Whitehorse, Yukon

Monday, April 18, 1994 - 1:30 p.m.

Page Number 2161

ELECTION OF SPEAKER

Clerk:

Hon. Members of the Assembly, on February 23, 1994, I received, from the Hon. Alan Nordling, the following communication addressed to me as Clerk of the Assembly:

"Yukon Legislative Assembly

"Office of the Speaker

"February 23, 1994

"Received 10:00 a.m., 94.02.23

"Patrick L. Michael

"Clerk of the Assembly

"Yukon Legislative Assembly

"Dear Mr. Michael:

"This letter is to serve as notice to the House of my resignation as Speaker effective February 23, 1994.

"Yours truly,

"Alan Nordling"

As required by law, nominations are invited for the office of Speaker of this Assembly.

Motion proposed

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I move

THAT Mr. John Devries, Member for the electoral district of Watson Lake, do take the Chair of this Assembly as Speaker.

Clerk:

It has been moved by the Hon. Mr. Ostashek

THAT Mr. John Devries, Member for the electoral district of Watson Lake, do take the Chair of this Assembly as Speaker.

Shall the motion nominating Mr. Devries carry?

Motion agreed to

Clerk:

I think the ayes have it, and, by direction of the Assembly, declare that Mr. John Devries has been duly elected as Speaker of this Assembly.

Speaker:

I will repeat the first words traditionally spoken by a newly elected Speaker.

"I would like to express my humble thanks and grateful acknowledgement to the House for the honour it has bestowed upon me by choosing me to be its Speaker.

I will now call the House to order.

We will proceed at this time with Prayers.

Prayers

Speaker:

Heavenly Father, Creator and Leader of all people: at the beginning of this session, we ask for guidance and wisdom in our deliberations during the coming days. We pray that You will help us work in a spirit of cooperation in the best interests of all Yukoners.

Amen.

INTRODUCTION OF PAGES

Speaker:

It gives me great pleasure to announce that the following students will be serving the House as legislative pages for the spring sitting. They are: Ilona Dougherty, Andrea Edmunds, Alexandra Gesheva, Kristin Grabowski, Erin Ireland, June Jules, Kathleen Milligan, Krissy Rodgers, Elizabeth Sullivan, Morgan Toombs and Kyla Wright, all from Christ the King Junior Secondary School in Whitehorse.

Today we have with us Ilona Dougherty and Kyla Wright. I would ask Members to welcome them to the House at this time.

Applause

DAILY ROUTINE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Speaker:

Before the introduction of visitors, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in the gallery of two former Speakers of the Yukon Legislative Assembly. They are Don Taylor and Sam Johnston.

Don Taylor represented the electoral district of Watson Lake from 1961 to 1985 and was the Speaker of the House from 1974 to 1985.

Sam Johnston represented the electoral district of Campbell from 1985 to 1992 and was the Speaker during those same years.

I would ask all Members to join with me in welcoming Mr. Taylor, his wife, Jenny, and Mr. Johnston and his wife, Kelly, to the House this afternoon.

Applause

Speaker:

Are there any other visitors to be introduced?

Are there any Returns or Documents for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I have some documents for tabling.

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

I have some legislative returns for tabling. They have been sent to all Members previously, I believe.

Speaker:

Are there any further Returns or Documents for tabling?

Are there any Reports of Committees?

Are there any Petitions?

Are there any Bills to be introduced?

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

Bill No. 16: Introduction and First Reading

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I move

THAT Bill No. 16, entitled Third Appropriation Act, 1993-94, be now introduced and read for the first time.

Speaker:

It has been moved by the Hon. Government Leader

THAT Bill No. 16, entitled Third Appropriation Act, 1993-94, be now introduced and read a first time.

Motion for introduction and first reading of Bill No. 16 agreed to

Speaker:

Are there any further Bills for introduction?

Are there any Notices of Motion for the Production of Papers?

Are there any Notices of Motion?

NOTICES OF MOTION

Mr. Penikett:

I give notice

THAT it is the opinion of the House that in a democratic society free collective bargaining is a fundamental right.

Mrs. Firth:

I give notice of the following motion:

THAT it is the opinion of the House that any wage restraint legislation introduced during the 1994 spring sitting should be called for debate on Monday and Wednesday evening in order to better accommodate the public.

Mr. Cable:

I give notice of the following motion:

THAT it is the opinion of the House that a special committee of this Legislature should be appointed: (a) to consult widely, analyze and to make recommendations regarding modernization and restructuring of Yukon's social security system and, (b) to examine and make recommendations on the role of non-governmental

Page Number 2162

organizations in the delivery of social programs.

Speaker:

Are there any Statements by Ministers?

This then brings us to the Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Question re: Government finances

Mr. Penikett:

Last year, the Government Leader bragged about the pure joy of negotiating a collective agreement with teachers. This year, the Government Leader says he cannot afford to negotiate with them.

Does the Government Leader intend to indicate by this statement that his government's finances are in worse shape this year than the year before?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

We have been very consistent in the message we have been putting out to the general public. When we took over government, the financial situation of this government was a mess, a total mess. We started with our first budget to establish the basis to correct that mess and we are continuing along that route.

Mr. Penikett:

With respect, the Government Leader did not answer the question. He has justified the removal of a basic, fundamental democratic right from a large group of Yukoners on the basis of financial need.

Last year he went to the negotiating table and negotiated with the teachers. This year he says he cannot afford to.

Is the Government Leader now saying that the government's finances, a year and a half into a Yukon Party administration, are worse now than last year when he bargained with teachers?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I believe that the hon. Member opposite will have to wait until the budget comes down.

Mr. Penikett:

The Government Leader has publicly boasted that retail trade numbers show signs of life in the Yukon economy and then he destroys consumer confidence in the public sector with his rollback and freeze announcement.

Could the Government Leader tell us exactly what his government hopes to achieve by abolishing the right of teachers and public employees to free collective bargaining - a right that Canadian working people fought and died to establish, and a right that he promised, during the last territorial election campaign, to respect?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

Perhaps I am in a better position to answer that question than the Minister of Finance and the Hon. Government Leader.

I should tell the Leader of the Official Opposition that we are prepared to sit down with the Yukon Teachers Association and the Yukon Government Employees Union to discuss extending their collective agreement for a three-year period. We have opened the door to that discussion and we have agreed to meet with the YTA on Wednesday afternoon. We hope to hear from the employees union so that we can meet with the YEU.

We certainly are not abolishing or abrogating a fundamental right; we are trying to negotiate with these unions within the financial constraints that this government is facing as an employer, and that every other government in Canada is facing.

Question re: Wage rollback/public sector

Mr. Penikett:

First I would say congratulations to the Minister of the Public Service Commission on his first question in that capacity. However, I would point out that the Minister is charged with the duty of conducting fair and honourable negotiations with public employees. He has said that he will talk to them but will not negotiate with them - a position that puts absolute power in the hands of the government.

Apart from the government's new-found majority, can the government or this Minister provide any moral justification for dictatorially imposing a wage package rather than democratically negotiating one?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

It is not our intention to dictatorially impose a wage settlement on either the YTA or the government employees union. What we have said is that we need a level of payroll savings. We are prepared to negotiate how to get those savings, and we are prepared to meet and negotiate, if the Leader of the Official Opposition likes that word, until May 20. If we cannot achieve an agreement by that time then we, as a government, are prepared to introduce wage restraint legislation.

It is our duty as a government to look after the finances of the territory, not just to be responsible to the YTA and the government employees union. We have to be responsible to other Yukoners and, with respect to the Yukon, within the country of Canada. We have a far broader responsibility than the union executives have. That is what we are trying to achieve and that is the responsibility we have.

Mr. Penikett:

Last year, the Yukon Teachers Association spent only seven and one-half days at the negotiating table and gave up $2 million, but this year the Minister responsible has told the media he does not believe the teachers are willing to negotiate the cutbacks he believes are necessary.

Let me ask the Minister this: on what basis does he makes that statement? Has he ever sat at the union negotiating table? Did he consult with the union prior to making the announcement about rollback legislation? Or has he, in a hop, skip and jump, gone magically from Speaker to Minister to God?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

No, I have not done that. That was the purview of the former Government Leader - he made hops from Government Leader to Premier and then to who knows where. He wore a crown for a long time.

I thank the Member for McIntyre-Takhini for his encouragement. He probably recognizes that the comment of the Leader of the Official Opposition was equally appropriate.

We plan to sit down with the unions, and we have a meeting set with the teachers. We will see where that takes us.

Mr. Penikett:

As the law requires, the Yukon Teachers Association has filed notice to bargain - not notice to chat, not notice to talk, but notice to bargain - for April 20 at the Westmark Hotel. Will the Government of Yukon attend those negotiations or will the Minister and Cabinet be instructing officials to break the law, just as they have done in the past with other laws, such as the Workers Compensation Act and the Environment Act?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

We will attend those meetings.

Question re: Wage rollback/public sector

Mr. Cable:

My question is for the Government Leader on the freezes and the rollbacks.

The Government Leader and the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission have, on various occasions, spoken about the government's financial objectives. When did the government first determine that it needed the freezes and the rollbacks to meet these financial objectives, whatever they might be?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I do not know where the Member opposite was during the last set of negotiations or when we put our last budget together. The Member opposite should be aware that we went into those negotiations looking for a five-percent rollback.

Mr. Cable:

That hardly answers the question.

On December 12, 1993, the government put out a news release relating to the near conclusion of the conciliation board hearings. It indicated that the offer made to the union was very fair and reasonable. It talked about a two-year collective agreement and a

Page Number 2163

wage freeze for two years. On March 10, we get this package that involves, in effect, a wage freeze for four years and a wage rollback.

What happened between December 12, 1993 and March 10, 1994, to change the Government Leader's mind on how he is going to approach this financial problem?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

The Member opposite has very carefully chosen different times of the past year on which to comment.

My first answer to the Member opposite is that we went into negotiations last year looking for a five-percent rollback. We did not achieve that. If the Member opposite wants to pick up comments, he should try and pick up some of the comments I made after we accepted the conciliation board report. We still had not achieved the savings we needed from the personnel costs of government. We would have to look at various ways to address that issue.

Mr. Cable:

I guess it is this need that we are trying to get our heads around.

Are there any briefing papers justifying the numbers that the government wants to achieve with respect to these financial objectives - documents that could be given to the public, Official Opposition and other Opposition Members - that could justify these numbers and the two-percent rollback?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

As I told the Leader of the Official Opposition, the Member for Riverside will have to wait for the budget.

Question re: Wage rollback/public sector

Ms. Moorcroft:

I have a question for the Government Leader.

In May 1993, the Government Leader said, "Certainly unions have a role to play in the workplace as the bargaining unit for all employees. Through that type of an organization, employees can make their concerns known." Have the Government Leader's views on collective bargaining changed since the former Speaker joined the Cabinet?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

No, not at all.

Ms. Moorcroft:

There is a revelation for you. It seems the government only believes in the right to collective bargaining when it is convenient for it to do so. Why is the government now overriding the bargaining process, if the Government Leader does believe what he said he believed in May 1993?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

Our position, as a government, and my position, as the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission, is not that we disagree with collective bargaining. We have to face the realities of the country today. We are trying to do that in conjunction with the unions. We do not feel we can do it within the collective bargaining process, per se, because of what has happened with the collective bargaining process in the past.

Ms. Moorcroft:

The Minister speaks of what has happened in the collective bargaining process in the past. For example, the Yukon Teachers Association negotiated a settlement that resulted in monetary concessions and payroll savings of $2 million. Young teachers have lost their increments based on teaching experience.

Why is the government targeting young teachers for its unjustified cuts?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

We have heard that concern expressed, and we will be addressing that. If the Member has any other suggestions on how to make the cuts and rollbacks equitable across all employee groups, then we are prepared to listen to them.

Question re: Wage rollback/public sector

Ms. Moorcroft:

The world of commerce is predicated on the belief that a deal is a deal. This is a government of businessmen. Does the Government Leader believe a deal is a deal?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

We believe a deal is a deal, and that is why whatever happens will not take effect until the collective bargaining agreements now in place expire.

Ms. Moorcroft:

During the public sector negotiations last year the government, although reluctantly, signed a conciliation board report. No Member of the government Cabinet, past or present, can have been deaf to the public scrutiny in the Legislature on this issue.

Why is the government trying to make future cuts under the guise of reopening the current agreement?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

We are not reopening the current agreement. There are clauses in both agreements that will allow the agreements to be extended by mutual consent.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Perhaps my final supplementary will be to ask the Government Leader to give us his meaning of the word "autocratic".

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I have no comment on that.

Question re: Wage rollback/public sector

Ms. Moorcroft:

The government has always trusted Statistics Canada. Last week Statistics Canada stated that the Yukon has no deficit and that we are in better financial shape than any other Canadian jurisdiction. Why is the government suggesting that things are so tough that they have to legislate a three-year wage rollback?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I should thank the Member opposite for that question. I thought that might be the lead-off question by the Leader of the Official Opposition.

The fact remains that the report completed by Statistics Canada has no basis in relationship to consolidated or unconsolidated financial statements of government. It is based on a method that they use for measuring the level of debt within jurisdictions. While there may be some merit to it, there is some fallacy in saying that we have a net worth that we cannot really get our hands on to spend.

If you would bear with me, Mr. Speaker, I would like to elaborate on the Member's question. The figure contained in the Statistics Canada report was based on March 31, 1992, figures, at a time when this territory had a very healthy $50 million surplus.

Ms. Moorcroft:

The Government Leader must know that his government's "crying poor" position will not stand up to scrutiny, particularly when this government brings in such repeatedly high budgets. The budgets introduced by this government are higher than those we have seen previously in this Legislature.

Why is the government going to take forward an indefensible position to the unions in calling for these unjustifiable rollbacks?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I do not believe that we are taking forward an indefensible position at all. I guess that we are going to have to educate the Members opposite a bit further about government finances. The Members opposite did not do a very good job when they were in power, and it seems that they still do not seem to have a grasp of finances.

The fact remains that the Auditor General said that we had a $64 million deficit in the 1992-93 fiscal year.

Ms. Moorcroft:

The fact remains that this government will talk, but they will not negotiate an agreement. I can only speculate that they are afraid to give and take, and do not want to come to the table for that reason.

Why is the government afraid of the prospect of arbitration or conciliation?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

As the Member opposite knows, it has been said before in the House. We were seeking payroll savings in the last conciliation with the Government Employees Union. We did not achieve that. The Yukon Teachers Association contributed, on a per capita basis, $1,344. The PSAC agreement,

Page Number 2164

reached by conciliation, resulted in an equivalent contribution of only $780 per capita. What we are trying to do is even the burden among all employee groups. We do not feel that this can be done through traditional collective bargaining.

Question re: Wage rollback/public sector

Mr. McDonald:

I have a question for the Minister of Finance. The Minister has today reminded us that his government has been seeking rollbacks in public service wages: five percent last year, and this year two percent. Can the Minister tell us precisely what savings, in dollar terms, he wishes to achieve through this initiative?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

It will come out with the budget.

Mr. McDonald:

I am not sure whether it will come out through the budget or not. Certainly, many issues will be addressed at that time, and this will be one of them.

Ministers on the government side have indicated that the initiative to roll back public service wages was, in large part, an effort to fight the federal debt. What is the Finance Minister's view with respect to Yukon's unilateral and special actions to fight the federal debt, apart from and outside of the federal formula financing negotiations?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I do not recall any of my Ministers saying that the rollbacks were to fight the federal debt. I think there seems to be a lot of confusion at the insistence of the Members opposite, who try to mix up figures, such as in the press release put out by the Leader of the Official Opposition, telling the public about how much money we have.

The fact remains, we have had every signal from the federal government that our funding is going to be cut dramatically over the next three years. In fact, the Minister of Justice just returned from a conference in Ottawa, where he was told they were going to take $6 billion out of transfer payments to the territories and the provinces out of the capital assistance programs, within three years. We would be fiscally irresponsible if we did not start preparing for those cuts.

Mr. McDonald:

The Minister has a record of rolling over for the federal government finance policy long before negotiations are even concluded - witness the tax increases that took place last year.

What I would like to ask the Minister is whether or not the formula financing negotiations have in fact been concluded and whether or not the initiatives that the government is taking now to fight the federal debt - as the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission has indicated - are in direct response to the formula financing negotiations that have been undertaken and are now presumably complete.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I can assure the Member opposite that that is not the case.

Question re: Policies of government

Mrs. Firth:

My question is for the Government Leader. We have heard many promises from this government, both during the election campaign and during the sittings of the Legislative Assembly. Yukoners have been promised everything from an ombudsperson to protect people from the power of government, to an energy policy, to conflict-of-interest legislation, access-to-information legislation, a policy for boards and committees, increasing self-sufficiency and new schools. None of that has been fulfilled yet. The agenda for this session is very thin, to say the least. It is mostly carryovers from the last session and previous governments.

I would like to ask the Government Leader if he can tell us whether we will have policies in these areas this session, or not?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I believe we have policies. The Member is talking about legislation for an ombudsperson, freedom of information, and those sorts of things - we are working on them. The departments are working on them now and we hope to have a very heavy legislative agenda for the fall session. The first 15 months that we have been in office have been dealing with the financial resources situation that was left to us by the Members opposite. Those had to be put in order first so that we can get on with our legislative agenda.

Mrs. Firth:

I could not have predicted it if I had tried. We hear from the Government Leader and the other Ministers that they are working on it, that it is coming before Cabinet very soon, and it will be here in the next session. We have been listening to that for 15 months and we are still waiting. All we are trying to do is get information that the general public would appreciate.

I would like to ask the Government Leader exactly what he and his colleagues hope to accomplish during this sitting of the Legislative Assembly, other than passing their budget?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I believe that information has already been given to the Member opposite. There is some legislation on the legislative calendar yet that has to be completed. There is some housekeeping legislation to be brought in and our O&M budget, which will help to set a solid financial footing so that we can get on with some long-range planning for the territory. The Member opposite spoke of a lot of things we said - we said that over a four-year mandate, not over a 15-month mandate.

Mrs. Firth:

A lot is going to happen in that last fourth year.

This proves the accusations that are being made. This government has no agenda; it is unorganized; it is moving from crisis to crisis - it is a government that could not even get a suggestion box up.

I would like to ask the Government Leader now, at the beginning of this session, if he will today stand up and tell Yukoners why they should have any confidence in this government or anything it does. Why should Yukoners have any confidence in these people?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I think Yukoners have every reason to be confident in this government - every reason. This is a government that has not been afraid to make the hard decisions that the previous administration for seven and one-half years would not, and was just satisfied to pour out money, pour out money, pour out money and to continue on that path. When they were given a very lucrative formula financing agreement in 1985, they did not even have the political courage to live up to it, and they were penalized in 1989 with a perversity factor. They blew it.

Question re: Policies of government

Mr. McDonald:

One of the things we have to bear in mind, of course, is that the government was spending loads and loads more money than the NDP government had to spend, yet they still have only a one-track mind. One of the things they have done is to announce their long-awaited industrial support and industrial electricity policies a few weeks ago. It is fairly obvious from first reading that the policies lack specifics that one would consider essential for these policies to have any particular use.

To begin, could I ask the Minister to explain why the government chose to embrace a policy that varies the amount of public support for an industrial project according to a perceived notion of the economic return to the Yukon. I would just point out that I think it was the Chamber of Mines, was it not, that advocated a policy of not playing favourites. What is the government's rationale for this?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I believe that is exactly what the policy is trying to address: that we do not play favourites. As the Member opposite is aware, we talk about an industrial support policy. It started out to be an energy support policy and we changed it to an industrial support policy so that it could cover more than just

Page Number 2165

power. The Member opposite, having been around the Yukon for a long time, knows that there are mines that are many, many miles away from a grid. Other ones may be on a grid. Some may only have a few employees. Some may have a tremendous number of employees and tremendous spinoff benefits to the Yukon. What we have set out is a broad range of principles under which we can negotiate a policy that will help with the startup costs of the different industrial projects that come along.

I want to make it very clear at this point that this is not a subsidy policy.

Mr. McDonald:

We will see.

As general as it is, the policy does contain some very general guidelines. One that did not appear to be included was that industrial proponents had to use at least one megawatt of electricity. This is something the Government Leader let the media know.

Can the Minister tell us why this fundamental underpinning of this policy was left out? Are there any other fundamental underpinnings that have to be inserted at some point in the future?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I am not sure if the Member opposite has read the policy or not, but if he had turned to page 6, he would see that the one megawatt is addressed.

Mr. McDonald:

The policy the Minister has introduced does not incorporate the one megawatt feature as a fundamental underpinning. In fact, he admits to that fact to the media in a news transcript of Monday, April 11.

Can the Minister tell us why he would not have known what was in the policy, and why he would have admitted to the fact that there were errors made in the printing of the policy? Why would he say what he said on April 11 and change his mind now?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

It is not a matter of changing my mind. It is right there in the policy.

When I was approached by the reporter who was interviewing me, I told her I thought it was in the policy. She informed me it was not. I said that, if it was not, it was an oversight and it would be. On page 6, it states quite clearly that large industrial customers are those who use more than one megawatt of electricity. It is quite clear.

Question re: Wage rollback/public sector

Mr. Cable:

I have some questions for the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission on these wage rollbacks and freezes.

There have been a number of news articles published recently carrying statements about comparative wage levels of the Yukon versus other jurisdictions. There were some bar charts produced in one of the news media. They look something like this.

Presumably, these documents were supplied by the government. I have heard some comments that might suggest that there are some reservations about the wage and salary levels in the public service.

Is it the government's position that the members of the Yukon Teachers Association and the government union are overpaid in relation to other jurisdictions, or in relation to the Yukon private sector?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

No, that is not the question. The question is not whether or not the teachers and Yukon government employees are overpaid or underpaid. The question is what we, as a government, can afford to pay them today and over the next three years.

Mr. Cable:

Coincidentally, I was looking through some documents from the statistics branch called spatial price indices. The Edmonton spatial price indices in relation to Whitehorse shows, in all items, the price indices at 125.3. This would indicate a 25-percent difference in price indices.

When the government released these bar charts, if in fact it did, to the news media, did it include this other information, which would allow people to draw a more favourable conclusion to the union?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

For the Member opposite's information, all things were taken into consideration. The one thing the Member opposite is missing is that because of that price differential, we do have a northern living allowance.

Mr. Cable:

Would the Government Leader assure this House that what is driving the wage freeze and rollback is simply a financial problem that has nothing to do with the wage levels either in comparison with other jurisdictions or in relation to the Yukon private sector?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I have no problem assuring the hon. Member opposite, this House or Yukoners that it is, in fact, being driven by financial problems, the balancing of our budget and getting the costs of O&M of government down - nothing else.

The fact remains that we have a general idea of what our revenues are going to be. If we allow the O&M of government to keep going up and up, as the previous administration did, we will not have money for capital projects such as building schools and other things like that.

Our discretionary capital is very small in relation to what the Members opposite had to work with when they were in power.

Question re: Devries, comments re Kaska Forest Products

Mr. Harding:

I have a question for the Government Leader, who does finances like he does geography.

I would like to ask the Government Leader about the MLA for Watson Lake, who recently made a public offer of support for the Kaska Forest Products timber harvest agreement, conditional upon their support for forestry devolution. In the wake of his announcement, the Government Leader, the MLA for Watson Lake and the Cabinet communications advisor have all claimed that the MLA was speaking as a concerned individual, rather than as an MLA, in taking this position.

I would like to ask the Government Leader what he meant by his statement that the Watson Lake MLA was speaking as a concerned citizen and not as the MLA for the area on this subject?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

For the information of the Member opposite, I believe what I gave the news interview is that this was what I was told by the Member. The Member qualified his remarks at the meeting prior to making them. The Member stated that he was speaking as a concerned citizen of the Watson Lake area.

Mr. Harding:

I find the Government Leader's answer confusing, because I have in my hand a letter dated March 17, 1994, that I will table, signed by the Member for Watson Lake, which was written to the federal government about Kaska Forest Product's timber harvest agreement.

The letter begins by saying, "As the MLA for the area..." and then goes on to say, "...as well, the final assignment should be conditional on the transfer of forest resources to YTG by the fall of 1994."

To say that the MLA for Watson Lake took this position as anything other than a Yukon Party caucus bag man is ridiculous.

I ask the Government Leader: where is the honesty and integrity in his government?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I stated quite clearly that a decision was made at the Cabinet level. The discussion pertaining to raw log exports has never come back up for Cabinet discussion. Our position was made quite clear publicly and nothing has changed since then.

Mr. Harding:

Why would the Government Leader, the MLA for the area and the Cabinet communications advisor make

Page Number 2166

statements that the MLA was speaking as anything other than a Member of the Yukon Party caucus, when they knew that this was not the case - witness this March 17, 1994 letter.

I want to know what this government is going to do to rectify this very embarrassing situation?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

The Member opposite may think that the situation is embarrassing; I do not at all.

As I said, when I talked to the Member for Watson Lake, he quite clearly stated to me that he was speaking as a concerned citizen of Watson Lake.

Question re: RCMP response time

Ms. Commodore:

My question is for the Minister responsible for Justice.

Late Friday night, on March 15, 1994, an incident occurred that resulted in the tragic death of a man. There is some suggestion by people who were there that the death may have been prevented if the call for help to the RCMP had been acted upon right away.

Can the Minister confirm that it took almost 30 minutes for police officers to respond after the first call for help went out?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

I really do not know what incident the hon. Member opposite is referring to. Perhaps she could provide me with the information, I would be happy to make inquiries into this matter and get back to her.

Ms. Commodore:

I am speaking about the death of a man, which occurred in front of the Pioneer Inn on Friday night. I am sure the Minister must listen to the news. He is the Minister of Justice and he should be aware of these situations.

The Minister has already announced that there are going to be a number of cutbacks in his area and I am just wondering whether or not he can confirm today that there will be a YTG cutback to RCMP funding.

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

I am sure this is somehow related to the first question. The position with regard to the RCMP funding will be made abundantly clear when the budget is tabled on Thursday.

Ms. Commodore:

My final supplementary: can the Minister confirm that the slow response to the call for help on Friday night was due to insufficient personnel on duty that night, because that is the suggestion made by people who were there?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

I will certainly look into this matter and report back to the Member.

Question re: Community meetings

Mrs. Firth:

I have a question for the Government Leader. The Government Leader and his colleagues have travelled around the territory visiting the communities, asking Yukoners for their input and their feedback with respect to government. The last visit was to the community of Teslin. It has been announced that the tour is now over and that the government has heard all they need to hear, yet the people in Riverdale South were not offered a meeting - the people in all of Riverdale were not offered a meeting because the government spokesperson said that they ran out of time.

I would like to ask the Government Leader why this government does not have time for the people in Riverdale?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I did not know that we had barriers between different districts in Whitehorse. We did have one meeting in Porter Creek. It was our intention to have another meeting downtown but time did run out.

Mrs. Firth:

Now we find out that the government did not have time for two areas in Whitehorse: for Riverdale and for downtown. At the time of the announcement of the Porter Creek meeting, my office phoned the Cabinet offices and we were told that there was going to be another meeting held in Whitehorse. We were told very specifically that there would be another meeting. I would like to ask the Government Leader why they backed out on that meeting and why they do not have time to meet with the people in Riverdale or in the downtown area?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

It was our intention to have another meeting in Whitehorse prior to this session coming in but because of having to switch dates on a couple of the community meetings, and Ministers being away, it was just not possible. We may have a meeting in Whitehorse in the very near future.

Mrs. Firth:

We have heard that line and had that promise from this Government Leader lots of times before.

I want to know if the Government Leader recognizes the fact that different areas of Whitehorse have different concerns and different needs. If he recognizes that they do, will he schedule meetings for people in the Riverdale area and for people in the downtown area?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I was not aware that the needs of Whitehorse residents pertaining to the Yukon government were that much different from one riding to another when one is talking about the City of Whitehorse. If we can find time during this busy session to have the meeting in Whitehorse, we may just do that after we table the budget.

Speaker:

The time for Question Period has now elapsed.

We will proceed to Orders of the Day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Speaker:

Government Bills.

GOVERNMENT BILLS

Bill No. 40: Second Reading

Clerk:

Second reading, Bill No. 40, standing in the name of the Hon. Mr. Fisher.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I move that Bill No. 40, entitled Subdivision Act, be now read a second time.

Speaker:

It has been moved by the hon. Minister of Community and Transportation Services that Bill No. 40, entitled Subdivision Act, be now read a second time.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

The Subdivision Act has been introduced to provide a means for the Yukon government to guide and regulate the subdivision of rural lands under its jurisdiction. Presently, the Yukon government has no comprehensive, legal way to deal with the subdivision of Commissioner's land or privately titled land outside municipal boundaries.

At the outset, I want to emphasize very clearly the intent of this legislation. It is to provide government with the ability to coordinate the potential subdivision of lands with other land uses. It is an act to facilitate fair and expeditious processing of applications to subdivide when they occur but, at the same time, to also provide government with the means to refuse an application where a subdivision would not be in the best interests of all concerned.

I anticipate that any outright refusal to subdivide would be few and far between and would be clearly based on local area zoning criteria or regulation, which will be developed under this act.

Even in the case of a refusal, an applicant will have the right to appeal the decision to an independent board, which will have the power to overturn or vary earlier decisions.

Although the Yukon government has the authority to implement legislation to provide statutory authority over subdivision of Commissioner's land, up until now it has been federal legislation that regulates most subdivision of land in the Yukon Territory under a variety of federal acts.

Even then, the federal legislation only gives the Commissioner the power to amend or approve a subdivision plan for land outside

Page Number 2167

municipalities, but no authority to refuse a subdivision application, even if good reasons for such refusal exist.

The authority of government to regulate the subdivision of land under its jurisdiction is not a new or radical concept. Across Canada, legislation for the subdivision of land can be found in almost every provincial jurisdiction, at many regional and district levels, and in most municipalities.

In the Yukon, municipalities were given the authority to make bylaws for overseeing the subdivision of land within their boundaries in 1983 with the passage of amendments to the Municipal Act. The City of Whitehorse is the only municipality that has exercised that authority so far. The remaining municipalities have opted to let the Yukon government handle land matters within their boundaries. Throughout the rest of the Yukon, each application from an owner to subdivide their land has, until now, been handled separately in accordance with existing zoning regulations issued under the Area Development Act.

The primary method has been to apply minimum lot size criteria, associated with specific land use zones, and subdivision has not been permitted for smaller lots.

Under the lands regulations and the agricultural area development regulations, land that has been disposed of under the Yukon agricultural program, which is classified as agricultural, cannot presently be subdivided without written consent of the Commissioner.

As we all know, agricultural land in the Yukon is in very short supply. For this reason, it is our view that what little agricultural land is available must be used for agricultural purposes and protected from subdivision into smaller lots. We are particularly concerned with the potential for agricultural land to be converted to another use, such as for rural residential through subdivision.

Therefore, the Subdivision Act will continue the policy of preventing subdivision of agricultural land. This will apply to all agricultural land previously disposed of by either the federal or Yukon governments, where the disposition was clearly made for agricultural purposes, or agricultural and other purposes.

For all other land in the Yukon, the introduction of this act, for the first time, gives the Yukon government authority to oversee orderly subdivision in areas where planning and zoning have not been developed or implemented. However, in this regard, it is not a planning act, nor is it an act to deal with or resolve land use conflicts. Rather, it provides a fair and reasonable way for government to guide subdivision of lands upon application, and to ensure that no unreasonable impediments are placed in the way of a subdivision proposal that meets current demands and requirements.

The act is designed to provide the immediate authority for the Yukon government to prevent uncontrolled subdivision while we thoroughly consult with the public on detailed regulations.

The regulations will contain the detailed standards and guidelines for application procedures, location requirements and prohibitions, environmental requirements, lot sizes, design specifications, fees and other matters required to implement the act. It is my intention to obtain substantial public input on drafting the regulations, immediately following the passage of this bill, and for them to be in place in early spring of 1994.

As a result of discussions I have already had with Members of the Opposition on the act itself, I will be proposing two amendments to the bill during clause-by-clause debate in Committee of the Whole.

There are several important principles contained in the proposed Subdivision Act, which I would like to draw to your attention. Number 1: subdivision of lands would be considered to be both the creation of smaller parcels of land from an existing parcel, as well as the consolidation of several existing parcels into a new parcel.

Provision of the act will apply to all Commissioner's land and private title lands, but not to federal Crown land, First Nations settlement lands or lands within municipal boundaries. In the latter case, the Municipal Act allows municipalities to control subdivision within municipal boundaries, as I mentioned earlier. Only the City of Whitehorse has exercised this authority to adopt their own subdivision control bylaw. The remaining incorporated municipalities may do the same thing, if they wish, or provision has been made to allow the approving officer under this act to also be appointed as approving authority for subdivision under the Municipal Act.

Since the Municipal Act also makes provision for regulations to control subdivision, it would be prudent to adopt similar regulations under that act as well, to be developed following public consultation under the Subdivision Act to guide subdivision within municipalities where they do not have their own bylaw. This will present no real change from the existing situation for those municipalities that accept application of Yukon government land legislation within their boundaries. Full input from individual municipal councils will be encouraged during the regulation-making process.

The act establishes the requirement for land owners to apply to the Yukon government for approval to subdivide their land and sets up a two-step procedure for dealing with applications. The first step allows the land owner to receive a decision on their proposals before incurring any large survey or drafting expenses.

The second step, following approval of an application, involves the preparation of a plan of subdivision in accordance with the conditions of approval, which can then be registered with land titles branch.

The act provides a mechanism for government to process applications to subdivide on both zoned and unzoned lands. Applications to subdivide lands that have been zoned or otherwise identified pursuant to any planning scheme must conform to the provisions of that planning scheme. A planning scheme will be considered to be any land use plan, land use policy or land use regulation made pursuant to other acts.

For example, the existing 1992 agricultural policy, which prevents subdivision of agricultural land, will be considered to be a planning scheme. In areas where no planning schemes are in place, the approving officer will be guided by regulations that will reflect standard land use planning practices and other technical land development requirements.

An appeal mechanism is introduced whereby applicants dissatisfied with the decision made on their application may appeal to an independent board that will have the power to confirm, vary or reverse the decision and/or impose additional conditions.

The act makes provision for land to be provided from proposed subdivision lands that may be required for public uses, such as highways, utilities or reserves. This will ensure that lands that may be necessary for parks, recreation and schools, which could result from additional residents, will be available.

The ability to ensure that conditions of approval are carried out, or that other things that were not approved are not done with respect to any subdivision development or to enforce stoppage of unapproved subdivision development, is also provided in the act.

I would point out that, as the largest developer of subdivisions in the territory, the Yukon government will be guided by the provisions of this act and its regulations when developing future subdivisions, particularly on rural lands.

Where we develop land for municipalities, such as the City of Whitehorse, their bylaws will, of course, still apply. The Subdivision Act is, in my opinion, an essential piece of legislation, as the Yukon government moves toward increased responsibility for

Page Number 2168

land management in the Yukon. It follows on the heels of transfer of the land titles legislation to Yukon jurisdiction last summer and is one more step in our desire to devolve more responsibility and more Yukon lands from federal control to local control and management.

At the same time, introduction of this act reflects our desire to continue to improve our land management program throughout the territory. I will be bringing other related land management matters before this House in future sessions.

Ms. Moorcroft:

The Opposition caucus, and I, as critic for Community and Transportation Services, would like to state that we agree that the Yukon government has a responsibility to prepare legislation, which controls and guides applications to subdivide land throughout the Yukon. Further, I agree that the Yukon government should receive and process applications to subdivide land in an orderly and rational manner. Certainly, they should engage in a fair and reasonable process and plan future infrastructure and service requirements.

Having said that, I do have some questions and concerns that I would like to put before the Minister. I hope that he can address some of these concerns in his closing remarks, as well as during debate in Committee.

I would like to know where the initiative, specifically for a subdivision act, comes from. What province is this government emulating? Every other jurisdiction has a planning act that includes one section about subdivisions. The Minister talked about local area zoning and land use planning. I would like the Minister to answer the question why this government has not brought forward a planning act, which covers land use planning, zoning, development and subdivisions.

The Progressive Conservative government brought in a Land Planning Act in 1982, which has not been either proclaimed or repealed. That was 12 years ago, and many things have taken place regarding land use during that period of time. We certainly are not advocating that the government have that outdated act proclaimed, but we are asking why they are taking the particular approach of having only a Subdivision Act?

The Minister also referred to the Land Titles Act, and I would like to have the Minister address the question of whether the transfer of authority was completed. Are land titles now completely under the jurisdiction of the territorial government, or are there some remains of federal jurisdiction? I would also like to know if amendments to the Land Titles Act will be required. If so, when will that take place?

I would also like to know about other federal and territorial statutes such as the Canada Lands Survey Act and the Lands Act.

This act requires regulations to come into force. The Minister has said that they will be hoping to introduce those regulations next spring. Will the regulations govern survey requirements? Will the government also have regulations respecting the subdivision provisions of the Municipal Act? Without those regulations, we are left in the dark about the government's real intentions about land use. I certainly have heard some concerns about that.

This act establishes an approving officer. A subdivision occurs where, "in the opinion of the approving officer," land is best suited to the purpose for which the subdivision is intended. This will give government the upper hand in managing people's private property. Opinions are discretionary. Does the government want certainty? Or was it this government's intent to have discretionary authority there?

Our primary concern is that the act does not recognize the planning process as valid and "in the opinion of", as a statutory phrase, is not a phrase that has been used in recent legislation. Planning is a participatory process. It is a backwards step to authorize a civil servant to make discretionary decisions.

One particular section of this act - subsection 26.(2) - says that the subdivision regulations operate notwithstanding any planning schemes. The Hamlet of Lorne Mountain and the Hamlet of Ibex Valley both strongly support planning schemes being meaningful, which means that they must be taken into account when considering adjacent subdivisions.

The Ibex Valley residents, in particular, are concerned about a number of land planning-related issues. They are curious about why the land use planning project in the Hamlet of Ibex Valley has been put on hold, while the zoning regulations process is taking place now in the Hootalinqua North area.

The Ibex Valley residents are also concerned about the proposed Stevens subdivision, which poses a number of problems to the existing residents' use and enjoyment of their property, not to mention serious environment problems affecting both people and wildlife in the area.

The residents, however, cannot get a clear fix on what the Minister, or this government as a whole, considers compatible land use. Is a gravel pit compatible with a country residential subdivision? If so, what else is compatible - a hazardous-waste facility? An abattoir? It would be helpful if this act spelled out what is, or is not, a compatible use.

Does the Minister believe in planning? A good public planning process - for example, the recently completed process in Mount Lorne, where all that remains is to sign and approve the final version of the plan - minimizes land use conflicts. In the Minister's own riding, he wants to make extensive revisions to zoning regulations without applying resources to planning. This approach will potentially increase, not reduce, land use conflicts.

There are also a number of questions regarding the compatibility of proposed Municipal Act amendments regarding subdivision and what the Subdivision Act provides. There are a couple of amendments to the Municipal Act contained in the Subdivision Act.

The Association of Yukon Communities has recently adopted a resolution put forward by the City of Whitehorse, recommending that public notification and public hearings be eliminated once a development agreement has been reached between a developer and the municipality. Their proposal was that the public notification of subdivision applications be considered prior to a decision being made.

Many of my constituents in Pineridge, Wolf Creek and Mary Lake used that exact process to raise their concerns about a development agreement between a municipality and a developer. So far, the Minister has been silent on this dangerous recommendation that would deny residents an opportunity for input into a specific agreement that could seriously affect them.

I would like the Minister to address the questions about the compatibility of the proposed Municipal Act amendments regarding subdivision and how the Subdivision Act applies.

There is another major concern and related concern that the Subdivision Act does not mesh well with the spirit of the umbrella final agreement, in particular chapter 11 on land use planning. In the umbrella final agreement, the regional land use planning process in the Yukon shall "be linked to all other land and water planning and management processes established by government and Yukon First Nations, minimizing where practicable any overlap or redundancy between the land use planning process and those other processes."

I would like to ask if the Minister has talked to Yukon First Nations, who we know want a freeze on land dispositions until land claims are settled. What about progress in the area of establishing regional land use planning councils pursuant to chapter 11 of the umbrella final agreement? Has any progress been made?

Page Number 2169

Does the Minister anticipate large block land transfers to the Yukon government to enable the Subdivision Act to have meaning? Will the government approve subdivisions prior to land claims?

Agriculture and agricultural land parcels are issues that have caused grief because of the many different kinds of rules affecting the subject. Presently, with the Commissioner's written consent, an agricultural parcel can be subdivided under the agriculture development area regulations of 1989. Does the Subdivision Act restriction mean that agricultural parcels will never be able to be subdivided?

Prior to 1982, approximately 40 agricultural parcels were issued under the federal government, with no subdivision restrictions. Will the Subdivision Act apply to those parcels?

Between 1982 and 1991, the Yukon government released approximately 164 agricultural parcels, some with a subdivision restriction, some without. I would like the Minister to make clear what happens to these now. Will the restrictions apply in each and every case, regardless of whether there was a caveat on the parcel initially?

The Yukon Agricultural Association supports agricultural subdivision where the agricultural parcel is class 6 or 7 land, or non-arable. This raises the question of whether it is appropriate to speculate on agricultural land for the purpose of future subdivision. I would like to ask the Minister if he can clarify the Yukon Party government position on that.

Who has large parcels of land other than agricultural holdings? In the end, to whom will the Subdivision Act apply?

The Canada Land Surveyors Association is one of a variety of groups and organizations who have expressed displeasure about this bill and this Minister's approach to land use planning. The Association of Canada Land Surveyors was concerned that it was not consulted in the preparation of Bill No. 40, in spite of its expertise and experience in carrying out subdivisions in the Yukon and elsewhere.

I would like to ask the Minister to summarize whether the association is satisfied now, and to comment on the survey process, which was the area of their main concern.

White Pass had told the Minister that they considered the draft act seriously flawed. I would like to ask the Minister to articulate for us what has been done to address those concerns.

Finally, the issue of second dwellings is one that is definitely related to this act. In December 1992, there was an order-in-council amending the Area Development Act to legalize second detached dwellings. The Minister indicated that 81 percent of Laberge residents supported this. In addition, I am aware that the Minister had made the suggestion to a constituent of his that the problem of trailers being evicted from the Kopper King Trailer Court that were more than 10 years old and could not be moved to anywhere else in the city might be solved by making them and placing them as a second dwellings in an area outside the city limits. There had been assurances by the Minister that second dwellings would be subject to standards, inspections and permitting.

The legitimization of second dwellings has created greater pressure to subdivide from both owners and the public. What is the government's position on this and how does the Subdivision Act deal with it?

In closing, there is a need for land use planning to be recognized as a legitimate process. My concern about the Subdivision Act is that it is bypassing important concerns about land use planning. I would like to ask the Minister to respond to these concerns and let him know that I will have questions during Committee debate.

Mrs. Firth:

I share many of the concerns that have been raised by the previous speaker, and I am looking forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

I also want to raise a couple of concerns of my own, the first being specifically with respect to the regulations and the lack of regulations being presented with this piece of legislation.

The Minister did offer us an opportunity for a briefing session, and I took advantage of that. It indicated to me that it was more important than ever that we have regulations accompany this legislation when it is tabled and debated in the Legislature. From the Minister's comments, I am not quite clear whether we are going to have regulations this spring, or not until next spring. Perhaps he could clarify that for us.

My concern with the regulations is that there are several clauses in this piece of legislation that give a lot of authority and power to the approving officer. Without knowing what guidelines or regulations the approving officer is going to be bound by, it gives that individual a tremendous amount of power, authority and subjective decision making.

An example is clause 17(e), dealing with procedure, which gives the approving officer the ability to impose any additional conditions on the application that he or she considers necessary in the circumstances. That is a very wide, open concept that allows the approving officer to do just about whatever they want to do and make whatever decision they have to make to suit their purposes.

We have to have some regulations to clarify what the additional conditions are, what the necessary circumstances may be, and so on.

Also, the highways public utility requirements and reserves, clause 20(3), indicates that the approving officer may require that these areas be provided as reserves, in addition to the reserves to be provided under (2). Again, that allows them a lot of authority and power in decision making without us, as legislators, knowing exactly within what parameters and guidelines they will be making those decisions.

As the other speaker indicated, the legislation is a very general piece of legislation. I share the concern about the planning scheme and process. During the briefing the Minister provided, we were told -

The Member just indicated to me that she was not allowed a briefing. I will have to let her address that. The Minister may want to address that in his comments. I was offered a briefing by the Minister, and I took advantage of that. I had an opportunity to sit down with the individuals from the department who were instrumental in drafting up the legislation and who, I suppose, may one day end up being the approving officer under this new piece of legislation.

Perhaps the government Members did not offer to other Members of the Opposition the same briefing I was offered.

I was discussing the comment about this planning scheme. At the briefing, it was indicated to me that the authority of the approving officer was going to be bound and governed by the planning schemes in place. There is nothing here that indicates when the planning schemes are going to be in place, who has authority, who will be making up the planning schemes, what weight they are going to have, whether the officer has to be bound by those planning schemes, or whether they can deviate from them. Again, I anticipate that that is something that should be specified in the regulations.

There are some political decisions that have to be made with respect to the principles of this legislation. I have not seen or heard anything from the Minister to indicate even what the basic principles are. For example, what are the allowable property sizes going to be? There was some discussion about six hectares in the briefing session, but it was indicated to me that there had to be a

Page Number 2170

political decision made with respect to this issue. So far, the Minister has not indicated whether that principle has been addressed.

I would like to know what kind of consultation has been held with the Association of Canada Land Surveyors. I know there is a letter on record requesting that they be consulted, and their input sought. I would like the Minister to address that issue today and tell us whether they have been consulted and to what extent, and whether or not they are supportive of the general direction of the government in respect to this piece of legislation.

I have not really decided whether this is a subdivision act that supports subdividing, or whether it is one that indeed controls it, as the explanatory note to the legislation says, "control of subdivision of Yukon lands"; it almost becomes an act on why you cannot subdivide.

I am looking forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I am holding back my decision with respect to whether or not I am supporting the initiatives, principally because I do not have a lot of information from the government, because the regulations do not accompany the legislation.

It is difficult for a Member to agree or disagree with something when a Member does not have a definitive idea about the control, influence and impact it is going to have on people who are going to be affected by the new law.

I will wait to see what the Minister has to say in his closing comments and certainly will be looking forward to the clause-by-clause debate to get some more clarification from the Minister with respect to exactly what principles are being enunciated in this piece of legislation.

Motion for second reading of Bill No. 40 agreed to

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

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 Government House Leader that the Speaker do now leave the Chair and that the House resolve into Committee of the Whole.

Motion agreed to

Speaker leaves the Chair

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Chair:

I will call Committee of the Whole to order.

Is it the wish of the Members to take a brief recess at this time?

Some Hon. Members:

Agreed.

Recess

Chair:

I will now call Committee of the Whole to order. We are dealing with Bill No. 40, entitled Subdivision Act.

Bill No. 40 - Subdivision Act

Chair:

Is there any general debate?

Ms. Moorcroft:

I think I will ask the Minister if he has a response prepared for any of the issues that I raised during the second reading debate speech. If so, we can proceed from there to go into the individual issues in general debate.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I am somewhat taken aback by the questions because the Member opposite was given a full briefing on December 9. I thought we had addressed all the concerns, so I am quite surprised.

As we go through, I think many of the Member's questions can be answered. There will be some for which I will have to go through Hansard and probably provide a written response because there was a whole myriad of questions about the act.

The Member for Riverdale South pointed out a concern that she had expressed about section 17. We actually have an amendment, to which I alluded during my opening remarks, to that section that will address her concern.

If it pleases the Chair, we could proceed with the act.

Ms. Moorcroft:

The question about regulations is one that we did raise. I would like to cover that in general debate rather than in a specific clause.

There have certainly been cases where regulations respecting provisions of an act have not been enacted in a timely way and we have to know when, or even if, this government will get around to introducing the regulations that Bill No. 40 depends on so heavily. Without those regulations, we are left in the dark about the government's real intentions regarding land use. The Minister said the regulations would be ready in the spring. Can he clarify whether he meant this spring or next spring?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I have to apologize. I said the spring of 1994; actually, that should read the fall of 1994. We have a regulations framework that I would like to table. It provides an outline of the proposed subdivision regulations but I am sure the Member opposite appreciates that this will take a lot of public consultation.

The other thing I should point out is that the Member said the Association of Canada Land Surveyors were opposed to the act but, in fact, we consulted with them and received a letter back saying that it was a very good piece of legislation. So I do not know where the information the Member brought up is coming from. It certainly is not from the Association of Canada Land Surveyors.

The Yukon Agricultural Association also wrote us a letter saying that they support the Subdivision Act and that, when they review their policy in, I believe, 1995, they will talk about the subdivision of agricultural land. Right now, they are supporting the legislation we have put forward, and, again, I have a letter supporting that initiative, signed by the president of the Agricultural Association.

I just wanted to clarify those two points - number one, that the Canada Land Surveyors support the legislation, and number two, the Agricultural Association supports the legislation.

Ms. Moorcroft:

I believe that what I actually stated was that I was aware that they had concerns and I wanted the Minister to clarify that those concerns had been addressed. He has now indicated that they have. Perhaps he could table a copy of the letter of support from the Yukon Agricultural Association and the Association of Canada Land Surveyors.

The concern I raised about this act being presented in isolation, without consideration of proposed changes to the Land Titles Act, land titles plans and regulations, and federal acts, such as the Canada Lands Surveys Act, is one that I am aware the Association of Canada Land Surveyors did initially share. I raised that question earlier. Can the Minister explain if land titles is now completely under territorial jurisdiction and, secondly, whether any amendments to the Land Titles Act will be required as a result of the passage of the Subdivision Act.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

My understanding is that land titles is completely under the jurisdiction of the Yukon government, and that there would be no need to amend the Land Titles Act because of the Subdivision Act.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Are there any other territorial or federal statutes that will require amendment as a result of the Subdivision Act?

Can the Minister address the question of why there is no planning act being brought forward to cover land use planning, zoning, development and subdivision? Why have they brought forward a subdivision act in isolation?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

The comments the Member made in response to my opening remarks that other jurisdictions had a

Page Number 2171

more or less comprehensive planning act, and that subdivision was part of that, is not necessarily true. For instance, British Columbia had a subdivision act for years before it ever had a planning act.

Although a planning act would be nice, and we will probably be looking at one at some point in the future, it is a very comprehensive process and, just for lack of resources, we have not been able to take it on. At some point in time, we will go ahead with a planning act, and subdivision will fit in with it, but it is a very comprehensive endeavour, and we do not have the resources to do it at this time.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Planning is also a comprehensive process, and it is one that I and many of my constituents - and, I would argue, many of the Minister's constituents - believe is a valid process.

Since they have indicated they do not have the resources available to bring forward a planning act at this time, can the Minister say whether he supports land use planning and a public planning process?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I certainly support land use planning.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Does the Minister support the ability of the Ibex Valley hamlet to engage in a land use planning process at the present time?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

The Ibex Valley was going to enter into a small planning exercise this summer, but the chair of the Ibex Valley council wanted to make sure that the Indian bands were on side. In fact, the Indian bands have indicated that they do not want to have the planning process go ahead until they make their final land selections. That is what is slowing that process down. In fact, they have not even started on the process, because the first step was to get approval from the Indian band and the Indian band did not support the process.

Upon the wishes of the chair of the Ibex Valley hamlet, who said that they would not proceed until they had support from the Indian band, we are not going to proceed with this plan until the land selections are made. This will set the planning process back some length of time.

Ms. Moorcroft:

When the First Nations indicate support for the planning process in the Ibex Valley hamlet, will the Minister support the planning going into effect immediately? It is my understanding that there are a number of local residents who are quite excited about the possibility of being involved in the land use planning process and quite willing to serve on this group. Will the Minister go ahead with the process once he learns there is no concern from the First Nations?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

Certainly we will go ahead with the process. The Ibex Valley hamlet will head up the process, but we will certainly be entering into some kind of planning exercise as soon as the land selections are complete.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Why are the zoning changes and amendments now being considered in the Hootalinqua North exercise? Why is that particular process continuing when the hamlet land use planning is being stopped, because First Nation land selections have not been completed? Why are the zoning amendments being considered in the next neighbourhood?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

There are a couple of reasons. That is a zoning exercise, not a planning exercise. Also, the land selections by the Ta'an Kwach'an are almost finished. They have not indicated that they did not want this zoning exercise to go ahead.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Planning is an overall framework that one develops in order to hang regulations on some vision of how a community will look in five years' time. I want to make it clear that planning is not "no development". Planning means a public participatory process wherein residents talk about the kind of community they want to live in. They map out a scheme for how a neighbourhood will change over a period of years. Certainly zoning issues are a part of planning. Why would the Minister support proceeding with zoning prior to planning?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I think that the Member may not be aware of this, but there was an extensive planning process. It was called the Hootalinqua North Plan and it went on for a number of years. Essentially, it was not supported by the public, but there is some very good information that is being used from that completed plan - some technical information in the document that is very valuable.

I am sure that the Member should be aware that there was a planning exercise that began in about 1986. It went on for several years.

Ms. Moorcroft:

I am aware of the Hootalinqua North Plan, and I am also aware that, when the residents of the Hootalinqua North area attended a meeting in March, I believe, in the Minister's riding, to talk about the zoning regulations that are now being developed, they were told that the Hootalinqua North Plan was dead and that the Hootalinqua North regulations were not a plan and that zoning regulations were being developed, not a land use plan.

So the question still stands: why do they not want to do an overall land use plan from which to develop the zoning regulations? There can be zoning regulations that are area specific that do not address the issue of incompatible land use, that do not address the concerns of residents where one area may support commercial zoning, for example, and another area not very far away will be adamantly opposed to commercial zoning. If those are independently decided in zoning decisions that are made independent of a land use plan, some very real conflicts will possibly emerge in the future.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

The Member should be aware that there have been zoning regulations in effect in the Hootalinqua area since 1979, and all the residents out there want to do is look at those regulations and possibly - I am not even sure how it is going to turn out - they will be recommending some amendments. The residents made it very, very clear that they do not want to enter into another planning exercise. They were fed up with the Hootalinqua North Plan that went on for years and years; they did not feel they had proper input and so on, so they have requested that there will be no planning exercise in the Hootalinqua area.

Ms. Moorcroft:

I still have the concern that zoning ignores incompatible land use. I would like to ask the Minister how he plans to address that.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I do not know whether there is a conflict there. I do not believe there is.

Ms. Moorcroft:

There are a number of conflicts out there. Since the Minister is having some trouble with general questions, I will try some more specific questions. Here is an example of a land use conflict. Does the Minister believe that a gravel quarry and a country residential neighbourhood are compatible land use?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I think the Member opposite wants to bring me into an argument about the Stevens subdivision, but I really do not think this is the time or place to do that. I do not know that I should be commenting on whether I believe a quarry in the general neighbourhood of a country residential area is a conflict or is improper land use. I know I have a quarry within about half a kilometre of my place and I do not even notice the thing operating, so I do not know if it is a concern.

Ms. Moorcroft:

The Minister did not state how active the quarry that is one-half a kilometre from his place is. I can assure him that, since we are discussing the Subdivision Act, these kinds of questions about proposed subdivisions and proposed future subdivisions under this act are quite relevant.

The Minister mentioned the Stevens subdivision, and that is certainly the source of this line of questioning, although residents

Page Number 2172

of the McLean Lake area have also raised these concerns about the incompatibility of an active gravel quarry in a residential neighbourhood.

During the hamlet meeting last week, one of the Minister's constituents stated it well. He commented that if the students were to give to their college professor the plan of a subdivision with a gravel quarry less than a mile from a residential neighbourhood, they would be sent back to the drawing board with that particular plan.

This will move along a lot quicker if the Minister is prepared to answer the questions and address the concerns of the critic and of the Minister's constituents. Is a gravel quarry a compatible use with a residential neighbourhood? Does the Minister support a land use planning process that would examine those questions and try to come up with a solution to the concerns?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

The Member opposite obviously has some opinions, and she is certainly entitled to have those opinions. If a quarry is developed carefully and if the access road to the quarry does not go anywhere near the residents, and if the quarry itself is quite a distance away from the residents, with proper hours of operation, and so on, it can easily be a compatible use.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Then, I have another question regarding the regulations under the Subdivision Act. The Minister is refusing to be pinned down on whether he thinks that residential neighbourhoods and quarries are incompatible land uses. He has suggested there should be some distance and separate access roads, and hours of operation.

I know the McLean Lake residents have brought those concerns forward in great detail, over many months, to the government. The residents of the McLean Lake area would like to have enforced hours of operation for the quarry, so they are not running through the night. They would like to have it spelled out who is responsible for the road maintenance and how dust control is going to be dealt with.

Does the Minister have any thoughts on that?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I believe that both the city and some people from our area have been looking at those exact concerns. I do not know whether there have been replies to the residents out there or not; I am not sure, it has not come to my attention. I know the department has been working in conjunction with the City of Whitehorse.

Ms. Moorcroft:

The problem has been that neither the city nor the Yukon government will claim jurisdictional responsibility for the road, so the problems do not get acknowledged or dealt with. There are road maintenance questions, there are issues of who puts speed limit signs up and who enforces the speed limits, concerns about whether jake brakes are legal in the city and whether they are being used regardless of whether they are legal or not.

With the dust, kids on bikes cannot see the vehicles and drivers cannot see the kids, which is very unsafe. I thought for a minute that the Minister was saying that with appropriate guidelines or regulations quarry use and residential neighbourhoods can be compatible. There have not been adequate regulations in place in the McLean Lake area, which certainly concerns people living in the area of the future Stevens subdivision. What is the Minister going to commit to on this?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

On the Stevens subdivision, jurisdiction for the roads and signing and that sort of thing will be very clear. The city is responsible for the maintenance of roads and so on within the City of Whitehorse. But the signing and the road finish will be put in as part of the development and be charged back to the property owners.

Ms. Moorcroft:

On the Stevens subdivision map, the quarry road shares access to the Alaska Highway with the subdivision. Is the Minister prepared to recommend that that be changed?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

No.

Ms. Moorcroft:

I do not see how the Minister can say they are compatible land uses if the quarry and the residential neighbourhood do not share the same access road, and then turn around and say that he is not prepared to make a commitment to have separate access roads for the quarry and the residential neighbourhood.

Can the Minister commit to ensuring that the Department of Community and Transportation Services will limit the hours of use of the quarry?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I do not have a map of the subdivision in front of me, but I recall that only a very short portion of the road would be shared at the entrance from the Alaska Highway.

I can take a look at the Member's suggestion, but it seems to me to be a little bit foolish to have two entrances onto the Alaska Highway more or less side by side.

As to the hours of operation, we have already talked about that and while we have not come up with any recommended hours of operation, we will be limiting the hours of operation of the quarry.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Will those limits on the hours of operation of the quarry apply in general? Will those limits be brought in under the Subdivision Act regulations, or are these hours of operation something that the Minister is only considering for McLean Lake, or McLean Lake and the Stevens subdivision? What is the plan?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

The hours of operation certainly would not come under the Subdivision Act. I do not think that we would want to legislate hours for all quarries, because there are some quarries - for instance, there is a quarry near my property where I do not think that anyone minds - at least I have never heard anyone talking about limiting the hours of operation for that quarry. Whereas, the hours of operation for McLean Lake and Stevens subdivision may very well need to be limited.

I think the hours of operation depend on where the quarries are located. If the quarries are within a community, the hours of operation should be limited.

Ms. Moorcroft:

I know there are a number of residents who will be quite pleased to hear that the government is planning to limit the hours of operation, because last summer we had complaints from McLean Lake residents about the fact that the gravel trucks were operating seven days a week from 8:00 a.m. until 11:00 at night and sometimes up to 1:00 and 2:00 in the morning. The trucks were operating constantly and it was quite noisy. This is a problem that does need to be acknowledged and dealt with, and I hope the Minister will do that soon.

Generally, in the area of the Stevens subdivision, there are about 70 residents of the Ibex Valley who have petitioned that they oppose the development of the proposed Stevens subdivision. When I attended a meeting where many of the Ibex residents were present, they stated that they are not opposed to all development, but they are opposed to the Stevens subdivision because of the issue of a quarry being right next to a residential neighbourhood, which is not very good planning; the subdivision is right on the boundary of city limits and potentially might expand out of the city boundaries, or there might be some move for annexation from the City of Whitehorse.

The residents also raised concerns about rural taxation increases, increased school enrollment and concerns relating to wildlife habitat.

I think that all of this points to no land use plan being in effect. There is no scheme governing how land use can accommodate the existing residents and the new residents so that a subdivision can be a good place to live.

I would like to ask the Minister what his response is to those

Page Number 2173

concerns and what he is going to do to address those concerns.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

The Stevens subdivision is within the boundaries of the City of Whitehorse. The City of Whitehorse has an overall community plan and has a particular area designated as residential.

Two of the council members and two other residents asked for a meeting with me. They brought up four concerns that we were able to address relatively easily. One was the fact that one lot was relatively close to an existing piece of property of the Steele's. They felt that there would be a conflict because the Steele's have livestock. They felt it would conflict with the people that owned this new lot. We had the planning people redraw the subdivision and, in fact, eliminated that one lot entirely.

The other problem was that the access road into the subdivision went by another existing property. When our people actually did a land survey, they were able to move the access road completely away from that property. There was one lot they had drawn in that made no sense, and it was completely eliminated. They were somewhat concerned about the density and we were able to address that.

It was kind of interesting. There were four major concerns and we addressed all of them. The next day, one of the ladies who was at the meeting was on the radio and said that she was very pleased with the moves we had made. I understand that they have now come up with some other concerns, but they have not actually written them down and submitted them, so I am not sure what they are.

Ms. Moorcroft:

One of the concerns was the issue of density. The problem is that, as the Minister stated, a couple of representatives of the hamlet council met with the Minister, talked about how they would prefer a smaller number of lots, and then the next day, when the city issued the formal notification of the appeal process and the subdivision process, the original number of lots is what was in the map - I think it was 40-some, or 47 rather than 31. That concern, although they felt it had been addressed by the Minister, fell by the wayside when the city put forward its official notification. It is all very well to sit in a meeting and say they are resolving people's concerns, but if those resolutions are not translated into action the concerns have not really been resolved. Where does it stand right now?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

The Member opposite may very well be right - that the city had used the old map, because it was redrawn since the meeting I had with those residents. There is a new proposed plan of subdivision and it has 30 or 31 lots on it, I believe. We have enlarged the lots somewhat and taken some out, and that is what we will be going with. It is somewhere around 31, or some number like that. We have assured those people that that will be the number of lots that will be developed. The city used the incorrect map but likely because we had not had it redrawn. Like the Member says, it was the day after the meeting with me.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Earlier, the Minister was saying that the Ibex Valley hamlet planning process was not going to occur because the First Nations had reservations about it, and wanted to complete their land selections before the land use planning exercise were to take place. I would like to ask the Minister if the government has made any steps toward establishing regional land use planning processes as called for in the umbrella final agreement?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I think that question is to the wrong Minister. Renewable Resources is responsible for regional land use planning. I am not exactly sure where they are on it. I know there are some regional plans in some sort of a process, but I do not know where they are on it.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Has this Minister talked to the First Nations about the Subdivision Act?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

Not specifically. When we go through the public process for the regulations, we will be dealing with the First Nations.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Why would the Minister not speak with Yukon First Nations when they are bringing forward legislation like this that has an effect on First Nations land use and land selections. Does he not agree there should be a process established to avoid overlap or redundancy between land use planning on the part of the Yukon government and the First Nations?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

It is dealt with in section 30. In the event of conflict in operation between a provision of this act and a provision of a land claims agreement or self-government then, to the extent of the conflict, the provision of the land claims agreement or self-government agreement prevails and the provision of this act is inoperative.

Ms. Moorcroft:

However, I would also state that some healthy dialogue might go a long way toward preventing conflict. I would suggest to the Minister that it is a wise idea to talk with the First Nations on the Subdivision Act, as well as on other government initiatives.

Does the Minister anticipate that government will approve subdivisions under this act prior to the completion of the land claims process?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

We may. Who knows when the land claims process will be completed.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Does the Minister anticipate large-block land transfers to the Yukon government to enable the Subdivision Act to have meaning?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

Going back to the question prior to this one, this act does not apply to federal land or to First Nations lands. It only applies to territorial lands. I do not expect we will have large blocks of land transferred to us until the First Nations land selection process is more or less completed.

Ms. Moorcroft:

I am going to save the questions on agriculture until we reach the specific clauses. I did give the Minister notice during second reading of the kinds of questions I have.

I would like to ask the Minister to follow up on the concerns about land within municipalities and the resolution of the Association of Yukon Communities regarding public notification and public hearings into development agreements.

What is the Minister's position on this recommendation?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I am wondering if this is a resolution that came out of the last AYC meeting in February. If so, we have not actually dealt with it yet.

Ms. Moorcroft:

I read the resolution during the second reading speech. It recommends that the Municipal Act, in section 3(7), be amended to require public notification of subdivision applications prior to a decision being made and that, further, the Municipal Act, in subsection 3(58), be amended to delete the requirement of public notification and public hearing and do a development agreement between the municipality and the developer.

The Subdivision Act does make some amendments to some of the sections within the Municipal Act that refer to subdivision. The Subdivision Act does not specifically make amendments to the Municipal Act of this sort.

The concern I raised earlier is that my constituents have used the present Municipal Act, subsection 3(58), to make presentations on a development agreement between the municipality and the developer. I think that there is a far greater likelihood of the public being involved where there is a formal agreement than of the public taking notice of an application prior to a decision being made. I am very concerned about this direction to delete that requirement for public consultation and discussion after a decision has been made.

What is the Minister's position on public hearings?

Page Number 2174

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

We are talking about a Municipal Act requirement. I do not have the act in front of me. I cannot see how that is totally relevant to this piece of legislation. I do not want to put a position forward until I have had a chance to look at those sections of the Municipal Act and discuss the ramifications of changing the section with my colleagues and the department.

Ms. Moorcroft:

What is relevant is that the sections of the Municipal Act regard subdivision applications and the handling of same. However, I will leave that for now. The Minister knows about my concern. I have put it forward and he can respond to it later.

I have some questions regarding second dwellings. If there are rules and regulations, do codes apply on second dwellings?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

Certainly, all the standard building, electrical and plumbing codes, and so on, all apply the same as they do for the first dwelling.

Ms. Moorcroft:

What is the Minister's response to the pressure from owners and the public to subdivide their properties now that second dwellings have been legitimized by an order-in-council in December of 1992?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

That is exactly what is going on in the Lake Laberge riding right now. The people are involved in a zoning exercise, and they will be determining whether they wish subdivision. Currently, rural residential land cannot be subdivided down to less than 15 acres, or six hectares. I am not sure whether a recommendation will come out of the zoning groups that have been formed to lower that size, leave it the same or raise it. I have no idea what their recommendation will be and, until I hear from the various groups, no decision will be made.

Ms. Moorcroft:

If the zoning exercise comes up with a recommendation to reduce or enlarge the minimum lot parcel, then it is a planning exercise, and that is exactly why I am trying to get some answers from the Minister on whether he believes in the planning process and why he has not brought forward planning legislation, as well as subdivision legislation.

Under this Subdivision Act, as it stands, would a property owner in the Laberge area, for an example, be able to bring forward an application to subdivide to the approving officer, and what would happen with that?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

If the area development regulations were amended to change the current requirement of 15 acres, the answer would be yes, they could bring in a change to reduce those numbers from 15 acres to 10 or 5 acres. This act would provide for the subdivision of those parcels of land.

Ms. Moorcroft:

It seems to me that the Minister is referring to zoning, but it is planning that the government is engaging in, if they are looking at making those kinds of changes.

The Ibex Valley hamlet and the Hamlet of Mount Lorne both believe, and strongly support, meaningful planning schemes. The residents of those hamlets recommend, when they have gone through all of the trouble of having a public planning process and coming up with a land use plan, that the plan should be considered when adjacent subdivisions are proposed.

Although the Ibex Valley hamlet has not been able to engage in the planning process yet, they fully intended to and they have made it known to the government for quite some time that they want to, and that is why they are requesting that the proposed Stevens subdivision be held off until there is a planning scheme in place.

I mentioned earlier the concern that, under this act the subdivision regulations would operate, notwithstanding any planning schemes. Has the Minister given any thought to my concerns about that? I am planning to recommend in Committee, when we come to that clause, that it be removed.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I do not really know what the question was. Perhaps the Member could repeat the question in summary.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Under the section dealing with regulations, section 26(2), it reads: "Unless the contrary is expressly declared in the subdivision regulations, the subdivision regulations operate notwithstanding any planning scheme." In other words, any planning scheme in existence would be overridden by the subdivision regulations, which is something that the hamlet councils have strong opposition to.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

To what section is the Member referring?

Ms. Moorcroft:

Section 26(2) on page 12.

Chair:

Is it the wish of the Members to take a brief recess at this time?

Recess

Chair:

I will now call Committee of the Whole to order.

Is there further general debate?

Ms. Moorcroft:

I would like to repeat that planning is a way of looking at the disposition of public lands. Land use planning is about what style of development neighbours want and at what pace. Planning is a way to ask questions and seek consensus on broad-based questions about how a community looks and grows. Zoning only ignores incompatible land use. In the specific questions that I have been asking the Minister about the Stevens subdivision, he has not been able to respond adequately about his beliefs about what planning should do or how he is prepared to deal with concerns in neighbourhoods presently, specifically with regard to the Stevens subdivision.

The Minister states that the Stevens subdivision is inside city limits and so people should go to them. The city tells the hamlet councils to deal with the Minister. As the Minister of Community and Transportation Services, who is bringing forward a subdivision act to deal with exactly how subdivisions are regulated, I would like to ask the Minister what steps he is prepared to take to resolve the residents' concerns about the Stevens subdivision.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I believe we have responded to all of the concerns they brought to me. I did mention this before; one of the people on the committee who came to see us was on the radio the next day and said she was very pleased with the fact that we dealt with the concerns. I am not exactly sure what is happening now, but if they bring me their concerns, we will certainly look at them.

Ms. Moorcroft:

If those concerns are brought to him, the Minister will not say that they should go talk to the City of Whitehorse? He is agreeing to deal with the concerns of the hamlet council and of the area residents who have signed a petition opposing the way this subdivision has been put together?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

There are some things we can deal with and some things the city has to deal with. We are the developer in this particular case. The city has asked us to develop the land. The responsibility for the zoning and so on, in that subdivision, is definitely the city's responsibility. We can certainly deal with certain aspects of the subdivision - access and that sort of thing and we have dealt with those particular things.

Mr. Cable:

I would like to follow up a little on some of the concerns raised by the Member for Mount Lorne. Before doing that, though, I would like to thank the Minister for making available his staff to discuss with a member of my staff some of the concerns that I have raised, and for addressing, in part anyway, some of those concerns.

The Member for Mount Lorne asked the Minister, as I recollect, questions on what his thoughts are on a planning act for the future. I believe the Minister indicated he did not have the resources at the present time to develop an act. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

Yes. To do a comprehensive planning act for the territory is a very involved process. It took British Columbia

Page Number 2175

several years to put theirs together, and we just do not have those kinds of resources at this time. It would probably be a worthwhile exercise and something that we should likely do in the future, but right at this particular time we just do not have the resources to do it.

Mr. Cable:

The Stevens subdivision, I think, has pointed out the problems that arise from the lack of regional planning. This act will eventually lead to conflicts between parties outside the cities and municipalities as to their rights and the rights within the municipalities. It will be the converse of the Stevens subdivision problem. The only way I think Canadian jurisdictions have got around this is by setting up regional planning authorities. Does the Minister believe that that is something to be worked toward in the near future - regional planning authorities?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I am not exactly sure what sort of form it should take. If the Member recalls the Hootalinqua North Plan, which was so large and involved several different lifestyles - there were different lifestyles in different areas - and because of the size of the whole planning exercise, I think that was the reason it was a failure. It was too large.

For instance, Deep Creek is definitely different from the Hot Springs Road. The lifestyle and the land use is definitely different in Deep Creek than it is on the Hot Springs Road or the Ibex Valley. I think the reason the plan failed was because it did not take into account all the different ways that people used the land or wanted to use their land in those areas.

In the zoning exercise, we are using technical data that came out of the Hootalinqua North Plan, but we are using it in specific areas. There are five areas in the Laberge-Ibex Valley area: the Hot Springs Road, the Mayo Road, Shallow Bay, Winewood Ranch area and Jackfish Bay. Those five different areas are like five different communities. Zoning will be looked at for those areas but it will be under recommendations that came out of the Hootalinqua North Plan.

Mr. Cable:

I was thinking about something more along the lines of the Waterloo Regional Planning Authority. There are various regions of municipalities in Ontario, and I also think it occurs with the greater Vancouver regional district - unless I am mistaken. I assume they have some planning authority. This would prevent things such as people in Deep Creek setting up a glue factory downwind from some of their neighbours.

Does the Minister see the value of having these larger regional bodies synchronizing the planning for the various municipalities so that we do not get into these Stevens subdivision problems, where various municipalities are fighting among themselves, and where there does not appear to be any mechanics for resolving the problem, other than the Minister with his land development powers?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I think the problem occurs predominantly in Whitehorse and the surrounding area. I do not believe that we have the same problem in the other municipalities. There may be some problems to some extent in Dawson, but I do not know if that relates to a planning problem or not, but I suppose it does.

There is a definite problem with Whitehorse and the surrounding area, and there is no question about that. I do not know exactly what the process should be. I agree with the Member that there should be some overall plan for the whole area, but I am not sure of what the process should be.

The Hootalinqua plan was definitely a failure, which may have been because it was too large - I do not know. Especially, the people on the Hot Springs Road are still really upset about planning in that area, and if you mention planning, people become quite irate very quickly.

Mr. Cable:

Does the Minister agree that this Subdivision Act will only exacerbate the present problems or create more problems between neighboring municipalities unless somewhere down the road there is some mechanics set up for dispute resolution? What is going on now between the Whitehorse City Council and Ibex Valley Hamlet is sort of classical. They are both treading water and trying to figure out how to deal with the problem.

Does the Minister acknowledge at least that, at the present time, there is not an adequate dispute resolution mechanism set up to deal with those sorts of problems and that the Subdivision Act will only aggravate the situation?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I agree that there probably is not a good enough forum for conflict resolution, but I do not agree that the Subdivision Act will exacerbate it. Right now, there are methods for subdividing lands. The Commissioner can provide for subdivision. This act is enabling legislation. It provides for a process for subdivision that takes some of the authority away from the Commissioner and provides for an approving authority. It does provide for conflict with its municipal board and so on.

The act will, in fact, help more than exacerbate the problem.

Mr. Cable:

I think it would be fair to say that subdivision is part of an overall planning umbrella. Subdivision is part of planning; planning is not part of subdivision.

Eventually, to link all the various facets of planning such as zoning, development and subdivision rights, is it not necessary that we have planning legislation here if we are going to avoid those sorts of problems that we have with the Stevens subdivision?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I think the Stevens subdivision is maybe a bit of a red herring. The Stevens subdivision, that I know of, has been around for at least four years. It has been considered by the City of Whitehorse for at least that long. I am not sure what a large overall plan would do. It would show that this is for country residential, while the City of Whitehorse community plan shows it as residential. I do not know what further planning would do in that particular case.

I do agree that we have to look at the whole area surrounding Whitehorse, but there are some regional plans out of Renewable Resources. There is the Kluane land use plan, which is a very comprehensive, regional type of plan. Although the Hootalinqua North Plan has not been adopted, it is being used as a technical document. I do not know whether an overall plan, such as the Member is suggesting, would do anything for the Stevens subdivision dispute.

Mr. Cable:

Let me just give you the converse for a moment. I had the pleasure of having a couple of acres out in the country once, next to a little town called Elmira, which saw fit to permit a glue factory inside the town. It did not sit well with the neighbours. Let us say that you get the Stevens subdivision in place and the people adjacent, outside the municipality, decide to put up this abattoir we have talked about, or a glue factory. Would that not suggest to the Minister that there should be some overall planning authority to stop those sort of events from happening?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I cannot disagree with that. Incompatible land use side-by-side is not something we would support. However, the City of Whitehorse is required by law to have an overall community plan, which they do have. Ibex Valley hamlet will be doing their own planning fairly soon. I will be encouraging Ibex to work with the City of Whitehorse, so that they have compatible land uses near their boundaries.

Mr. Cable:

I have a number of questions on specific provisions in the act. There are also some general questions on where the Minister is going.

It appears - and this was brought up by the Member for Mount Lorne - that the Minister has structured the act so the subdivision regulations and powers in the Minister will overrule planning schemes, which include a variety of things: plans, land policies and other regulations.

Page Number 2176

Why are we attempting to make the subdivision regulations paramount to these other matters, which appear to be dealing with planning, as opposed to subdivision? I think we have agreed that planning is a larger concept than subdividing.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I was trying to find the section. My interpretation of that is exactly opposite to that of the Member opposite. Section 26(2) "Unless the contrary is expressly declared in the subdivision regulations, the subdivision regulations operate notwithstanding any planning scheme."

If there is a planning scheme in place, that would drive the subdivision of land.

Mr. Cable:

Perhaps we could delve into that when we get to the section. We are obviously reading it in different directions. Perhaps we can clarify it so it meets the Minister's version of what he thinks is taking place.

On the Municipal Board, I note from the Minister's speech today that he indicates that the applicant has, at all times, the right to appeal to a court of law. We set the Municipal Board up as the appeal board. In the Municipal Act, I believe there is a privative clause that prevents appeals.

With the amendments the Minister is proposing to make, are we sure the act will exclude that privative clause?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I am not exactly sure about the section of the Municipal Act that applies, but everyone has the right to go to court and we have made that clear in this act. I do not see how the Municipal Act could override this particular piece of legislation. I am sure that it could not happen.

Mr. Cable:

I do not think the amendments set up a specific appeal to the courts from the Ontario Municipal Board. I know that the City of Whitehorse has had problems with the Board of Variance and there are very limited appeals in view of that privative clause, which says you can only appeal under certain circumstances to quash the board's decision.

Are we certain that in adopting this language in the several amendments to the Municipal Act that we have not knocked out the right to appeal to the courts?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I think that perhaps the Member may be referring to a section - I think it is under the Workers' Compensation Act - that says the acts or decisions of the board on any matter within its jurisdiction are final and conclusive and not open to question or review in any court. We do not have that wording in this act at all. In fact, the wording states that one may go through the process and if still not satisfied have the right to go to court. We are allowing that. We are not saying that there is no appeal to a court of law.

Mr. Cable:

Perhaps we could ask the Minister's staff to think about this overnight. There is a privative clause in the Municipal Act and I am wondering whether it has been adopted by accident if that is not the Minister's intention.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I will have some of the staff check it out. It is certainly not our intention. I cannot really see how the Municipal Act could affect this particular act, but I will have the staff check it out.

Chair:

Is there further general debate?

Do Members wish to proceed through the act clause by clause?

On Clause 1

Mr. Cable:

In the definition of "planning scheme", what does the Minister intend that the verbiage "land use policies" should include? Is that some sort of a written document put out by the department or a letter sent to a constituent? What is it?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

Some examples of land use policies would be the agricultural policy or the Lands Act.

Clause 1 agreed to

On Clause 2

Ms. Moorcroft:

In general debate I had asked the Minister some questions regarding the umbrella final agreement and the regional land use planning process that is required under the umbrella final agreement. The Minister replied that that was the responsibility of the Minister of Renewable Resources and therefore he had no comment. It is imperative that the government make efforts to engage in dialogue with the First Nations, and I would like to ask whether there are any implications in the application section of this act to the land claims and land settlement process and whether the Minister will agree to undertake to discuss issues relating to the umbrella final agreement and the regional land planning process with the Minister of Renewable Resources and to make some commitment to consider that in his responsibility as Minister of Community and Transportation Services.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

Yes. I have no problem making that commitment.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Is there any effect with regard to land selections in the application clause?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I am not sure what the question is.

Ms. Moorcroft:

The application clause provides that the act applies to land in the Yukon other than land within municipalities and land under the control of the Government of Canada. What about land under the control of First Nations?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

That is dealt with under section 30 on page 13.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Does the act apply to land in the Yukon Territory under the control of the Yukon Housing Corporation, or is the Yukon Housing Corporation considered a Crown corporation of the Government of Canada as in clause (b)?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

No, the Yukon Housing Corporation is a Crown corporation of the Government of the Yukon.

Clause 2 agreed to

On Clause 3(1)

Ms. Moorcroft:

I had given the Minister notice I would follow up on the questions I raised about agricultural parcels in the section dealing with that, and agricultural parcels are covered under the subdivision of lands section.

Does the Subdivision Act restriction on subdivision of agricultural parcels apply to all agricultural parcels, regardless of whether there was previously a restriction or not?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

It applies pretty well to all agricultural parcels. There are a few exceptions - further on in section 3(2), I believe. If there was a piece of agricultural land granted to someone at some point, and they in turn sold it to someone else and did not provide information to that person that it was not to be subdivided, then the second owner could then subdivide it. I do not think there is anything we can do about that.

Ms. Moorcroft:

My understanding is that prior to 1982 there were approximately 40 agricultural parcels of land issued under the federal government land program with no restrictions regarding subdivision. The titles issued on those parcels did not have caveats restricting subdivision. Is the Minister saying now that anyone who has purchased any one of those 40 parcels as a second owner can subdivide it, with no restrictions regarding subdivision?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

Essentially, if there is no caveat registered - I believe you are right, I do not know whether it is 40 or how many there are, but there are some parcels of land - and if it is the original owner who got the land for agricultural purposes, he or she could not subdivide the land. If it is the second owner of the land who was not aware that the land was sold prior to 1982 for agricultural purposes, he or she could subdivide the land.

Mrs. Firth:

The way I understand it is that the titles on agricultural land, prior to 1982, did not have any caveats about subdividing, so those individuals can subdivide their agricultural land into whatever parcels they want and sell it for whatever they want.

Page Number 2177

My question is with respect to the first comment the Minister made. I believe it is probably clause 3.(2)(a)(iii), about the original owner. The Minister said if it is not the original owner who entered into the agreement with the government for this agricultural land and received title to the land, and they did not tell the people that they were selling the land so that it was agricultural land and not eligible for subdivision, then the new purchaser could go ahead and subdivide the land.

I find that a rather curious comment for the Minister to make, because I understood that was not going to be allowed when I was in the briefing session, and that it is difficult to determine whether or not the new owner was told if the land was or was not agricultural land. Certainly, it must be on the title that the land is agricultural land when you sell the land to a new purchaser.

I have a piece of agricultural land and the title specifies the land is for agricultural use, so anyone purchasing that parcel of land would know what the land is being used for.

I recall discussions with the officials that there may be some thought of this being challenged in the court, where the new owner of the land could claim that they had purchased this agricultural piece of land, but that they did not agree to the caveat that the land not be subdivided. I do not recall if this has yet been tested in the Yukon.

I would like to receive some clarification from the Minister about the government's position. If the government's position is as the Minister stated this afternoon, I know that there are people who have purchased agricultural leases who may be quite interested in hearing this information and immediately subdividing their agricultural land.

I would like to have a clear indication of the government's position on this issue, and whether they are going to allow agricultural land to be subdivided.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I know the Department of Justice had a difficult time with this particular section because, if it is the original owner of the land, he knows it is agricultural and cannot be subdivided. However, the argument is that, if someone had purchased that and was not told it could not be subdivided, they could probably have a legal case to subdivide.

It does not affect that many parcels in the Yukon, but there are a few like that. Our Justice people feel a property owner could be successful in a court of law for allowing the subdivision. It will likely be tested at some point in the future.

If the department had a letter or anything stating this was agricultural land and could not be subdivided for that second owner, then they would probably not be successful. However, if there was nothing to prove that he or she knew it was not subdividable, our Justice people tell us it is likely they would be successful in court.

Mrs. Firth:

I am quite interested in this. Can the Minister provide Members of the House with the legal opinion that the Justice department gave him regarding this particular issue?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I have some diagrams of different scenarios of where you could subdivide and where you could not. I will table those and let the Members have a look at them.

Mrs. Firth:

I had a follow-up question about that. I see the Minister of Justice wants to get into the debate as well. I am interested in knowing what the government's position is. Is the government going to allow this to happen? I know individuals right now who are land owners, but not the original holder of the agricultural title, and who would be interested in subdividing their land. Is the government going to allow that to happen, in light of this legal opinion they have received?

My feeling is that, if it is agricultural land, and the original intent for that parcel was for agriculture, the agricultural policy of the day was that it was not subdividable. It would be like pleading ignorance of the rules for someone to say they bought the agricultural parcel from Joe, who bought it from Sam, and they did not know that agricultural land could not be subdivided. It has been a rule, or law, that agricultural land is not subdividable. I would like to get a clearer definition of the government's policy as to whether or not they are going to allow that.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I am going to get the Minister of Justice to also respond to this. The intention of the whole act is to disallow the subdivision of agricultural land. We do not want to subdivide it. If the title indicates that the land is for agricultural purposes, we would not allow a subdivision. However, there are other cases where the title may not indicate that it is for agricultural. If the second owner is not aware that it is for agriculture, there may be a problem. However, I will get the Minister of Justice to respond.

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

I just want to enter into the discussion briefly. I do agree with what the Member for Riverdale South is saying with regard to policy.

The difficulty that is faced is an issue of law. Normally, if a property is purchased from someone, the purchaser is supposed to go and look at the title. If there is nothing on the title, there is no deemed notice. That is the Torrens system. To be totally protected, if there are restrictions, a mortgage, or anything against the land, it should be registered.

If one is a bona fide purchaser for value, without notice, that can be proven in court and there is nothing on the title, the purchaser will not be restricted.

In a small place like the Yukon, where everyone pretty well had knowledge about what these few parcels were and what the policy was, it is hard for me to believe that a court of law would actually find, except in very unusual circumstances, that that was the case: that someone came along who had not been in the Yukon and bought some land with nothing on the title, so they had no idea they could not subdivide. Nonetheless, with nothing on the title, with no notice in writing that could be shown was given to the person, there is a legal argument. It may be that there are some cases where a person might convince, in this case, the judge, that he or she was a bona fide purchaser for value without actual notice of any kind. That is a fairness issue.

With respect to that, I entirely agree with the Member and feel that should be the policy - that we proceed as though there are no exclusions. Nonetheless, there is the potential for bona fide purchasers for value being out there somewhere. In that unusual circumstance, the opinion of the department, and certainly my opinion, for what it is worth - probably not much - is that there might be somebody who would be able to make the case that they did not have that knowledge and were bona fide.

Mr. Penikett:

I would like to ask a question on the same subject of either the Minister of Justice or the Minister of Community and Transportation Services. My concern arises from a real case, but I do not want to mention names.

It was alleged to me some time ago that somebody had obtained a large parcel of agricultural land and, then, circumvented the policy prohibiting subdivision by dividing the land into small parcels and offering 99-year leases, rather than sale. Has either this legislation, or some other subsequent policy, clearly closed what appeared to be a loophole in that case, so that we cannot have a repetition of what is, I understand, a real incident in recent time in the Yukon?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I think that under the interpretations, "subdivision" outlines the basic kinds of subdivision, that is, "adjusting or re-aligning an existing property line, creating two or more lots from one or more existing properties, creating several strata lots from one or more existing properties under section 6 of the Condominium Act, creating de facto subdivisions by a lease or caveat." So, essentially, we are saying that that 99-year lease

Page Number 2178

example would no longer apply.

Mrs. Firth:

The Minister's department has all the titles for pieces of agricultural land here in the Yukon. Have his officials looked at those titles to see if some of them are unclear, or would stand up, as the Minister of Justice has indicated, and that the individuals purchasing those parcels would be considered to be "a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the condition"? I believe those titles are agricultural titles. Does his department have examples of parcels of land that may be contested?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

We do know of some. I know of one that my staff member was telling me about - again, I am not going to mention names - where there was an agreement for sale that mentioned agricultural, but when the title was raised there was nothing on the title. The director of lands has looked at all of the titles and there are some.

Again, referring to the particular example that we just talked about here, it still belongs to the original owner, so he could not subdivide the land, but if he were to sell to someone else and that other person was not given that information, and there is no indication on title, that other person may be able to subdivide the property.

I certainly think it would be an interesting court case. I think that if someone sold the property to their spouse, I would not see that as being a valid case. Certainly, a spouse would surely know that the land was purchased initially for agricultural purposes. I do not know exactly how it would work, but it could be a problem.

Mr. Chair, I move that you report progress on Bill No. 40.

Motion agreed to

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

I move 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 Chair of Committee of the Whole.

Mr. Abel:

Committee of the Whole has considered Bill No. 40, entitled Subdivision Act, and directed me to report progress on it.

Speaker:

You have heard the report from the Chair of Committee of the Whole. Are you agreed?

Some Hon. Members:

Agreed.

Speaker:

I declare the report carried.

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

I move 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. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 5:25 p.m.

The following Legislative Returns were tabled April 18, 1994:

94-1-306

Memorandum of Co-operation and Memorandum of Agreement on a Joint Mineral Development Program: Executive Council Office is the lead department; ongoing communications between Alaska and Yukon (Ostashek)

Oral, Hansard, p. 1878 and 1880

94-1-307

Winter Works Program: funding sources; no displacement of person weeks of work (Ostashek)

Oral, Hansard, p. 2037

94-1-308

Canada-Yukon Northern Accord: Beaufort Sea Resource Revenue Sharing Agreement (Ostashek)

Oral, Hansard, p. 2063 to 2064

94-1-309

Community economic development: approaches to accomplish the broad goals of business development and employment creation (Ostashek)

Oral, Hansard, p. 2065

94-1-310

Executive Council Office 1993 contract listing: translation contracts; contract on advice on federal policies and programs; Commissioner's guests and expenses for 1993 Ball; Ottawa diplomatic corps annual dinner guests and cost (Ostashek)

Written Question No. 43, dated January 24, 1994, by Ms. Moorcroft

94-1-311

Report on the Institution of the Ombudsperson, prepared by Liane O'Grady, January, 1988, Department of Justice (Ostashek)

Written Question No. 44, dated January 25, 1994, by Mrs. Firth

94-1-312

White Paper on Industrial Power Rates: released draft Industrial Support Policy; consultations with many interest groups (Ostashek)

Written Question No. 45, dated January 25, 1994, by Mrs. Firth

94-1-313

LISA Project: contract to Sorrento Systems; low bidder (Phelps)

Oral, Hansard, p. 1885

94-1-314

Health care costs rate of increase: expectation of seven to nine percent over 1992-93 figures; factors contributing to increases (Phelps)

Oral, Hansard, p. 2095

94-1-315

Second Opinion Society: contribution agreement; progress report (Phelps)

Oral, Hansard, p. 2100 and 2111

94-1-316

Funding to non-government organizations: list of organizations receiving letters re 1994-95 funding (Phelps)

Oral, Hansard, p. 2102

94-1-317

Whitehorse General Hospital design changes: project director; use local labour; tenders for construction to be issued as per current contract guidelines (Phelps)

Oral, Hansard, p. 2104

Legislative Returns 94-1-318 to 94-1-332 inclusive, also tabled April 18, 1994, will be notated in the April 19, 1994, issue of

Page Number 2179

Hansard.

The following Documents were filed April 18, 1994:

94-1-34

Letter to Mr. Gary Miltenberger dated March 17, 1994, from John Devries, MLA, Watson Lake, re final assignment of a Timber Harvesting Agreement to Kaska Forest Resources (Harding)

94-1-35

Regulations Framework for Subdivision Act (Fisher)