to say he wants such and such report in French tomorrow or next week.

Maybe I could put the question most provocatively like that, and ask the wise men if they might comment.

Mr. Lawson: There are two things to consider. First of all, what may be provided in the context of an official languages act - if we created official bilingual status - is not necessarily the same right that is created in the context of this agreement. The agreement under which the legislation is created states that the rights and services are provided only to the extent that is set out in the agreement and legislation. So, there is nothing further beyond that.

Secondly, we have talked to the federal people - and I would have to concede your point that the question is arguable and a court might consider it different at some point - and there is no intention amongst the federal people that by establishing a right to receive services those services are qualified in such a way that says they must be provided instantly or that they must be provided in written form, or anything else. They anticipate, as we do, the establishment of a translation bureau of central services. The situation may change from department to department, but there has not been either an understanding or an intent amongst the federal people that clause 6(1) creates the right to receive all services immediately, simply that you have the right to receive the service.

Mr. Phelps: Are there any cases that have gone to the courts on this language that would support the very optimistic view of the federal people?

Mr. Lawson: I do not know of any, but on that particular point the federal government used the same language, essentially, that we have for their regulatory power. It is not defined beyond that. My understanding is that for the same reason they have accepted that it cannot be taken entirely out of the courts. They are using that language and letting the situation develop. I am not aware of any court cases specifically on it.

Mr. Phelps: Just to go back to recap the situation, I understand the feeling is that if we were to amend clause 6 it would be seen as a fundamental breach of the agreement between YTG and the Government of Canada - that we are stuck with this or nothing, or starting over. Is that the concern? Do we have a Meech Lake situation where the whole thing would fall apart if we make a common sense amendment? Is that the fear that the witnesses or the Government Leader has?

Mr. Lawson: I am not exactly sure of your question as it refers to common sense amendments, but there is clearly an understanding from the federal government that if we were to somehow tamper or amend clause 6 so that, for example, the definition of “significant demand” or “nature of the office” were made very arbitrary or totally at the discretion of this or subsequent governments, so the intent of the agreement could in fact be controverted by the regulatory powers, they would disallow it. A common sense amendment that tried to define, as it is stated here, which parallels federal wording, they have no problem with. If they saw it as being an arbitrary attempt to change the agreement they would have trouble with it.

Mr. Phelps: The first point I would make is that we have had some discussion about the meaning of clause 6(1). If clause 6(1) were changed so that a member of the public has the right to receive these services from any office anywhere in the Yukon including the central offices where (a) and (b) apply, there seemed to be an understanding on that side that (a) and (b) qualified all of Clause 6(1). Now if we were to, for example, put forward an amendment that made it very clear that any member of the public has the right to communicate with and receive available services from any office where (a) and (b) apply - - there is significant demand - or it is reasonable, would that kind of amendment, in the opinion of the witnesses, jeopardize the agreement?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: Let me correct one thing. I may have, because of my own inadequate communications, confused the issue.

With respect to the head office, or dealing with this government and the central office, it is my view that 6(1) still would provide for a francophone to be able to come in the front door and go to the information desk, speak French, and ask for information as a citizen might, and we would have an obligation to respond to that person in French with a francophone or with a bilingual information officer who could give that service.

The other services that are talked about - “significant demand” and “due to the nature of the office” - deal with the other situations the Member talked about whether it is publications, literature or demand for an office in rural Yukon. Those are the ones that are qualified by significant demand and the nature of the office.

I want to make a distinction between a francophone walking down the street and wanting to make a general inquiry in French. It seems to me we would have an obligation under 6(1) to respond in French to that person.

Mr. Phelps: My concern is that it seems to me if a French person walks into the Workers Compensation head office, he has the right to expect someone to be there who can deal with him or her in French, and may also be entitled to use forms that are already translated - the commonly used application forms for Workers Compensation - or for such things as applying for licenses in motor vehicles offices, have the right to walk into an office and have at least one person there who is bilingual and to be able to use forms that are in French. That is a little different than what the Government Leader has said.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: It seems to me it is a purely practical proposition. I do not know what the traffic in the Workers Compensation Board is, but if there were a fair number of francophones who were going there to make demands for services in French, then obviously that would be a service we might contemplate. In terms of the bilingual forms, or if there was a demand for forms in French, that again would be something where the “significant demand” question would apply. My sense of the way this thing would work is if any unilingual francophone went in to the Workers Compensation Board and could not deal with their matter - especially in dealing with health questions, people may feel some anxiety about their ability to communicate successfully - it is a purely practical proposition that if we had a central translation service what would happen is that we would send someone over to the office to act as a translator for them. If a letter was required from the Workers Compensation Board to explain their situation it might well be the case that the board might write the letter in English and it would be sent to the translation bureau to be translated and sent to the person. It is that kind of practical, minimal arrangement to satisfy the demands of the francophone community that we would contemplate doing under this act.

Mr. Phelps: I have sympathy for what the Government Leader is saying. We would have no problem with that if that was all that this law said. The problem I am having is that the issue of “significant demand” does not apply. If a person walks into the board and there is only one every six months, then “significant demand” does not apply to that situation. If a person walks into any of the other central offices of any institutions, “significant demand” is not the issue. It is what he or she has a right to expect and demand.

The problem I am having is that I very seriously think that the way it is presently written it probably would require a bilingual person in each of those offices, and forms - at least for the normal kinds of business that is conducted by the office. That is the problem.

On the other hand, if (a) and (b), “significant demand” applied to everything, as the Government Leader used in his example about the Workers Compensation Board, that would reduce, to a great degree, the concerns I have. Tomorrow, I will be quite prepared to come back with an amendment that would have the effect of having (a) and (b) apply to all of clause 6(1).

Mr. Lawson: To take that particular amendment, my candid opinion is that the federal government would not allow it. I am somewhat reluctant to say that. If we look at where the federal government started in these negotiations - and it may be our failure to negotiate better - there was an inclination on the federal part to establish the same rules and the same status for French language here as in the Northwest Territories as it exists under federal legislation.

The wording of section 6 is taken exactly from the Canadian Charter and from the GNWT agreement. I suspect the federal government would see a change to make (a) and (b) clearly qualify services in respect of any office to be a fundamental change in the agreement. We tried, in a number of areas, to specify where services would be required and where they would not, and so on. This wording has been the federal position since 1986, without change.

Mr. Byers: I agree with Mr. Phelps that the first part of clause 6(1) does create an unqualified right for an individual to be able to deal with a head office or a central office in his or her language of choice. What I disagree with is that has an ability to be interpreted as some form of official bilingualism that would cast on the government the responsibility of having the capability of responding in every head office and every branch on an instantaneous basis to that French or English request.

If you read clause 6 in the context of the Northwest Territories act, which is official bilingualism legislation, or in the context of the Charter or the Constitution, which creates the status of official languages, then clause 6 means what you are saying. In the context of this piece of legislation and the agreement on which it is founded, you will find no obligation in either this bill or in the agreement that would be used as part of the interpretation of it that would make clause 6(1) capable of an interpretation that means in essence that we provide bilingual services through all the head offices and branches.

I do not think you can look at clause 6 in isolation to the rest of the bill or the agreement on which it is founded. It is not bilingualism legislation. What the Government Leader is saying is correct, in that, although the person has the right to make the request and seek the service in French, there is no obligation on us to have in every department someone there on the spot 24 hours a day who can communicate in the French language or the English language. We have to provide that response, but there is nothing here that says what the administrative process for that response would be.

I do not agree it creates the obligation on the government the way you are interpreting clause 6(1).

Mr. Phelps: On the other hand, there is nothing in here that clearly supports the position taken. That would be up to a court to decide. I can see a situation arising very quickly. If we had a law case going to the Supreme Court over a parking ticket, it is quite possible we will have a law case going to court very soon on whether or not Motor Vehicles should have a bilingual person there to serve an individual, and whether or not a lot of the forms should be in French. I can foresee a test coming as soon as the provisions kick in under clause 13.

I am uncomfortable because of what I view is a situation that could very well lead to a lot more than just a translation bureau and a couple of people in a central information desk being made available.

Mr. Lang: In reading this legislation, it says “any head or central office of an institution of the Legislative Assembly”. Would this interpretation mean it would apply to the municipalities, as well as the Government of Yukon?

Mr. Byers: No, it would not. The municipalities are not institutions of the Legislature. Institutions of the Legislature are the Yukon Liquor Corporation, Workers Compensation Board and those types of things. It would not apply to the municipalities.

Mr. Lang: Exactly what is a municipality then? A municipality is a creation of the Legislature under separate legislation, similar to the Yukon Liquor Corporation.

Mr. Byers: They are created under legislation, but they would not be included as institutions of this Legislature.

It would not apply to them any more than it would to a society incorporated under the Societies Act, or a corporation created under the Corporations Act. Those are not institutions of this Legislature.

Mr. Nordling: From what Mr. Lawson has said, my understanding is that the federal government wants the same for us as they want from the NWT, and that changing clause 6(1) would have an effect on that. From what Mr. Byers is saying, my understanding is that the difference between the Yukon and NWT is that in the NWT the service in French must be instantaneous. With our bill, this service does not have to be instantaneous.

It is my opinion that a court could decide, on the basis of the member of the public asking for the service, that the definition of “receiving available services” may mean “instantaneous” to the court, and the court would make the decision that to receive the service it should be instantaneous, and we have in effect, by court order, something close to official bilingualism, or exactly what is taking place in the NWT right now. Is that a fair interpretation?

Mr. Byers: No, I do not agree with you. I do not think it is. There is a substantial difference from legislation like the Northwest Territories has, which is official bilingualism legislation. It creates the official, legal status of two official languages. Our legislation does not. I do not think the courts would apply the same tests looking at our bill as they would looking at the Northwest Territories’ legislation at all.

Mr. Nordling: Let us not use the term “official bilingualism” then. Let us just talk about what service the court may say the Yukon has to provide. If there was a challenge, and a member of the public went to court and said, “I went in to a head office in Whitehorse to get service, I wanted it in French, and I had to sit there for two hours”, or “they told me to come back tomorrow, and I do not believe that is receiving available services in French like in English. I am being discriminated against, and I want service just like anyone gets it in English”.

Is Mr. Byers saying the court would not agree with that?

Mr. Byers: I do not think the court would put any more onus on the government to provide the service in French than it does in English, and it is nowhere written that you are entitled to that response instantaneously in English, either. You are going to get the response in due course. You may get it instantaneously or you may not. I do not think they are going to obligate us to something in the French language that we are not obligated to in the English language.

Mr. Nordling: We are splitting hairs, and we may be here all night. What this francophone is demanding is the same service that is received by an English-speaking person. If an English person has to wait for a day or six hours for the service, then I agree, and the francophone would be told he is getting the same service as someone in English, but if an English person can walk in, get instantaneous service, and a francophone cannot, there is a difference. I would like to hear what Mr. Byers thinks a court would do in that case, and how a court would interpret it. That is our concern.

Mr. Byers: I cannot tell you with any degree of certainty how a court would interpret this than I can give you an answer with any degree of certainty as to how a court is going to rule on a criminal case or a civil case, Mr. Nordling. I do not believe the court would apply the interpretation you are placing on this clause. I cannot go beyond that. I have said how I believe the court would interpret it. I do not think they would apply the same standards to this section that they would if it were official bilingualism. It is not the intent of the agreement, and it is not the intent of the legislation. It is not the intent of the federal government, and it was not the intent of any of the parties that negotiated this.

You cannot take clause 6 out of context, in isolation, and not read it in the context of the rest of the act or the agreement on which it is founded. That obligation does not exist. That is why I say I do not think the court is going to interpret it the way you are suggesting it would.

Mr. Nordling: That is our problem. It is not clear to a lot of people what is intended by this. It is fine for you to sit and say this is intended, or for the Government Leader to say that is not what was intended, but the court is going to interpret the words that are written down, and the Association Franco-Yukonnais interpret it different already to how the Government Leader has interpreted it, and to what you have now. They interpret it as there having to be a bilingual person in each department. They talked about “significant demand”, but it is not necessary in the head office. Where a francophone walks into an office they expect a bilingual person to be there to serve them. Obviously, from what we have heard tonight, the Government Leader does not expect to provide that service. Someone is going to have to settle that. It is probably going to be a court that looks at the words and says “English speaking people and French speaking people should receive the same service in that head office, and if English speaking people get it instantaneously then French should have it instantaneously too”.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I would point out that the clause does talk about “available” services, not the “same” services. Let me emphasize again that we have not yet begun the substantial discussions with AFY about how the services to which they would be entitled in this act would be provided. It may very well be that AFY will persuade us that in certain head offices where there is considerable demand, rather than having a central translation bureau, we should have a bilingual information officer in half a dozen major departments.

We are not discounting that possibility. We are not prejudging the conclusion of the negotiations. My own sense is that probably, given that any group of six human beings will have a variety of skills and different levels of skills and we will want to make the best use of those skills, and you want to have a critical mass in a translation bureau to make the most efficient use of them, that if somebody walked into the Workers Compensation Board and there was no francophone there and they needed to talk in French about their problem, what the person at the desk would do is put them on the phone to the head office where there were francophones and either talk to them on the phone, or if the office was right next door have the person come and sit down and deal with them in French and act as an interpreter. No more would be reasonably demanded of us in the hypothetical situation I have described.

Mr. Nordling: I agree with the Government Leader and that is exactly what I would hope to see. I know that the AFY are very reasonable as a group. They do not have control over every individual francophone that comes into the territory. It only takes one to demand the service and the court will tell us that we have to provide that service. “Significant demand” does not apply.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I would again make the point that Mr. Byers has made very well. This is clearly not an agreement about bilingualism, it is an agreement about providing services to francophones and services to aboriginal people, and services that will be funded by the federal government. It is clearly contemplated that the kind of services we will derive will be developed as a result of consultation with those groups. It is quite true that one person might take us to court at some point, and it is quite true that the AFY do not control every francophone any more than Mr. Nordling and I control every anglophone - that is not possible. But, from the discussions in which I have been involved, and I have had many hours of discussions on this matter and I want to pay tribute to Mr. Hnatyshyn as to how many hours he has given us on this matter, I do not believe there is any question in the federal government’s mind or any question in the minds of the drafters of this that we have anything here that comes close to encumbering us with the obligations that would be the consequences of an official bilingualism bill.

Mr. Nordling: I have one more comment. From what the Government Leader has said, and what Mr. Byers’ understanding is, and what we think by agreement we have to provide for a service, I do not understand why the federal government would turn us down and everything would unravel if we talked about “significant demand” applying in a head office to prevent that one individual from coming in and imposing a service that is very expensive and difficult to provide if there is no significant demand, when there is very little demand. When the court order comes down we will have to provide it if one francophone comes in every five years. I would like to hear from the Government Leader and from the witnesses a little more with respect to what the federal government wants us to provide. What the Government Leader has said is they want us to provide a service, not official bilingualism. Why would they not entertain a simple amendment to apply “significant demand” to all offices of government?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: Where “significant demand” would not apply, it seems to me in the general case, is when a francophone comes to this government to the information desk and says “I want to ask a question about electrical rates, lottery commission”, or whatever. It may be the only person who comes in and asks about the lottery commission all year, but I would think we would have an obligation here to have someone in the centre - whether they work for ECO, Public Affairs, or wherever - who could talk to that person in French and say, “Just hold on a minute, I will phone up the Justice Department and find out about how the lottery commission works, and having established that I will explain it to you in French.” That is not a question where significant demand applies, that is a general right a citizen would have: to be able to walk into this building here and be able to find a bilingual person to deal with them in French. I do not think that particular kind of service would be qualified as “significant demand”.

Mr. Nordling: I agree with the Government Leader but that is not what clause 6 says.

Mr. Phelps: It seems to me that something such as Hansard is an available service that is obtained from the central office of an institution or the Legislative Assembly itself. Would you agree that Hansard is an “available service” under the terms of clause 6(1) and that any member of the public ought to be able to receive Hansard in print?

Mr. Byers: I would answer the question in the negative because I think the type of language that is used in Bill C-72 is that it intends to put that obligation on the Legislature, that is, to produce Hansard. It talks about the publication of journals and those types of things. Clearly, by leaving out, as we did, that type of language, we have precluded Hansard from being caught in the purview of that section. I do not think it is a service; it is a journal that is published by the Legislature. I do not think this section extends to it.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: The other lawyer we had earlier is not here, but there is a whole pile of case law on this question. The ability to use English or French does not imply any obligation whatsoever, to provide the simultaneous translation or the record. The Member raised this question in Question Period. We wanted to make it absolutely clear that there was no such entitlement intended in this bill, that is why we drafted what may have been the mistake in clause 12(b), which may be amended.

We wanted to make it perfectly clear, and there is no dispute about this with the federal government, that the ability to have a Hansard and to provide translation is absolutely within the power of this House.

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: The question of the right to use English or French, not guaranteeing the right to be understood or to demand translations, has been addressed by the Supreme Court of Canada in all of the following cases. The Attorney General of Quebec and Blaikie, which is [1979] (No. 2) SCR 1116; the Attorney General of Quebec and Blakie, [1981] (No. 2) 1 SCR 312; re Manitoba Language Rights, [1985] 1 SCR  721; Bilodeau and the Attorney General of Manitoba, [1986] 1 SCR 449; MacDonald and the City of Montreal, [1986] 1 SCR 460; the Society of Acadians of New Brunswick, [1986] 1 SCR 549; and Mercure and the Attorney General of Saskatchewan, which is unreported as of today.

Mr. Lang: There seems to be an impression that the Association Franco-Yukonnais have not been consulted at all on what is before the House. There were meetings, at the administrative level, in January with that association. Is that correct?

Mr. Lawson: I can go back to January. There have been meetings with the association or its executive since 1986. There have been a number of meetings recently in January. Both a representative of our government and a representative of the federal government met with the AFY and went through every term of the draft and looked at it. We have talked to them on a continuing basis since as recently as last week.

There has been continuing discussion, and different interpretations may be left by different discussions. We received its support in recent meetings. It have sent a letter to the federal government indicating its unqualified support for this agreement in its current form.

Mr. Lang: Is it true that the Association Franco-Yukonnais put forward their understanding to the administration? Is it not their understanding that, with the enactment of that agreement and this bill, they will be able to walk into various departments and be provided service by civil servants who could speak French?

Mr. Lawson: Not from discussions that I have had with them. We certainly talked about alternate models. We talked about the consultations that are yet to come on those options or models. We talked about a central translation service; we talked about the possibility of bilingual staff in certain areas, for example health care or something where there is a critical need, all those options have been discussed. It would be fair to say that the members of the AFY would like to see a large range of services, but there is no understanding from them that they will receive a certain type or level of service. We have clearly discussed all the options and they are quite aware that all of those remain open.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I can add to that only that my most recent meeting with three officers of the AFY, which took place only a number of days ago, the specifics of what they would require was at that point unstated. They indicated to us that they would like to see some funding provided through us from the federal government to perhaps hire some assistance to be able to do a proper survey of their community in terms of assessing the demand and priorities for the service, and to help them give expression to the kind of form in which they would like to have the services.

I am actually quite surprised at the report we have had from the meetings they have had with the Leader of the Official Opposition. It may have had something to do with the makeup of the group that met with the Official Opposition, I do not know, because there seems to be significant qualitative difference between what they have reported was said and the meetings that we have had with them.

I wonder if the Leader of the Official Opposition might make a short closing statement of observation about his expectations of the witnesses in terms of the unresolved questions so I could ask them to use the morning most fruitfully in terms of preparing for tomorrow afternoon’s Committee discussions.

Mr. Phelps: One thing that would be very useful are the cases cited by the Minister of Justice, if they are readily available. I would like to have them sometime in the morning so I could scan them and see if they do apply to the wording of clause 6(1).

The second issue, from our point of view, will be whether or not we could convince Members in the House to go for an amendment that would have all of clause 6(1) qualified by (a) and (b). That is an issue, I suppose, that the government is going to have to consider very carefully. I have this feeling that that would certainly make us feel much better about the package.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I suspect, for reasons indicated by the witnesses, that an amendment on clause 6(1) might be perilous in terms of the whole agreement. Would the Leader of the Official Opposition be at all interested, in the interests of trying to improve the understanding of everybody’s intentions, in facilitating a telephone conversation between himself, and perhaps other Members of his caucus tomorrow morning, with the federal justice lawyer who has been principally responsible for dealing with us on this question, or with M. Tasse, who has been our adviser on this question and is the former deputy minister of Justice? Maybe, through this conversation,  we could clarify the intent, precedence and the circumstances of clause 6. We would like to achieve the best quality of debate tomorrow afternoon.

Mr. Phelps: If I could have the cases fairly early in the morning, that would be very helpful. It would not take long to read through that to see where we are.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: The cases refer to a different clause. They refer to what we are talking about under clause 3 rather than clause 6.

Mr. Phelps: I thought that we were speaking about the language in clause 6. Was I mistaken?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: The cases make reference in their various parts to most of the clauses. They would be extremely instructive around the interpretation of clause 3. They deal with the issue under debate, which is the difference between the right to use a language and the right to be understood, to have written materials or to have instantaneous conversation. Those issues, as well, are addressed in those cases.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: Can I take it from the Leader of the Official Opposition’s remarks that he would be interested in us arranging a communication with M. Tasse or Mr. Lowe? Could he indicate if he wants us to try and set that up in the morning?

Mr. Phelps: I would likely know within half an hour of receiving the cases tomorrow morning.

Mr. Nordling: Mr. Lawson mentioned that the federal government was using the exact language of clause 6 somewhere. If he can give us copies of wherever they are using it, I would appreciate that.

Mr. Lawson: I can give you that right now. It is Section 20 of the Charter. It is also in the Northwest Territories’ act.

Mr. Nordling: Are there any cases on section 20 of the Charter that discuss the wording, or a court’s interpretation of those words?

Mr. Lawson: As I indicated before, I do not personally believe so, or I am not aware of them, but I will check that overnight. It may have.

Mr. Byers: It may have arisen in either the McDonald or the Bilideau case. Those are both ticket cases. It is really why Mr. St. Jean’s lawsuit  on the basis of his unilingual ticket will not succeed in the courts, because the Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled that it is the language of the giver of the ticket that rules, not the language of the recipient.

So in the McDonald case it was an English-speaking person who was given a French ticket in the Province of Quebec, and the court held that ticket was valid. He was not entitled to have a translation or an English ticket provided to him.

Bilideau was the reverse. He wanted a French ticket in Manitoba and was told no, that Manitoba can issue unilingual tickets. The recipient, or to get to Mr. Nordling’s point, the person who is asking for the document is not entitled to receive it in the language of his or her choice. It is the language of the grantor or the giver of the ticket. I suspect that section 20 may have been referred to in one of those cases but I am not certain.

Chairman: Is it the wish of the Committee that the Chairman report progress?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I move that you report progress on Bill No. 7.

Motion agreed to

Hon. Mr. Porter: I move that the Speaker do now resume the Chair.

Motion agreed to

Speaker resumes the Chair

Speaker: I will now call the House to order. May the House have a report from the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole?

Mr. Webster: The Committee has considered the following bills and directed me to report the same without amendment: Bill No. 37, Motor Transport Act; Bill No. 66, An Act to Amend the Municipal Act; Bill No. 95, An Act to Amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act; Bill No. 55 An Act to Amend the Legal Services Society Act; Bill No. 22, Arts Centre Act; Bill No. 31, Cabinet and Caucus Employees Act; Bill No. 81, Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 1988; Bill No. 4, College Act; Bill No. 50, Second Appropriation Act, 1988-89.

Further, Committee has considered the following bill and directed me to report progress on same: Bill No. 7, Languages Act.

Speaker: You have heard the report of the Chairman of Committee of the Whole. Are you agreed?

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.

Speaker: I declare the report carried.

Hon. Mr. Porter: I move that the House do not adjourn.

Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Government House Leader that the House do now adjourn.

Motion agreed to

Speaker: This House now stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 12:45 a.m.

The following Legislative Returns were tabled May 17, 1988:


Government-owned fueling facilities (Kimmerly)

Oral, Hansard, p. 461


Yukon Housing Corporation Lease (Kimmerly)

Oral, Hansard, p. 462


Estimated airfare costs for the total government (Kimmerly)

Oral, Hansard, p. 461


Fatal accident to government employee (Penikett)

Oral, Hansard, p. 514


JES Conversion Appeals (Penikett)

Oral, Hansard, p. 509


Cost of Job Evaluation System appeals (Penikett)

Oral, Hansard, p. 509

The following Sessional Paper was tabled May 17, 1988:


Report on Regulations, March, 1988 - covering period November 6, 1987, to February 29, 1988 (Penikett)