Whitehorse, Yukon

Thursday, November 16, 1989

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

Prayers

DAILY ROUTINE

INTRODUCTION OF PAGES

Speaker:   It gives me great pleasure to inform the House that the following students from J.A. Jeckell Jr. Secondary School will be serving as Legislative Pages this session. They are Meghan Janssens, Hector Lang, Shari Meekins, Ladi Millard, Mike Reynolds, Carli Townsend, Lisa Turner, Sarah Storey and Doris Davis.

Today we have Meghan Janssens and Lisa Turner. I would ask them to join us at this time.

Speaker: We will now proceed with the Order Paper.

Introduction of Visitors.

Eulogy for George Manuel

Ms. Kassi: I bring some sad news to the House today. I heard just a moment ago of the death of George Manuel. George Manuel has been a very honorable leader of the indigenous nations in Canada and internationally. George Manuel has been a friend and colleague to many of our past leaders and chiefs of the Yukon Territory and all over the world. I believe he has been a friend to you as well, Mr. Speaker, and to my colleague Danny Joe.

George is a well-known leader of the aboriginal peoples in Canada. He was a president of the National Indian Brotherhood for six years.

A Shushwap Indian from British Columbia, George was the founding president of the World Council of Indigenous People. He was the chief of his people and an author. George was also nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his work.

Everyone who worked with George knew him to be a tireless fighter for the rights of aboriginal peoples around the world.

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Speaker: I have five documents for tabling: The Report of the Chief Electoral Officer on the 1989 General Election; The Report of the Chief Electoral Officer on Contributions to Candidates during the 1989 General Election; The Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Legislative Assembly of Yukon on the Examination of the Accounts and Financial Transactions of the Government of Yukon for the Year Ending March 31, 1989; The Annual Report of the Yukon Human Rights Commission for the Year Ending March 31, 1989; The Report of the Clerk of the Assembly on Deductions for Indemnities for Members of the Yukon Legislative Assembly Pursuant to Subsection 39(6) of the Legislative Assembly Act.

Are there any further reports or documents for tabling?

Hon. Ms. Joe: I have for tabling the 1988 annual report for the Workers’ Compensation Board.

Speaker: Are there any Reports of Committees?

Petitions.

Introduction of Bills.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

Bill No. 42: Introduction and First Reading

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I move that Bill No. 42, entitled Intergovernmental Agreements Act, be now introduced and read a first time.

Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Premier that Bill No. 42, entitled Intergovernmental Agreements Act, be now introduced and read a first time.

Motion for introduction and first reading agreed to

Bill No. 45: Introduction and First Reading

Hon. Ms. Joe: I move that Bill No. 45, entitled Act to Amend the Employment Standards Act, be now introduced and read a first time.

Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Minister of Justice that Bill No.  45, entitled Act to Amend the Employment Standards Act, be now introduced and read a first time.

Motion for introduction and first reading agreed to

Bill No. 55, Introduction and First Reading

Hon. Ms. Joe: I move that Bill No. 55, entitled Act to Amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act, be now introduced and read a first time.

Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Minister of Justice that Bill No. 55, entitled Act to Amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act, be now introduced and read a first time.

Motion for introduction and first reading agreed to

Bill No. 95: Introduction and First Reading

Hon. Ms. Joe: I move that Bill No. 95, entitled Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 1989, be now introduced and read a first time.

Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Minister of Justice that Bill No. 95, entitled Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 1989, be now introduced and read a first time.

Motion for introduction and first reading agreed to

Bill No. 72: Introduction and First Reading

Hon. Mr. Webster: I move that Bill No. 72, entitled Mackenzie River Basin Agreements Act, be now introduced and read a first time.

Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Minister of Renewable Resources that Bill No. 72, entitled Mackenzie River Basin Agreements Act, be now introduced and read a first time.

Motion for introduction and first reading agreed to

Bill No. 73: Introduction and First Reading

Hon. Mr. Webster: I move that Bill No. 73, entitled Yukon River and Alsek River Basin Agreements Act, be now introduced and read a first time.

Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Minister of Renewable Resources that Bill No. 73, entitled Yukon River and Alsek River Basin Agreements Act, be now introduced and read a first time.

Motion for introduction and first reading agreed to

Bill No. 11: Introduction and First Reading

Hon. Mr. Byblow: I move that Bill No. 11, entitled an Act to Amend the Municipal and Community Infrastructure Grants Act, be now introduced and read a first time.

Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Minister of Community and Transportation Services that Bill No. 11, entitled an Act to Amend the Municipal and Community Infrastructure Grants Act, be now introduced and read a first time.

Motion for introduction and first reading agreed to

Bill No. 84: Introduction and First Reading

Hon. Mr. Byblow: I move that Bill No. 84, entitled Municipal General Purposes Loans Act, 1989, be now introduced and read a first time.

Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Minister of Community and Transportation Services that Bill No. 84, entitled Municipal General Purposes Loans Act, 1989, be now introduced and read a first time.

Motion for introduction and first reading agreed to

Speaker: Notices of Motion for the Production of Papers.

Speaker: Notices of Motion.

NOTICES OF MOTION

Ms. Hayden: I give notice of the following motion regarding the prevention of family violence:

THAT it is the opinion of this House that violence within the family is a major problem throughout the Yukon;

AND THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon in cooperation with professionals, First Nations, interest groups and victims to continue to develop policies and establish programs that address the issue of family violence and its destructive impact on Yukon society;

AND THAT these policies and programs address in a culturally appropriate manner, education, prevention of all forms of violence, treatment for abusers and victim support services.

Ms. Kassi: I give notice of the following motion

THAT it is the opinion of this House that the problem of excessive alcohol consumption in Yukon communities is serious;

AND THAT alcohol not only destroys individuals, it is also a threat to the survival of these communities;

AND THAT the Government of Yukon, through the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Resources should investigate ways for communities to enact provisions for the prohibition of alcohol within their communities if they so wish.

Mr. Joe: I give notice of the following motion

THAT it is the opinion of this House that the Government of the Yukon should consider establishing a law for the mandatory use of seat belts for the driver and passengers on the public roads in the Yukon.

Speaker: Statements by Ministers.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Protection for the Tatshenshini River

Hon. Mr. Webster: I rise this afternoon to inform all the Members that this government has sought a moratorium on the staking of new placer mining claims in a five kilometre corridor along the Tatshenshini River.

This request has been made to the federal government, which has the power to withdraw areas from mineral staking by order-in-council.

The Government of Yukon has asked that the moratorium remain in effect at least until the Kluane Land Use Plan is completed.

The Government of Yukon also believes that the Tatshenshini deserves to be protected for future generations. Consequently, we intend to make this recommendation to the Kluane Regional Planning Commission so that our position can be considered during discussions on the land use plan.

The Tatshenshini is internationally recognized as a world class whitewater and wilderness recreation river. Each year it attracts hundreds of rafters from Canada, United States and Europe. The Yukon government is concerned that additional placer mining could have a direct negative effect on recreational use of the river. This recreational value is sustainable only if the wilderness character of the river is protected.

Wilderness travel on this river provides stable economic benefits. In contrast to this economic value of the Tatshenshini as a wilderness river, the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs indicates little prospect of major placer discoveries on the Tatshenshini drainage.

Thus, the Tatshenshini is a clear case where the benefits of the recreational use of the river outweigh any predictable returns from additional placer mining in the area.

I want to stress that the moratorium that we have sought will not effect any existing claim holders in the Tatshenshini corridor, nor will it have implications for the Windy Craggy project proposed for northern British Columbia. The government’s position on this proposal will be based on assessment of its specific merits and detailed information on the mine and its impacts.

Federal government action on our request will extend to the Yukon stretch of the Tatshenshini protection which is already provided by our neighbours.

In British Columbia, the Tatshenshini and its tributaries, except for Squaw Creek, are protected from any new staking of placer claims. We understand that further protection of the Tatshenshini River Corridor is being actively considered by the British Columbia government.

In Alaska, the Tatshenshini, or the Alsek, as it is known there, falls within Glacier Bay National Park and Reserve where staking, mineral development and other industrial activities are not permitted.

The Tatshenshini is an international wilderness recreational resource. Our decision to seek a moratorium on future placer staking and our position that it should receive long term protection in the Kluane Land Use Plan recognizes and respects its significance.

Mr. Phillips: A disturbing trend appears to be developing on the side opposite. On one hand they announce that they are establishing a board to look at the Kluane Land Use Plan, and then they preempt the board’s decision by announcing a corridor on the Tatshenshini River. The same applies when, several weeks ago, the Government Leader announced a constitutional review of the Yukon and that he wanted the opinion of Yukoners on what they thought about constitutional review; he declared himself the Premier.

The government is deciding the conclusion that Yukoners will come to ahead of time. That is unwise. If they really want to take the seriousness of these boards’ recommendations into play and treat the matter seriously, they should at least wait until some of these reviews take place before making announcements.

Has the Minister who made the statement, or any other Minister in the government, consulted the mining community in the recent past and discussed this particular issue with them? If so, what was the response of the mining community?

Hon. Mr. Webster: First of all, I will deal with the concern raised by the Member opposite on the point of preempting the decision of the Kluane Land Use Planning Commission. I think that Yukoners expect the Government of Yukon to put forth its own position on such matters. We are just one of many organizations to do so. I do not think we are prejudging in any way the board decision on the matter. That is why we clearly requested a moratorium until the plan is completed - at least until the plan is committed.

On the question of consulting with the mining community on this issue - no we have not. Again the mining community will have its own opportunity to make its submission to the planning commission, and the commission will make its decisions accordingly.

Speaker: This then brings us to Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Question re: Formula Financing Agreement

Mr. Phelps: Now that we are entering into a session, the side opposite is once again saying that the economy is fine, and they are now going to turn their attention to social programs and environment and away from the economic situation in the Yukon. The last time they said that was last January just days before the mine closed down at Elsa, just days before they made public the huge unexpected losses of the Watson Lake sawmill, at a time when tourism was getting into a downswing with regard to the amount of money being generated into the Yukon economy by tourism.

We are concerned about the state of the economy and its future in Yukon. This is tied very closely to transfer payments from the federal government.

My question to the Minister of Finance is about the Formula Financing Agreement that will run out next March. When will the new agreement be concluded?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: The Member is quite right in as much as he is indicating that the Government of Yukon is taking a more balanced approach to public affairs by balancing off interests not only of the economy, to which we will continue to show a great interest, but also of the environment and social affairs.

It is a balanced approach, which the Premier has indicated is the order of the day for this government’s action plan both last spring and just recently. I am sure there will be many more opportunities in the Legislature to explain further how we are going to be doing just that.

The formula financing negotiations have been underway for some time. All I can say about it is that the discussions are continuing. The conclusion of those discussions depends on two parties. I do not speak for one of those parties, namely, the federal government, and when we hear from them regarding their position with respect to the formula I will be pleased to announce our agreement to the Legislature.

Mr. Phelps: With regard to the response to my preamble I am sure that the Member opposite will remember the shutting down of the United Keno Hill Mine and the shutting down of Elsa.

It is obvious that the Formula Financing Agreement will not be concluded before the budget is tabled in this House by the side opposite. I am wondering if the Minister could comment on how they are able to put forward a budget without having the Formula Financing Agreement in place.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: It is not at all obvious that the Formula Financing Agreement will not be concluded before the budget is tabled in the Legislature, and it is still our hope that it will be concluded. We have held off tabling a budget as long as we can, I think, while the negotiations are underway. As I have indicated to the Member, as soon as the negotiations have been concluded, I will be in a position to indicate to the Legislature what the agreement is.

Mr. Phelps: Of course, the question was not really answered. I wonder if the government intends to priorize the items in the budget so we will know which items will be dropped if the Formula Financing Agreement is much less than anticipated by the side opposite?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: As I indicated to the Opposition a number of weeks ago, I hope the budget will be tabled shortly. At the time the budget is tabled and the details are made public, the Members will know what the government’s priorities are. It will contain our best-guess projections of revenues from all sources, including the federal government. At that time, the Ministers and the government will be in a position to indicate what our revenue projections are, what our priorities are and what our spending pattern should be with the ones that we are recommending to the Legislature for approval.

Question re: Formula Financing Agreement

Mr. Phelps: I would like to follow up on that a bit. I am not quite clear on what the Minister is saying. As I understand it, he is going to be tabling his budget in this House fairly soon. Are we to anticipate that in the event that the Formula Financing Agreement is not concluded at that time that the budget will priorize each item contained therein so that we know what they intend to drop from the budget should the Formula Financing Agreement prove to be less generous than they are anticipating?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: That is a very hypothetical question, not only in its form but in its intent. The same question could be asked of any minister of finance anywhere across the country about the revenue projections from other sources, including personal income tax, concerning licence plate fees, concerning any measure of taxation or fee structure that the government implements.

There is no way of knowing with certainty, until the end of the year, what the revenue will actually be. We do make projections, which we consider to be on the best information that we have. There will be no difference between that situation and the situation that I am sure the Members will be presented with when the budget is tabled. There may well be a formula agreement by the time the budget is tabled; I am hoping that there will be. No matter what the situation is, it will contain our best estimate of our revenue from all sources, and the government’s priorities will be stipulated in the O&M and capital projections.

If it proves in the future that revenue projections were either high or low, then the government clearly has to make a decision with respect to spending patterns in mid-year and that situation, again, is like any other government situation and any other situation for a finance minister anywhere in the country.

Question re: Formula Financing Agreement

Mr. Phelps: I guess we can summarize that answer as saying no, they will not be priorizing the items in the budget that they present to us.

I would like to move on to a new question, if I may, again about formula financing and the formula financing agreement.

I understand that at various times Ministers from this government, including the Minister of Finance, have told various interest groups that the federal government is intent upon making cuts to their contribution under the Formula Financing Agreement. I would like to know how much of a cut is being indicated by the federal government. Is it $5 million, $10 million, or how much in the first year?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I am not prepared to indicate our federal negotiating positions at any given time. I think that that would be considered by the federal government as negotiating in bad faith, so I am not in a position to answer that question as specifically as the Member would like me to. However, as I have indicated to many interest groups in the territory, and individuals, negotiations have been difficult. The pattern across the country is that the federal government is doing its best to control its expenditures. If one were to consider what is happening in other provinces, other jurisdictions, or even in the Yukon with respect to federal program expenditures, the writing is on the wall with respect to the federal government’s intent.

However, the negotiations have not concluded. We have made good technical arguments in our negotiating positions and when an agreement has been struck, I will be able to answer the Member’s questions with respect to the specifics.

Mr. Phelps: I am just not clear - is the Minister saying that he has not mentioned any rough figures or parameters to interest groups, because if he has, then surely he should tell us so that all Yukoners know what the parameters are with regard to the federal government’s position.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I cannot and will not give the Members a blow-by-blow account of negotiations. I do not believe that that would be ethical and consequently I cannot do it. What I have indicated to private interest groups is that negotiations have been difficult. There have been many proposals by the federal government that have involved cuts in the millions of dollars, but the exact amounts that the federal government has proposed are considered to be its negotiating position, and I will not indicate what they are. I will indicate, however, what the conclusion is.

Question re: Formula Financing Agreement

Mr. Phelps: Would the Minister advise whether or not the federal government’s position is that the cuts will be progressive under a new Formula Financing Agreement, that is, there would be cuts in the first year, larger cuts in the second year, and so on?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I cannot indicate the negotiating positions of the federal government until such time as the negotiations are concluded and the agreement has been reached. I will make mention of the details of that agreement in the Legislature, as is expected of me. There will likely be legislation to finalize the agreement, as is usual in this matter. I hope the Member understands that, at this time, I cannot indicate what the federal government’s negotiating position has been on any particular point.

Mr. Phelps: Could the Minister advise us whether this government has been working in conjunction with the Government of the Northwest Territories in negotiating the Formula Financing Agreement with the federal government?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: There have been discussions between the officials and the Ministers of Finance of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories in the months leading up to the position we at in now. I have met with Mr. Ballantyne, the Northwest Territories Minister of Finance, on a number of occasions to get a better understanding of what their position is with respect to the negotiations.

Mr. Phelps: I understand from that there has been some communication between the Ministers of the two governments. I will repeat my question. Have they been working together in a joint effort in their negotiations with the federal government with regard to this agreement?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: As is usual, negotiations have taken place with the Northwest Territories, the Yukon and the federal government at the table at the same time. If the Member is asking me whether the Northwest Territories and the Yukon have developed a common position, I can only say that there are some differences in our positions, but there is a great deal in common, as well. That is only to be expected.

It is obviously difficult for the Member for Porter Creek East to understand but, nevertheless, that is the reality of the negotiations.

Discussions have been continuing on that basis for some time but, if the Member is asking me whether or not the positions are perfectly identical, the answer would be no.

Question re: Economic Development Agreements

Mr. Phillips: I also have a question for the Minister of Economic Development, and it pertains to the current status of the economic development agreements we signed with Ottawa. The old Economic Development programs expired April 1, 1989. A similar program, called the Economic Development Program, which amounted to about $600,000, was put in place from August of this year to March 31, 1990.

Are there any negotiations, either ongoing or planned, to extend the Economic Development Agreements or Economic Development programs in the future?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: The answer is very much yes. There are active negotiations between officials from the Department of Economic Development on behalf of the Government of the Yukon and officials in Department of Indian and Northern Development. I understand they are the lead agents in the negotiation process for the federal side. The position we have taken is that there should be a continuation of the Economic Development Agreement, that it should be of a longer term and it should take into account the many suggestions that have been made in the Legislature in the past with respect to improvements. All I can say at this point is that those negotiations are ongoing.

Mr. Phillips: In the last economic development agreement, the cost sharing was 90 percent paid for by the federal government and 10 percent paid for by the Government of the Yukon. Can the Minister tell the House what position the federal government has taken today with respect to the Yukon share of the economic development agreements?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: It would be inappropriate to mention the bargaining position of the federal government while we are in negotiation. The current agreement is cost shared on a 70/30 basis. The extension of the agreement will cover the current fiscal year. As I indicated in the House during the last sitting, the previous agreement was on a 90/10 basis. The agreements across the country will all, I think, move to at least a 70/30 split. There are some agreements in the east that are 50/50. Nevertheless, we are looking for terms that provide more flexibility to us and provide for a reasonable cost-sharing with the federal government, and meet at least some of the expectations of the Yukon community.

Mr. Phillips: In light of the last economic development agreement that was signed, under which the Yukon paid 30 percent of - that is a fairly major shift in funds required to be put up by the Yukon government - what has the government done with the list of priorities to compensate for the shortfall? Where are they going to come up with the money to cover the 20 percent difference?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: We have already budgeted our 30 percent share. The committees are expending the program funds as per the program guidelines. It certainly did signal a shift from the 90/10 cost sharing that had been the case before, but the shift occurred on a nation-wide scale. In fact, 70/30 is considered to be one of the better cost-sharing arrangements because some provinces, certainly the wealthier ones, are operating on a 50/50 cost- sharing basis  - those provinces that have EDAs.

Question re: Economic Development Agreements

Mr. Phillips: I would like to address a question to the Minister of Tourism. It also deals with the Economic Development Agreements that were signed with his department.

In the last 90/10 tourism sub agreement that was signed under EDA the Government of Yukon did not use all the money. There was apparently $2 million that lapsed. Can the Minister tell us whether we are currently negotiating a new plan, and will it be under the same guidelines that the Minister of Economic Development just laid out?

Hon. Mr. Webster: Before answering that question, I would like to make a correction. Of the $10 million involved in that program, we managed to spend $9.1 million. So, the unused portion was in the neighbourhood of $900,000.

Yes, I can confirm that we are currently negotiating a new economic development subagreement for Tourism under the same conditions as already stated by the Minister responsible for Economic Development. Negotiations are continuing, and our deputy minister is on tonight’s plane heading for Ottawa to negotiate with officials of the Department of Tourism and Small Business on a new subagreement for the Yukon.

Mr. Phillips: I thank the Minister for that correction. Just the same, we are crying about the cutbacks from Ottawa and, at the same time, we are given $900,000 from Ottawa to spend, and they let it lapse. That is shame, because I do not believe that money was or can be recovered.

In the Minister’s statement last spring in the House, he stated he would be able to convince the federal government to give us the same amount in the new agreement. Is that still the position of the Minister? How has Ottawa received the request from the Yukon for a $10 million tourism subagreement?

Hon. Mr. Webster: As I mentioned in the spring, the reason for allowing the funds to lapse was that it took quite a while, at least a year, to start advertising and promoting the program, once it was initially signed. I agree that it is unfortunate that $900,000 of that $10 million did lapse.

I can assure the Member opposite that we are going for no less than the same amount of funds that was negotiated in the first agreement. That is still our position, and we will be putting that forth in the negotiations.

Question re: Alaska Highway maintenance

Mr. Brewster: As the Minister of Community and Transportation Services knows, the Alaska Highway is in a disgrace, and this has caused tourism to drop considerably in the Kluane area. In fact, I know of one lodge that is now considering closing because of the fact that business is that bad.

Can the Minister assure us that he has an agreement with the Government of Canada to continue to look after this highway in the coming year?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: I am pleased to give some measure of reassurance to the Member that this government has taken the issue of the Alaska Highway funding very seriously. Since the motion in the House last spring, which called for a number of steps to be taken, I am pleased to tell the Member that I have met with the federal Minister of Public Works through the summer. We discussed the very urgent situation facing the Alaska Highway funding. Subsequently, I exchanged considerable correspondence with the Minister. As well, I met with Mr. Bouchard, another federal Minister, to encourage funding to come forward that would be necessary to maintain a level of highway.

At the same time, the Member is fully aware that a number of initiatives across the territory have supported the issue of upgrading the highway, from private sector involvement, tourism support, and various lobbyings by various groups.

I am waiting for some result from some of those initiatives, including those of this government, to be announced by the federal Minister. I have nothing firm.

Mr. Brewster: I find it rather amazing that the Minister can talk to a Minister in Ottawa and then he writes insulting letters, as he wrote to me and two or three other people where, quite frankly, he did not even know where the Alaska Highway was. Needless to say, he got an answer to that.

Can the Minister advise this House how much they will put into capital investment on the Alaska Highway in the next two years?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: In the Member’s preamble, I am totally confused what reference he is drawing to letters referring to some ignorance about the location of the highway. I wish he would clarify that.

With respect to capital funding, I take it that the Member is suggesting that the Yukon government should undertake a responsibility of the federal government to fund the Alaska Highway. I would be curious if he would clarify that point.

Hon. Mr. Brewster: It is the same old thing. When they get in a corner, they turn around and say to you, I know what you are doing, you are trying to make us take over something belonging to the federal government. That is not what I said, and you can check it in Hansard.

I cannot give an explanation because, Mr. Speaker, you would probably call me out of order because it would be a speech rather than a statement. I simply asked the Minister if he could tell us how much he is negotiating for the capital expense to go on the Alaska Highway before 1992.

Hon. Mr. Byblow: The question is much more distinct. I appreciate that. The issue of required funding for the Alaska Highway is being closely scrutinized by officials from the federal Department of Public Works and by my department. An amount in the magnitude of $200 million has been identified to upgrade the standard of the highway to a level of acceptability. Whether that can come forward before 1992, the Member can draw his own conclusions.

Question re: Health services transfer

Mr. Nordling: I have a question for the Minister of Health with respect to the transfer of health services from the federal government. Five years ago, the federal government offered to transfer health services to the Government of Yukon and negotiations have been going on ever since. What role is the Minister playing in the negotiations and when does he expect a transfer to be completed?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I believe the Member knows, as it was a well-publicized event, that I had a meeting recently in Whitehorse with Mr. Perrin Beatty, the federal Minister, on the question of the health and, more particularly, the hospital transfer. We are in negotiation on that subject. We have agreed privately to some target dates for a transfer. I do not want to express unnecessary optimism at this point because our position remains that the federal government must provide not only the resources to build a new hospital but also the resources to operate the existing health program. This is something that is not yet clear in the federal commitment.

Mr. Nordling: My concern is that we may not get a new hospital and no transfer may take place, and that the federal government will continue patching up the old hospital and carry on business as usual. Does the Minister see that as a possibility?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I think it would be an unfortunate prospect. We very much want to see a new hospital in place. We also want to see arrangements with the hospital employees in place that will be satisfactory to them. Given the shrinking federal resources attached their northern health services and the hospital, and therefore increased pressures of employee dissatisfaction here in Whitehorse, the sooner we can effect the transfer the better. The ultimate issue is money. The health program is so large that we could not, in conscience, accept a transfer on less than acceptable financial terms. We are not going to do so.

Mr. Nordling: Last fall, both the Yukon and the federal ministers expressed the hope that there would be a memorandum of understanding by June of 1989. That was five months ago. Could the current Minister tell us what has happened or what went wrong with that expectation?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I am not sure which memorandum the Member is referring to. We are still hoping to, very shortly, achieve a memorandum of understanding with the employees of the hospital. The Member will understand that since these are not Government of Yukon employees - they are federal employees - it is a slightly more complex issue. We are dealing with the terms, conditions and benefits of prospective employees. I hope that this matter will be resolved soon. As the Member understands the process, they will be required to be given six months notice of a change, even following that memorandum of understanding, and some time on top of that to decide whether they wish to continue in the federal service or come and work for a Yukon agency.

Question re: Health services transfer

Mr. Nordling: Obviously the negotiations are very complex and involved. Has the federal government been changing its position at all? If so, does the Yukon Minister of Health think he should be getting more involved in negotiations?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I have been getting more involved in negotiations. Yes, there has been an apparent change in the federal position quite recently, a quite remarkable change from our point of view, since it came as something of a surprise and was at variance with discussions that had gone on previously. I have had discussions with some of my ministerial colleagues, including members of the Federal Cabinet. Last week the deputy of the department met with the deputy in Ottawa. The negotiations had not been carried on at that level until recently. My hope is that we can see some very substantial movement in the next little while. If that happens, then a transfer in the next calendar year is not out of the question.

Question re: Health services transfer

Mrs. Firth: Before I start my questions I want to follow up on the response he just gave to the Member for Porter Creek East. He talked about the negotiations that were now taking place on a deputy minister-to-deputy minister level in Ottawa. I understand that there had been an individual seconded to work in the Territorial Government on the health care transfer. Is that individual not working in that capacity anymore?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I am not sure to which person the Member refers. There are a couple of people who have been seconded to the transfer team from other parts of this government. If the Member is referring to someone who came to us from the federal government, I believe that person will be returning to the federal government.

Mrs. Firth: Has that individual’s term come due, or is he being returned early?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I cannot provide any details except to say that whatever arrangements are transpiring are consistent with the contract that we had with the federal government.

Question re: Health services transfer

Mrs. Firth: I am concerned about the employees in Health Services, and I am also concerned about what Yukoners have been missing in the last five years in the delivery of health services  for example, a new hospital with a mammography unit so that women in the Yukon can take advantage of that facility, and an extended care facility. The Minister has not been specific with his answers today regarding a transfer. On behalf of these people I would like to ask the Minister whether or not the hospital will still be transferred separately from the overall transfer of the health care services. These people need to know the answer to that question.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: Our position is  and has been articulated a number of times in this House beginning with my predecessor, the current Minister of Justice, and continuing with myself  that there should be a two-stage transfer. The first stage should involve the transfer of the responsibility for the hospital, and attached to that, funding for the construction of a new hospital. The second stage should involve the community health services. Community health services are sensitive in a number of respects, including the fact that the aboriginal community has significant interests in this area, and there may be some self-government issues in the land claims negotiations that have some bearing on that matter.

For these reasons our preference has been, from the beginning, to have a two-stage transfer. The first stage involves the hospital and the commitment to funding and construction of a new hospital and the second stage involves the community health services.

I would say in passing that the extended care question is not necessarily related to this because the capital and operating costs would be the responsibility of the territorial government.

Mrs. Firth: I really hate to use up one of my supplementaries to get an answer to the question, but the Minister did not answer it.

The people who are delivering health services, the employees, simply want to know whether the hospital is going to be transferred separately from the whole transfer. We all know about the two-stage plan, but is it going to happen?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I believe that I answered the question as directly as possible. The intention of this government is that the hospital should be transferred as the first stage of a two-stage process of transferring health responsibilities to the territorial government. I indicated earlier and answered the question from the Member for Porter Creek West that the territorial government will only accept responsibility for the hospital if there is a financial commitment to construct a new hospital or to provide us with the money to construct a new hospital at the time of the transfer.

Mrs. Firth: This is the problem; we know that some consulting is going on. The classification working group is meeting. The union representatives are doing their job and, as the Minister said, hopefully this is going to be completed within the next few months.

The employees want to know what happens next. Does everyone just sit on their hands and wait for something to happen? What is the next move after they have completed that phase of the negotiations, and that is strictly regarding the employees?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: Obviously for us to establish the full cost of operating the service, we have to have completed the memorandum of understanding with the employees in order for us to put a calculation on the personnel costs of operating the hospital.

Among the financial commitments we will be looking for from the federal government are costs of meeting those personnel commitments and the cost of building a new hospital. I think the Member knows we do not have that commitment from the federal government yet. Until we do, the transfer will not take place, but that is what the negotiations are about. As soon as we have an agreement we will be moving expeditiously to effect a transfer.

Question re: Health services transfer

Mrs. Firth: I have to move into a new question, Mr. Speaker, because I had to use my supplementaries to get an answer.

The employees at the hospital are less optimistic today than they were seven months ago about the transfer and about their status. Aside from blaming the federal government, what has the Minister personally done or offered to the federal government in order to get this negotiation process moving?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: Short of describing the discussions that have taken place between myself and the federal Minister or between officials of this government and the federal government, which would not be proper or useful, I can tell the Member that we have attempted to suggest responses to the problems that have been identified by the federal government. We are working diligently now to try to reach an agreement.

The Member does not want to see me attaching blame to the federal government any more than I am sure she wants to attach blame to the territorial government, but one of the things affecting employee morale there right now is the situation of shrinking financial resources in that federal program. As the Member knows, there are fewer full-time positions there;  people have been turned into casual positions. That is causing insecurity and anxiety among the employees and we understand that.

Mrs. Firth: That may be one symptom of the low morale. A month ago the federal Minister of Health and Welfare visited the Yukon and met with this Minister of Health and no announcements were made. That has had a demoralizing effect on the employees at the hospital. From the information that the Minister has given to us today, he is telling us that he is not about to make any announcement.

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

Mrs. Firth: Yes, I will. He is not about to tell us what was discussed and we have a stalemate.

Could the Minister tell us when these people can expect some shreds of information about the future and about the transfer?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I believe that the process of developing a memorandum of understanding with representatives in the employee organizations has given people a much better understanding of what is going on. My discussions with federal health employees, including hospital workers, lead me to believe that they have a very high understanding of what is at stake.

To reiterate, we are talking largely about a matter of money. I, frankly - and very genuinely - believe that the Yukon would be foolish to accept responsibility for the old hospital without a financial commitment to build a new one, and I believe we would be foolish to accept responsibility for an entire service system without the financial resources to be able to carry it out. That would be an unfair burden on the taxpayers of the territory, given what is happening to health costs everywhere.

Finally, I do not believe that anybody in this government wants to compromise the very sensitive self-government negotiations in the community around land claims by being premature about the second stage of the health transfer.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I move that the House do now adjourn.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Government House Leader that the House do now adjourn.

Motion agreed to

Speaker: This House now stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. Monday next.

The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.

The following Sessional Papers were tabled November 16, 1989:

89-1-21

Report of the Chief Electoral Officer of Yukon on the 1989 General Election (Speaker - Johnston)

89-1-22

Report of the Chief Electoral Officer on Contributions to Candidates, General Election 1989 (Speaker)

89-1-23

Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Legislative Assembly of the Yukon Territory on the examination of accounts and financial transactions of the Government of the Yukon Territory for the year ended March 31, 1989 (Speaker)

89-1-24

The Yukon Human Rights Commission Report for the year ended March 31, 1989 (Speaker)

89-1-25

Report of the Clerk of Assembly on deductions from indemnities of Members pursuant to subsection 39(6) of the Legislative Assembly Act (Speaker)

89-1-26

Yukon Workers’ Compensation Board, 1988 Annual Report, for year ended December 31, 1988 (M. Joe)