Whitehorse, Yukon

Wednesday, April 19, 1994 - 1:30 p.m.

Page Number 2181

Speaker:

I will now call the House to order.

We will begin with Prayers.

Prayers

DAILY ROUTINE

Speaker:

We will proceed with the Order Paper.

Introduction of Visitors.

Are there any Returns or Documents for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Speaker:

I have for tabling the Annual Report of the Yukon Human Rights Commission for the year ended March 31, 1993, and the report of the Clerk of the Assembly for deductions for the indemnities of Members of the Legislative Assembly pursuant to subsection 39(6) of the Legislative Assembly Act.

Are there any further Returns or Documents for tabling?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

I have for tabling several legislative returns in response to questions asked of the previous Minister of Government Services during the last sitting.

Speaker:

Are there any Reports of Committees?

Petitions.

PETITIONS

Petition No. 7

Ms. Moorcroft:

I have for tabling a petition signed by some 67 residents of the Hamlet of Ibex Valley, who have expressed their opposition to the proposed Stevens subdivision. The undersigned ask the Yukon Legislative Assembly to instruct the Minister of Community and Transportation Services to delay any action on the development of the Stevens subdivision, until the concerns of residents of Ibex Valley have been satisfactorily addressed.

Speaker:

Are there any Bills to be introduced?

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

Are there any Notices of Motion?

Are there any Statements by Ministers?

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Ducks Unlimited renewed cooperative agreement

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

First, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on your new position as Speaker of the House. I am sure you will do a great job.

I am pleased to announce at this time a renewed cooperative agreement between the Government of Yukon and Ducks Unlimited, Canada.

In 1984, Yukon signed an initial cooperative agreement with Ducks Unlimited. That agreement has now runs its term of 10 years. Our new agreement has built on experiences gained in the initial term and will allow simplified automatic renewal in five-year terms upon mutual consent.

Yukon has benefited greatly from the partnership with Ducks Unlimited. Financial resources, professional expertise and public participation have been focused on identifying, researching and quantifying the value of our wetlands. Working in cooperation with our Fish and Wildlife staff, they have provided enthusiastic grass roots input to our wetland and waterfowl management decisions. In total, an estimated $1.2 million has been added to Yukon natural resource management as a result of the initial term of this agreement.

Cooperative ventures like this are a beneficial and cost-efficient approach to resource management and will become essential to such programs in the future.

The agreement was signed April 17 at the new interpretive centre at M'Clintock Bay "Swan Haven". This setting was an appropriate location for the signing since the interpretive centre and program were established under this cooperative agreement and represent a strong collaborative effort with Girl Guides of Canada and Ducks Unlimited.

Mr. Harding:

This is certainly a very pleasing announcement and one to which I will react positively. I am also glad to hear this is not the Minister's "swan song". This agreement will be beneficial to all Yukoners, and I know that the MLA for Mount Lorne was present for the signing ceremony on March 17, as were many Girl Guides, including Girl Guides from my riding in Faro. They enjoyed their experience very much. We certainly like seeing this cooperation and I hope we continue to foster its development in the future.

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

I would just like to point out that if the Hon. Member for Faro thinks it is a swan song, that is wishful thinking.

Speaker:

This then brings us to the Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Question re: Wage rollback/public sector

Mr. Penikett:

Some weeks ago, the government announced that, rather than negotiating with teachers and public employees, it intended to legislate a wage package. Yesterday, in Question Period, the government seemed to be in retreat from that position, with the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission indicating that he would sit down with the teachers and Yukon Employees Union to discuss extending the current collective agreement for a three-year period.

Given the contradictory statements made by the other side, could we know, for the record, whether or not the Yukon government intends to negotiate collective agreements according to the law and the provisions of the Public Service Staff Relations Act and section 216 of the Education Act?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

I do not think that our statements were inconsistent. On March 21, I wrote to both unions saying that it was our intention to legislate, but that it did not mean that the door was closed. We said we would listen to the representations of the unions. That is what we plan to do. We will be meeting with the Yukon Teachers Association tomorrow afternoon.

Mr. Penikett:

With the greatest of respect, the Minister has not answered the question. Originally, the government said it was going to legislate, not negotiate. Recently it said it is going to talk, not negotiate. Yesterday, on the floor of this House, the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission indicated that he was going to consider negotiating extensions to the current collective agreements. I would like to know, yes or no, is the Government of the Yukon going to negotiate, under the terms of the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the Education Act, with public employees and with teachers, collective agreements with those two groups?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

I do not know whether the Leader of the Official Opposition is acting as agent for the Yukon Teachers Association or simply advising them, but, as I have stated, we will meet with them tomorrow afternoon and we will discuss that with them.

Mr. Penikett:

I am here as an advocate for a fundamental

Page Number 2182

democratic right: free collective bargaining - a right that the Member opposite seems to think there ought to be a price tag put on of something like $1,300 per person. As we all know, even the extreme right-wingers in this country, such as the Ralph Kleins of the world, are still negotiating with their employees.

I want to know from the Minister this: does he or does he not intend to negotiate in good faith with the teachers' and with the public employees' representatives, with a view to getting a mutually satisfactory agreement, or is he going to give them the take-it-or-leave-it proposition that we have heard articulated before this session: the two-percent cuts and the three-year freezes? Is the government going to negotiate in good faith or is it going to be a take-it-or-leave-it proposition?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

As I have told the Leader of the Official Opposition, we are going to meet with the teachers tomorrow and, like the teachers, we look forward to an exchange in positions toward the achievement of a mutually satisfactory agreement. That is what the teachers have written to us; that is what we are going to talk to them about tomorrow, and the Leader of the Official Opposition can advocate on their behalf all he wants today, but the fact is we are going to meet with them tomorrow to try and come up with an agreement to solve the difficulties we have as a government and they have as teachers.

Question re: Wage rollback/public sector

Mr. McDonald:

The Minister of Finance said yesterday that the formula financing negotiations have not been concluded, yet he is anticipating, and even implementing, the terms of a worst case scenario well in advance of the closure of those negotiations. Does the Minister not agree that this translates into a rather dangerous negotiating position in terms of protecting Yukon's interest and is somewhat reminiscent of the Yukon Party's rationale for tax increases last year?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

Not at all. It is not a dangerous precedent at all. With all the signals we have received from Ottawa regarding the problems they are having battling their deficit and the cuts they want to make in transfer payments to the provinces and territories, we would be very foolhardy if we were not taking some precautionary actions. We certainly are not going to solve our problems with this budget or the cuts that are proposed in this budget. This is only one step in the right direction - a direction that was not followed by the previous administration.

Mr. McDonald:

If I was a federal finance official, I would be a very happy camper. I did not suggest this was a precedent - I said "position", not "precedent". I hope it is not a precedent.

The Minister said yesterday that he will not tell us what his financial targets are in seeking rollbacks and freezes. He said they would become clear when the budget is tabled. Could the Minister tell us why he should expect, or why any of his Ministers should expect, anyone in this Legislature, the Teachers Association, any employee group or anyone to discuss this issue prior to the government making its financial targets clear?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

Those targets will be made clear when negotiations are started with the employee unions. We said we would negotiate within a certain context and we have always said that; we have said that since day one. We have.

Mr. McDonald:

Let me get this right. Tomorrow, when the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission sits down to discuss, negotiate - or however the Minister wants to characterize it - he is going to make those financial targets clear to them, but he will not make those targets clear to us prior to the tabling of the budget - is that what the Minister is saying?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

My understanding of our meeting tomorrow is to set out some guidelines and ground rules about whether and how negotiations should take place. We will not be discussing actual numbers tomorrow.

Question re: Wage rollback/public sector

Mr. Cable:

I have some questions for the Minister in charge of the Public Service Commission on the wage rollbacks and wage freezes.

When the government announced the wage freeze and wage rollback by way of a press release dated March 10, 1994, the Government Leader indicated that we had two choices, and I am quoting him, "We decided in favour of wage restraints over layoffs."

I know that the government, having launched this exercise into the public domain, has been cute about holding back on the dollars involved, but would the Minister indicate to this House the number of layoffs that were anticipated to be avoided by these financial savings, whatever they are?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

I do not have the specific number of layoffs, but it would be layoffs that would be the equivalent of the dollars that we wish to save. If an agreement were negotiated or imposed upon us by binding arbitration, that raised the wages of the YTA, then there would be additional layoffs to compensate for that increase in costs to the Yukon government.

Mr. Cable:

The Government Leader, when he was on the radio shortly after the press release, indicated that the savings would be in the neighbourhood of $10 million. Does that suggest anything to the Minister by way of numbers for the layoffs?

While he is thinking about that, let me read part of the press release that the Government Leader issued. He said, "Laying off a large number of employees would have an enormous impact on individual employees and their families, as well as the economy of the Yukon. The price of that, especially on families, would have been too high". Could the Minister indicate whether that was negotiating puffery or if that was actually believed to be true at the time it was issued?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

It was not my press release. I would expect that it was believed to be true, in that this would be the result: if the government has to meet a financial target, we have to reduce payroll costs that would result in layoffs.

Mr. Cable:

I am sure this will all be revealed two days hence.

In that crosstalk program, the Government Leader also indicated that the government was not finished with downsizing. How does the Minister reconcile that comment with the fact that we are avoiding layoffs by asking the employees to make concessions on their wages?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

We expect to achieve savings in a number of ways. It is not simply by reducing our payroll costs. We are looking at every expenditure in government. I think the Member for Riverdale South talked about looking at the expenses of providing services - office equipment, furniture, computers. We are looking at that for cost savings, too. We are also looking at attrition. If there are positions that are vacant and do not need to be filled, we will not refill them, but there will not be layoffs. So, there will be a downsizing of the government through attrition, all so that we do not lay people off and so that we can afford to pay our employees a good salary and be a responsible employer.

Question re: Wage rollback/public sector

Mr. Penikett:

We have been hearing some extraordinary things. A few minutes ago, the Government Leader claimed that it has always been their position that they would negotiate. I have in my hand a press release in the name of the Government Leader announcing that "the government will be introducing the legislation this spring to provide for wage rollbacks of teachers and territorial government employees, effective January 1, 1995. Legislation will freeze wages, merit increases and experience

Page Number 2183

increments for all government employees, including members of the Teachers Association, for approximately three years."

Now, unless the Government Leader did not read the release that Mr. Drown put out in his name, this very clearly says there will be no negotiations. The Government Leader said it has always been their position that they will negotiate. Which is the truth? Are they going to negotiate or are they going to legislate? What is the position of the government? Please.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I see the Member opposite has a copy of the press release, but I guess he did not listen to the comments made in regard to it. It was the position of both myself and the Minister that we were prepared to talk with both bargaining units.

Mr. Penikett:

In law, there is a very clear difference between talking to employee representatives and negotiating according to the provisions of legislation such as the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the Education Act.

The Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission is a lawyer. He has no experience in collective bargaining, but he is a lawyer. Tomorrow, he is sending people to a meeting that has been called because the teachers have given notice to commence bargaining.

I want to know the answer to this simple question: will the representatives of the Government of Yukon be going to that meeting to bargain, according to the provisions of the legislation passed and adopted in this House - the law of the territory - or will they be given the take-it-or-leave-it proposition that has been previously articulated by the Government Leader and the Minister?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

If the Leader of the Official Opposition refers to my answer to that question a few moments ago, I clearly stated that we would be talking to the teachers tomorrow. I do not know if he is advocating on their behalf or if he will be there as their negotiator.

I have told the Leader of the Official Opposition that our people will be there to meet with the teachers. I hope that, at that time, we will reach some agreement that is satisfactory to both sides.

Mr. Penikett:

The kind of verbal gymnastics demonstrated by the Member might be impressive in a courtroom, but the Member is being asked a very simple and direct question here, which he has now avoided answering several times today. Out of respect for this House, out of respect for the public sitting in the gallery, and out of respect for the employees of this government, will he now tell us if the people going to that meeting tomorrow from the government will be bargaining or just giving them a speech about wage restraint? Are they going to bargain or not?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

I would think that, out of respect for all those people who have been mentioned, the Leader of the Official Opposition would not stand and politicize this issue. They would let the government representatives talk to the Yukon Teachers Association to see if we can work something out that is mutually agreeable to all of us and is fair to all employee groups. This is not a political football that the Leader of the Official Opposition needs to kick around. If only he could wait one more day.

Question re: Wage rollback/public sector

Mr. Penikett:

This is incredible. This House has not heard the budget. We have not been given any financial details on which the government is allegedly making its decisions. But the central plank of its budget announcement, the fact that a wage freeze and cutbacks will be legislated - not negotiated - has been announced for weeks - over a month ago, March 10. Today we have this flim-flam going on, with the Government Leader saying they were always going to negotiate even though that is a direct contradiction from his own statement, and we have the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission, the man who is responsible for protecting the law around collective bargaining, refusing to tell us whether he is going to a meeting tomorrow to bargain according to the law, having been given notice of the intention to bargain by an employee group.

All I want to know is whether the government is going to the table to negotiate or not. The Government Leader says he is; the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission will not tell us. What is the truth?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

I believe I have answered that question several times for the Leader of the Official Opposition. We announced our intention in March so that it would be clear that this is the direction in which we would be going. We were looking for input and feedback and that is what we are getting. We have announced that we are prepared to listen until May 20 to try and reach an agreement. If we cannot negotiate a settlement, an agreement, then we are prepared to legislate because these savings are needed and necessary.

Mr. Penikett:

This issue was politicized by, in order of importance in the government, Mr. Drown, Mr. Ostashek and, most recently, the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission. That is who politicized the issue on March 10.

Let me ask the Minister this question, since he refuses to answer a direct question about whether they will bargain. He said there is a deadline of May 20. He says there will be talks. The government has given its financial targets of two-percent cuts and a freeze after that. Is the Minister saying that he is open to negotiate some arrangement between that offered by the employees and that being demanded by the government, or is this going to be a take-it-or-leave-it proposition at the meeting tomorrow? Will he tell us that? Is he prepared to negotiate - in other words, move off the government's position - or not?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

We have made it clear that we want to talk to the Yukon Teachers Association and the Yukon Employees Union about how best to achieve that level of saving, minimizing layoffs and sharing the burden equally among employee groups.

The way the situation exists now, that is not the case. The teachers are carrying more of the burden than the government employees; there are inequities among employee groups; we want to solve that inequity; we want to do that by talking to everyone involved.

Mr. Penikett:

I have never heard such equivocation since the last time I saw a production of Macbeth. Let me ask the Government Leader this question, since he is a plain man who prides himself on simple and clear pronouncements.

The Minister will not tell us whether he is going to be talking or negotiating tomorrow; he tells us he will be talking, but we do not know whether he will be negotiating. In his press release here, which has quotes attributed to the Government Leader, it says they are not going to negotiate. They have one position.

The Government Leader has told us today, "We have always been open to negotiation; we are always prepared to negotiate." Could the Government Leader tell us here, in the House, in plain language today, is the Government of the Yukon and its representatives, who will attend the meeting with the teachers tomorrow, going to negotiate with the teachers, or are they just going to hand them a take-it-or-leave-it proposition? By negotiating, I mean under the terms of the law, the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the Education Act, not some law that the Members might bring in later.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

If we had a take-it-or-leave-it attitude, we would have introduced the legislation today.

Question re: Wage rollback/public sector

Ms. Moorcroft:

The Yukon native teacher education program was established because the previous government believed

Page Number 2184

that employing First Nations teachers in Yukon schools is of great value to the students and to the community. I have had calls from teachers and community members who are concerned that the zero increments for new teachers means we will lose locally trained teachers to other jurisdictions.

Can the Minister of Education tell us what his government's commitment is to the native teacher education program?

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

We have indicated to the First Nations and others in the House that we support that program; the program will continue.

Ms. Moorcroft:

The Yukon native teacher education program graduates have just finished four years of training. They have made personal and financial sacrifices to get training. Now they cannot afford to stay in the Yukon with four years of zero increases. This is very bad for morale in the schools and for students currently in the program. Perhaps the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission, who has just been talking about inequities, can tell us what the government is prepared to do to resolve the inequity that locally trained teachers face?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

We are prepared to address those inequities. We have received representations in that regard. I hope we will reach a satisfactory point where we will not lose those teachers to outside jurisdictions.

Ms. Moorcroft:

The Minister says they will talk. He says they will meet. He has even said they will go over there and listen and have tea with the Yukon Teachers Association.

We would like to know why they will not agree to go over and bargain with the teachers.

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

I have answered that question a number of times. We will go over and talk to the Yukon Teachers Association tomorrow. We will let the Members opposite know the results of that meeting.

Question re: RCMP response time

Ms. Commodore:

Over the weekend, a seriously disturbing incident took place in downtown Whitehorse that resulted in the death of one man and a range of criminal charges against several people. Yesterday afternoon, officials in the Minister of Justice's department released information provided directly by the RCMP claiming the response time in that incident was only seven minutes.

This does not square with information we have received from first-hand sources. Is the Minister satisfied with the RCMP's version of events, or will his department be doing some independent investigation into how long it took the RCMP to arrive on the scene after the very first phone call?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

First of all, let me say that the information that we received was based on their records, which are kept in a very official way. They received the first call at 11:34 p.m. and a second call at 11:37 p.m. At 11:41 p.m., the first officer arrived on the scene, and the assault was still happening.

I do not mind checking into the further allegations made by the Member opposite, but I am a little disappointed in the way this has come about. I understand that the side opposite is trying to make a political issue of some cuts in the budget to the RCMP, which have been publicized. It seems to me that to go about it in this way, with what seems to be hearsay evidence, and in a manner calculated to erode and undermine public confidence in the police is a rather despicable way of making some cheap political points. I am quite surprised that the Member would knowingly take this approach in this House.

Ms. Commodore:

The Minister is missing the point of the whole incident. A very serious incident occurred on Friday night that he did not know anything about yesterday.

There was a first call that was reported to us that went in seeking help prior to the beatings taking place. The response from the police officers in charge was "let it go; we do not have enough police officers on duty."

Will the Minister conduct an investigation to find out whether or not these rumours are true?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

I will certainly look into the rumours, but that does not really change the point that I am making. Yesterday, when this matter was raised in the House by the hon. Member, the allegation made by her was that there was an inadequate response because of cutbacks, or proposed cutbacks, to the police budget. It is my view that this kind of tactic is simply deplorable, because nothing could be further from the truth.

Ms. Commodore:

The Minister has not indicated whether or not there is any truth to the cutbacks. Has the Minister had discussions with Chief Superintendent Henderson of the RCMP about any cutbacks? There is also a lot of concern about the highly effective PACE program and the elimination of the K-9 unit.

Will the Minister table any information he has regarding discussions with the Chief Superintendent of the RCMP about cutbacks to that budget?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

Of course not. We will be tabling the budget this week. There have been all kinds of questions asked in this House. Perhaps the Member was not paying attention, but there were many questions asked by her neighbour and philosophical partner on that side of the House, the good Member from the Liberal Party and MLA for Riverside, regarding the same issues: possible cutbacks to the police budget.

I said at that time - and if they read Hansard they will see it and they can check it out for themselves - that, yes, we have been making requests of all departments and the RCMP to meet certain budget targets.

Question re: Energy policy

Mrs. Firth:

I have a question for the Government Leader and also the Minister responsible for the energy policy. This government has promised us a comprehensive energy policy since they were elected, and we are still waiting for the government to present their energy plan for the future. So far, we have had announcements about rate rebates to consumers and an industrial support policy white paper. It is obvious the government has no plan in place, no policy, no energy agenda, and they are simply moving from one crisis to another.

I would like to ask the Government Leader when Yukoners are going to see this government's energy policy.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I am not sure what the Member is looking for. We just put out an industrial support policy, and energy plays a role in it. Along with that, the non-utility generators policy will be coming out shortly, which will fit in with that. These pieces will all go together to form our energy policy for the future.

Mrs. Firth:

So what the Government Leader is saying is that this Yukon industrial support policy is part of the overall energy policy - is that a correct statement?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

Certainly, that will form part of the policy.

Mrs. Firth:

The Minister responsible for the Energy Corporation made an interesting comment in the House last session, when he was questioned about the energy policy and particularly about an industrial policy. He said, in response to a question posed by the hon. Member who represents the Riverside riding, and I quote the Minister, "We do not intend to have a grandiose document full of principles and philosophy, that signifies absolutely nothing to the real world."

This obviously is not a grandiose document. It does not have any principles or philosophies in it, so I guess it signifies absolutely nothing to the real world.

Page Number 2185

I want to ask the Government Leader, who is responsible for energy and the formulation of the energy policy in the Department of Economic Development, when we are going to have this comprehensive energy policy. I want a time. When are Yukoners going to have this policy that has been promised for the last year and a half?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I wonder if the Member opposite is looking for us to say that we are going to produce energy for X number of cents a kilowatt, regardless of where a facility may be in the Yukon, at great expense to the taxpayers, so that they could condemn that sort of a policy.

We have set out some broad principles under which we will negotiate with industrial users on policies. We are working on a northern oil and gas accord. We are working on the legislation and the policy papers at this time for gas and oil in the Yukon, along with the non-utility generators. We are working on all of these areas; they are going together and that will form our energy policy for the future.

Question re: Energy policy

Mrs. Firth:

I want to follow up with the same Minister about the same issue.

The Minister just got up in the House again today and said something that last time he said he did not say: that being that he was going to be negotiating with some industrial users. He is saying it again.

If he wants to be specific, let us get specific. Let us talk about this big document. There was a contract awarded to Intergroup Consultants for $25,000. The details in terms of the contract were for professional services and advice related to the development of an industrial rate policy. Can the Government Leader tell us if we can have that information and if it is included in this industrial support policy?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

It is interesting to be on this side of the House and see how the hon. Member opposite seems to absorb, I suppose through osmosis, the philosophy of those opposite.

It is my view that a policy, based on sound principles, should be evaluated on the principles and the effectiveness of the policy, not by the weight of some documents. Some of the worst policies I have ever seen emanated from the side opposite when they were in power. There were thick documents, full of all kinds of theories and words, and, yet, with those policies - I think there were four or five booklets put out, if I recall correctly - we managed to see a situation where ratepayers' money was spent on sawmills, chippers, hotels and anything unrelated to the provision of cheap energy. We saw a situation where the Yukon Energy Corporation was run into the ground. We saw a situation where, for purely political reasons, the people who would manufacture cheap electricity were not allowed to look at coal as a possible source of thermal energy.

I submit that some clear, simple principles are what we need. We do have, acting under the umbrella of those simple principles, a competent organization -

Speaker:

Order please. Would the Minister please conclude his answer.

Mrs. Firth:

I never, ever, thought I would hear this particular Member stand up and give us such a bunch of nonsense in the House.

Come on, Willard, get serious.

Speaker:

Order.

Mrs. Firth:

Please get serious. I would like to know if we could have a copy of this $25,000 expenditure on the advice and service that was provided by Intergroup Consultants to make this document. I am not discussing the weight of it. I am talking about the contents of it, which the Member is having a difficult time defending - a very difficult time defending. Can we have a copy of this contract - the $25,000 that was spent for a copy of the advice that was given to the government regarding the industrial rate policy?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

What was purchased for the money was advice, which was utilized and is being utilized in formulating Cabinet documents relating to the issue of electrical and energy policies in the Yukon.

Mrs. Firth:

What the Minister is saying, then, is that we paid $25,000 to a consulting firm to get nothing so that they could publish nothing. This document contains no principles. That is what the Minister is standing up and saying, because he will not give us the information. Let us see what the consulting service gave him. Let us see the information.

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

I am sure the Member did not mean to misspeak herself. I am starting to wonder if she would know a principle if she sat on one.

This is the information used in the formulation of Cabinet documents. It is certainly not information that is allowed, under current law, to be made public, and it will not be made public.

Speaker:

The time for Question Period has now elapsed.

Notice of Opposition Private Members' Business

Mr. Cable:

Pursuant to Standing Order 14.2(3), I would like to identify the item standing in the name of the Liberal Party to be called on Wednesday, April 20, 1994. It is Motion No. 61.

Mr. McDonald:

Pursuant to the same Standing Order, I would like to identify the item standing in the name of the Official Opposition to be called on Wednesday, April 20, 1994. It is Motion No. 59, standing in the name of Mr. Penikett.

Speaker:

We will proceed to Orders of the Day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Speaker:

Government Bills.

GOVERNMENT BILLS

Bill No. 16: Second Reading

Clerk:

Second reading, Bill No. 16, standing in the name of the hon. Mr. Ostashek.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I move that Bill No. 16, entitled Third Appropriation Act, 1993-94, be now read a second time.

Speaker:

It has been moved by the Hon. Government Leader that Bill No. 16, entitled Third Appropriation Act, 1993-94, be now read a second time.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

This bill will appropriate additional sums for the 1993-94 fiscal year. We are requesting an additional $5,779,000 in spending authority for the year in question. This additional authority is spread among four departments only.

The Legislative Assembly requires $434,000 more, all for the Members' pension plan. The Department of Finance is asking for an additional $5,170,000. This sum is entirely due to providing for potential bad debts as a result of the collapse of Curragh Inc.

The Department of Justice has seen its legal aid expenditures increase at a rate far in excess of that for which it budgeted. Consequently, they need $175,000 more to meet the demand for these services in the fiscal year just ended.

Finally, the Executive Council Office is asking the Assembly to approve a $13,000 transfer from operation and maintenance to

Page Number 2186

capital.

The sums being requested in this bill obviously apply to a year that has already ended. For that reason, a special warrant in the like amount was approved by the Commissioner prior to March 31.

Despite the new expenditures reflected in this supplementary, our projected year-end financial position has improved. At the time the first supplementary for 1993-94 was tabled in this House, we were projecting an annual deficit for 1993-94 of $3.2 million. We are now showing a small annual surplus of $1.5 million.

This improvement results from a variety of changes in our revenues and recoveries, not the least of which is a consequence of a review of the tax effort, or perversity factor, in formula financing, which was initiated by the previous government. This review resulted in a tax effort factor going down several percentage points to the Yukon's benefit.

The improvement in our financial position will, I am certain, be welcome news to all Members. We are not out of the woods yet. We still have an accumulated deficit, but we are on a path that will bring public sector spending under control in the territory.

Mr. McDonald:

I do not think there is any point in pulling punches because I want to be reasonably brief. I think a reasonable person would characterize this budget as being crafty and manipulative. It appears to be the Yukon Party's best attempt to paint the bleakest picture of the year-end financial position that it possibly could.

Their entire political strategy from the time they were elected to office, until today, and obviously well into the future over the next three years, has embraced the claim that the Yukon government's finances were, not in trouble, not difficult, not limited, but in crisis. It was a crisis situation. Nobody could expect anything from the Yukon Party government, for if they did, they would be criticized for being financially irresponsible. This has allowed the Yukon Party government to instead table budgets that are the biggest in Yukon history. They have the best financial situation of any government in the country.

They could not even convince the employer representative on the conciliation board last December that they were in such a tight financial crunch that they had to seek upwards of a five-percent reduction from their employees in order to bring themselves back on track. They could not convince their own representative that that was the case. When all the documents were trundled out, experts were brought in, everyone was lined up to provide the single solitary case that this government's finances were in tough, tough shape.

This government is a government that has no debt, according to Stats Canada, or even by their own calculations, a cash debt so small that it could be eliminated by shaving construction activity on one highway.

These people are completely financially incompetent. What happens to a government that has taken this political stand? What happens when they receive incredible windfalls at year-end - from income taxes, as the Government Leader has pointed out, from other final accounting of federal commitments in the Health and Social Services budget that amount to better than $3 million dollars. How does a government, which claims to be in fiscal crisis, deal with very, very large cash windfalls, and still maintain the same political stance they have with the public and the taxpayers and the teachers and their own employees? How do you keep public expectations at bay? How do you tell transition homes that they cannot have any money, that the government is broke? That if a client of a transition home wants to have service, they have to have an appointment, or at least have the batterer make an appointment with the transition home so they can have some relief. How do you tell people who advocate for the disabled that there is no money when you have these windfalls at year-end? How do you tell public servants to keep in the mood to slash their own paycheques?

How do you stop the poor taxpayers who had to cough up more money last spring for increased taxes from rising up in revolt?

I remind you that those same taxpayers had to swallow a pill the size of a hockey puck when they learned that the tax increases that were essential to balance the budget last year were matched in savings found after only four months into this last fiscal year. These were savings that were directed to new winter works job creation, which turned out to be a phantom exercise in itself.

To maintain the fiscal crisis mentality, you do not look for lapses. Here is a budget that suggests that there is $126 million of capital spending, and no money is lapsing.

We are now three weeks into the new fiscal year and the best information that the government has is that there is not a single dime lapsed in the capital budget. In fact, this government wants $13,000 more. That makes absolutely no sense, and bears no relationship to any experiences this Legislature has ever had in the 12 years that I have been here.

I would ask this: What do you do when you need to show the bleakest picture possible? Well, you do not identify lapses and you do not seek lapses, because you know that that would make the financial picture look even brighter.

The Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes, who is kibitzing so wildly, is perhaps the largest offender when it comes to double talk of anyone in this Legislature. We will have a lot more to say about the Member in due course.

In any case, you certainly do not look for lapses, because that would make the situation look brighter.

This is a supplementary that contains virtually no detail at all. I looked at the supplementaries from previous years - 1991-92 and 1992-93 - tabled in April of the following year, one month after year-end. To give Members a visual presentation, there is a lot of detail about over and under expenditures that has been identified by departments. To do what? To give an honest picture of the government's finances to the Legislature so that we can carefully, clearly and professionally understand the true financial picture.

What we have here is a government that simply does not want to admit to lapses, because lapses do not provide the proper environment for encouraging public servants to accept cuts in their wages to provide for a balanced budget well into the future.

What do they do? Not only do they not look for lapses, they claim that an estimate of $126 million worth of capital expenditure made 18 months ago has come in right on the money. In every department, they have come in right on the money. The planning that went into this budget must be an absolutely phenomenal exercise. The Members opposite should sell whatever they have been drinking to governments all around the world. Anyone else who brought in a budget and claimed that they planned to spend $126 million in capital and came in spending exactly $126 million, plus $13,000 - one would think they were high on drugs.

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, what else one has to do to make the budget as bleak as possible. One has to use the tactic, which has worked in the past, called the allowance for bad debts. This is where one writes off everything one possibly can. It has worked with the extended care facility. There is still money coming in from CMHC and there will be for the next 20 years, but the entire costs for the project have already been written off. That works well. People have bought it already.

Now what one does is also consider some other write-offs. One scrounges around in every corner of the government attic to ask where one can find other things to write off. We have to draw the

Page Number 2187

surplus down; it does not look good. How are we going to explain - if the historical measures are accurate - $10 million or $15 million in lapses and a $10 million windfall in revenues to those people we are telling that we have no money? How does one erase that minuscule - as compared to their expenditures - accumulated debt and show a $10 million or $15 million surplus, all in one breath, and, at the same time, carry on their political agenda, which is simply to mindlessly cut absolutely everything there is to cut. They have no agenda of any kind on virtually any subject, other than to downsize it and make it smaller - with the exception of highway construction, to make them, I guess, longer, bigger or wider.

What we have here are some write-offs that include some $2.4 million to pay for Curragh's energy charges prior to their unfortunate demise. That $2.4 million is a one-time debt by the company for electrical energy. Now they are saying that the taxpayers of this territory must pay for it. This is an energy charge that the taxpayers have to pay for while Yukon Energy Corporation is sitting on close to $30 million of accumulated profit.

The Minister of Finance looks surprised.

Go into your accounts and have a look at all the large reserves that are still available. There is even a reserve in this government large enough to pay out every single employee of all outstanding obligations to them - all vacation time, sick time, everything - even if they all quit in the same hour of the same day. We are ready to handle that eventuality, and that is a big cash reserve.

We also have a government that is going to write off $1.4 million under the Faro Real Estate agreement. They have not said whether or not they are going to eliminate the mortgages and give those houses to the renters in Faro, which would probably be well-received, given the bleak state of affairs for those residents. It might go some minor distance in making up for the lack of faith and distrust those people have for this government. However, I suspect they are not going to do any such thing. They are still going to write it off, but they are going to accept the rents anyway, so it will be another extended care facility.

I promised to be brief, and I will be.

Therefore, what the government Ministers have decided to do is not admit to any lapses. They are going to spend this windfall in any creative way they possibly can. They are going to ignore the horrific fallout that has taken place on our streets and in our businesses around this territory from the we-are-in-fiscal-crisis position they have adopted. The economy is imploding on the street, and the government does not even care. Businesses are closing all the time, businesses that have been around for decades.

These Ministers noticed there was a positive economic indicator, and it was the only one they identified as being useful for their purposes for the last eight or 10 months. They identified retail sales as being up, so they decided they were going to do something about that, too.

Where do the people get the money to pay their bills? Where do the business people get the money that causes retail trade to go up? They get a lot of it from public servants. Go after the public servants. We have to get that economic indicator down, because we do not like positive economic indicators around here. It does not serve our purposes.

I have talked to a lot of constituents. I have been saying that the Yukon Party does not think there is any problem here. They have adopted a couch-potato stance on economic revival, which is in contrast to the more dynamic McKenna approach that was exemplified in Maclean's magazine the other day and is different from the NDP government's approach here.

You just build it and passively sit back like the couch potatoes they are. You hope that people just come. You sponsor a cocktail party, ply them with drinks, tell them about all the roads we have, and hope things are going to happen. It does not happen anywhere else in the world, but they are sure it will happen here.

Meanwhile, the mall down the street in Whitehorse is seeing closures. Main Street businesses are suffering. There are people all over this territory complaining.

Some Hon. Member:

(Inaudible)

Speaker:

Order.

Mr. McDonald:

For the record, the Ministers across the floor are saying that we should all be thankful that someone from Winnipeg has decided that there is a long-term future for this territory. I, too, believe there is a long-term future for this territory, but the reality on the street is that businesses are closing now, my constituents are losing their jobs now, but the government has a two-year positive horizon - in two years, this will all end. Certainly, First Commercial, the developer for the mall, is thinking long-term, too, but a lot of my constituents are suffering now and they talk to me all the time about how they are going to get a job and who is losing their jobs next and what businesses are closing down. It is a blood sport out there.

Here is a government that has been claiming it is in a tight financial situation, yet they cannot be too concerned about their cash position because they have invested millions into land development for land that they cannot sell.

That, by itself, causes cash flow problems. They announced that there were cash flow problems; they announced that they are in a tight financial situation, and they are still sitting on huge reserves that are designed to account for various circumstances.

Governments have limitations. All governments have limitations. Even this government, which is spending record high budgets, has limitations, but it pretends that there is a fiscal crisis in order to make enough room available so that their priorities can be respected and to collapse public expectations to the point where no one feels they can ask this government for anything at all, even quite legitimate things, because to do so means they will be accused of being financially irresponsible. To take this position about there being a fiscal crisis, when it clearly has a severe impact on the street - this is real life stuff; we are not playing around here. There are people who are truly being affected by the decisions being made in this Legislature - by offhand comments that may be made or the political strategy of the government side.

People are absolutely sick and tired of not only this government's political strategy, but also their sheer incompetence.

We have gone from crisis to crisis to crisis, in the government's own assumptions of the fiscal situation. We had the Government Leader, in December of 1992, stating that the financial situation was a crisis and then stating a few months later an all clear signal. Now, because they want to cut back public servants' wages, we are back to a crisis situation again.

The bottom line is that this government is in financially good shape. It does not mean they do not have limitations, because they do have limitations, but they are in financially good shape. Any government that is interested in promoting confidence in the economy would acknowledge at least that one fact, so people would feel comfortable spending money in their own communities.

We have a lot of questions about this bill. There is very little detail and I will be asking for a lot more detail. I will be asking about the variance reporting system and about why there is no more information available to us to provide us with a better and realistic impression of what government's finances truly are.

I am going to be asking questions about the allowance for bad debts. These are some of the issues that I have raised already. I am going to be asking about the projections on income tax revenue, which appear to be out by 27 percent from only a few months ago when the supplementary was tabled in November. I am going to

Page Number 2188

be asking why we can now expect the government to be coming forward and saying that things have changed so incredibly and dramatically over such a short period of time.

I have many questions about various departments. I know that the government has not afforded us an opportunity to debate departments in detail nor have they given us numbers but, in general debate, we will all be asking Ministers about their departments, if that is the only vehicle that we have available. We are going to be requesting a lot of information about lapses in the budgets. We have the traditional questions about contract lists to the end of this fiscal year. We will be expecting those published contract lists to be tabled before we get seriously into debate on this budget.

We have some questions about the recoveries, and we have some questions about particular items that I am certain various Members on this side will be asking of those various Ministers.

In conclusion, my comments about this being a cynical, manipulative budget are, I think, well-justified. It is time that the public received some answers, because they have been living with the consequences of government action for the last year and a half and, according to most of the people I have talked to, they do not like it. People want the government to answer a lot of questions about what they have been doing.

Mrs. Firth:

I guess when I look at this supplementary estimate it sort of proves the comment that a lot of my constituents make to me when they talk about government spending money and government budgets. They tell me whoever has the best story, whoever tells the most believable lies, is the one you have to believe. I am certainly not accusing the government of lying. I would not do that; it is not my style to do that, but that is the mood of the public. They want the truth about the budget. When the public feels the only way they are going to get information is whoever gives them the best story, I would say that is a pretty cynical comment about governments in general.

What I want to do this afternoon is try to find out what the truth is. I have been trying to offer suggestions to the government ever since the election, with respect to budgetary matters. I have tried to be generous and understanding of their direction, their goals.

I have an example of what has happened with this government and why people are so cynical - why I am cynical about information I get from them. I strongly opposed the tax increases, as a Member of this Legislature, both on behalf of the constituents I represent and on behalf of other Yukoners. I did that because I did not think it was necessary for the government to reach into Yukoners' pockets and ask them to pay more. I thought that was the view shared by the Government Leader.

As some of us may recall, during April 1993, when the federal government was announcing its new budget, the Government Leader was quoted as saying that Canada was in a financial crisis, that if we were to get the cost of government under control, we could not do it by continually raising taxes. That was the message he gave us. That was April 23, 1993. Then, Monday, April 26, 1993, the Minister stood up in the House and read a ministerial statement about income tax increases for Yukoners. He talked about needing this money to balance the budget, to avoid massive layoffs and to maintain basic service levels in government programs. Even though this was the time when governments were so broke, we had these huge deficits, they were able to make an announcement, not even a month later on May 10, that they were able to cut the departments to find another $1.7 million - because they were phasing in the tax increases, they needed more money - so they cut every department by a little amount of money to get another $1.7 million. The tax increase increased the government revenues by $8.8 million; they immediately found $1.7 million; it was not much later when the government announced a $7 million job creation project.

Every time we turn around, the government, out of one side of their mouths, tell everyone how broke we are, how they want to get rid of the deficit and how we have this huge responsibility to get rid of the Canadian deficit, as well. Yet, out of the other side of their mouths, every time we turn around, they are finding more money for something without any apparent difficulty.

What is really galling about this supplementary estimate is the huge increase in revenue projections from income tax: $8.4 million.

I have asked the Finance officials why they could not have estimated this more accurately. I am told that it was not their fault, it was the fault of the federal government. I see the Government Leader nodding his head. So, this misestimate is not our fault; it is not the fault of the Department of Finance or the Minister; it is the federal government's fault.

On the other hand, when it came time to estimate the amount of tax revenue that the government wanted to collect, why is it that they seem to be able to estimate how much they should increase Yukon taxes? They could do all that very accurately. They had no one to blame when it came time to do that.

It really does disturb people to have a government offer a different story every time they want to rationalize an initiative they are taking.

They never seem to stand up and give us the real reason why they want to do something. If the government wants to roll back government wages, stand up and say so with a reasonable reason why they want to do it. Do not keep changing the reason. We have heard everything from, "We have a deficit", which we obviously now do not have, as we are showing a surplus on the estimates.

The Government Leader is shaking his head, indicating no, but this estimate shows a surplus, even with the write-off. The surplus of $5 million, plus the write-off, would be almost a $10 million surplus. The increase of revenues in income tax is astonishing - the money that Yukoners are contributing to the coffers of this government.

If the government would just stand up and tell us what they are doing and why, I think even though some Yukoners may not agree with what they are doing, they would at least appreciate getting a straight answer. They said we have a deficit. Then they said we do not have a deficit any more, but Canada does, so we must help with that deficit.

They never tell us whether they are going to give the money back to the Government of Canada. Are they going to give the money back that they save from the wage rollbacks and reducing the cost of government? I do not think they are going to do that, because I had a debate with the Government Leader in the last sitting of the Legislature about the infrastructure program. The Government Leader at that time indicated that he had a lot of problems with it because it was some kind of political program where the federal government wanted high profile projects carried out and I suggested he tell them he was not prepared to participate in that kind of political activity and waste of taxpayers' money but, no, he could not do that - he wanted the money from the federal government. So, which is it? Are we saving money? Are we giving money back, or are we just going there with our hand out and asking for more all the time? He cannot have it both ways.

From the enquiries I made with respect to some of the details of the supplementary, particularly with respect to the revenues, I understand that the liquor profits are up because the liquor store in Watson Lake has been cancelled. I find that quite interesting because we have never had an announcement about that and I understand it was quite a controversial political issue here. That was the information given to me by the deputy minister with

Page Number 2189

respect to details about the supplementaries.

I cannot explain the great increase in the personal income tax, part of it probably resulting from the corporate tax.

I think the Minister should have all that information at his fingertips and be able to stand up here in the House and tell us exactly what the financial picture is. As a Member of this Legislature, I was tired - and I know many people in the public were tired - of chasing around after the Minister of Finance, chasing around through his budgets, trying to find out what the real story is, what the real picture is.

It is even more important now that they have that information because the unions are demanding that information. The government and Minister of Finance are going to have to come up with some very clear, specific, concise numbers to show exactly what the financial picture is of the territory.

I really have a lot of concern about estimates that are done, particularly revenue estimates, that are out by as much as 16 to 20 percent, perhaps even more. If the chief executive officer was running a corporation like this government is being run, the shareholders would remove him from his seat. That just may happen.

I am going to have a lot of questions for the Minister of Finance when we get into the specific details of this supplementary estimate. I have a little information with respect to the transfer payments. I want to ask the Minister for some more details about that - where we were able to get extra money from the federal government. I understand there is $4 million because of the study that was done, and the Government Leader has made some reference to it today.

We were able to gain some money with respect to the perversity factor in the formula financing and, also, the risk-absorbing agreement. Could the Minister bring back some detailed information?

I am using this opportunity to ask for it, so Finance officials can have some time to prepare it so it is ready for debate in Committee of the Whole. I would like to have a list of the sources of territorial revenues, including the original estimated revenues from each category and the revised estimates, along with the reasons for the changes. That is important information for us to have, because I have a great concern about the way territorial revenues are estimated and the discrepancies that have been noted.

I want the Minister to explain to us his apprehension about the federal funding to the Yukon government being cut back. He said he had a feeling, and he wanted to be prepared, so he is collecting this pot of money for the Yukon government to have, because he just has this feeling that we are going to get less money from the federal government. Exactly why does the Minister feel this way? What indications has he had that this is going to happen? What discussions has he had? If there has been any correspondence to that effect to him from the federal government, could he provide us, as Members of the Legislature, with that information?

I want to see that all detailed, because that has become the latest excuse. All the other excuses are worn out. We tried the deficit, the massive layoffs, the Canadian deficit and, now, the new excuse is that we are going to have our funding cut from Ottawa. I want the Minister to be able to substantiate that comment with some very specific information.

I want the Minister to bring back information with respect to income recoveries. In the first supplementary budget for 1993-94, government officials estimated that recoveries, whether from the Government of Canada or from clients of various programs, were to be almost $22 million less than the $129 million. I am saying the estimates were out by almost 20 percent. They were 20 percent lower than the original budget estimates. They are now estimating these recoveries will increase by over $3 million.

Why was it estimated last fall that there would be a $22 million decrease in recoveries? Where did they come up with that estimate? Who were the funds to be recovered from? Was it from the Government of Canada, from economic programs, or from clients using government programs, like the Yukon Housing programs?

Could the Government Leader explain to us why it is now being estimated that these recoveries will increase?

The government is predicting a surplus of almost $5 million in the 1993-94 fiscal year. The Minister of Finance can stand up and explain it. The Minister of Finance is saying $1.5 million, but to me it looks like $5 million. I will wait for the Minister of Finance to explain that figure.

The government is announcing a write-off of $5 million in bad debts. While I have some detail from the Department of Finance about that, I would like the Minister to provide us with a complete breakdown and the details of that write-off. I would also like to receive information to substantiate the decision; for example, the $2.4 million that is being written off for electrical energy with respect to Curragh. If the Minister of this government agreed to do this, I would like the Minister to provide the details of that agreement, such as who was present when the agreement was made, and how the decision was made, because it was not made by the Members of this Legislative Assembly.

I would also like to receive information with respect to property taxes, the bulk haul fees that were written off for Curragh and when those decisions were made, and how they were made.

I would like to receive the details with respect to the Faro Real Estate mortgage write-off of $1.4 million, so that I can analyze that information.

I think that I have covered all of the information that I want the Minister to bring back, so that when we get into Committee of the Whole and discuss this information in great detail, and while the Finance officials are here, we have the information to support our questions.

I also have to ask the Minister if he would bring back information with respect to the tax increases. I know that the government made predictions about revenues that would be gained by the tax increases.

It appears now that we have got considerably more money through those tax increases than the department had anticipated. I would like to know if the Minister of Finance was aware of the impact it was going to have when he originally imposed this increase on taxpayers. If he was not, and his Finance officials were not, I would like to know why not.

I would like to have the Minister present to the House some documentation. We never did get any data from the Finance officials. When the decision was made about increasing taxes, we were simply told that they were going to get $8.8 million overall. In the ministerial statement, there was some breakdown about how much the increases in fuel taxes, corporate taxes and personal income tax would contribute. I would like to see the figures that were done at the time these taxes were imposed and the figures that the department now has, in order to make a comparison. I would like to see from where the huge increase in revenue came. I hope the department is not just speculating about where it might be. I would hope that they will be able to provide figures. They know how many people are in the Yukon, who pays taxes, how much and so on. I would like to see some figures to substantiate the increases. I do not think we needed them, so I do not need any information to justify the government's actions.

I want the Minister also to provide us with other information. We constantly have this debate in the House: that side always says that the economy is good and optimistic and that businesses are doing well. Some of the constituents I represent are not doing well as business people. I know of a lot of businesses that have closed,

Page Number 2190

laid off staff, put their staff on four-day work weeks or rolled back wages. I do not deny that there are some businesses that are doing well - some - a few. If the government talks only to those few businesses that are doing well all the time and never to any of the others, they may get the impression that things are fine. However, there are a lot of businesses that are not doing well. There are a lot of unemployed people in the territory - more than I can recall ever seeing. There are unemployed professional people and unemployed trades people. I would like the Minister to bring some information to the House to substantiate his claim that the business community is flourishing. I do not want to see the press release about the retail sales being up, because I am skeptical about that.

The Government Leader and Minister of Finance is holding his hands up. Perhaps he could come back and tell us if those retail sales are up because of consumer spending or government spending.

I suspect that the reason retail sales are up is because of government spending. We have continued to see the traditional year-end spending sprees by this government. Fine, the Minister of Finance says not this year. We will see, when the Minister brings information here, comparing this year's year-end spending with the year-end spending for the last few years. I am interested in the public getting some accurate, quality information about the budget and the budgeting process.

I have talked to a few of my constituents since the supplementary was tabled and, when they saw the additional revenues that this government was going to get because of the tax increases, there were a lot of people who were not very happy. They were not happy with the tax increase in the first place. Then, when they saw that the government just filled its treasure chest up with money as a result of it, they were absolutely furious. Perhaps the Government Leader would provide us with information to substantiate his claim that the business community is doing well.

I think I have covered all the questions I have, and made all my requests for information so that, when it comes time to go into further line-by-line debate on this supplementary, I will have more questions to pose to government. This session, we have to take the time, as Members of this Assembly, to get down to the bottom line, so to speak. I am certainly prepared to spend as much time as we have to on this supplementary estimate, to find out what the real figures are, with respect to this government's spending patterns, as well as their revenue projections.

Mr. Cable:

Everything I was interested in has been dealt with, with the exception of the income tax differences between the original budget and Supplementary No. 2, dealt with in part by the previous speakers. I believe the Government Leader, by the nods of his head, has some explanation for that that derives from some of the formulation coming out of Ottawa.

I would like to point out that the original vote for income tax revenue was $34,765,000. That was increased in Supplementary No. 1 by $911,000, by Supplementary No. 2 by $8,401,000, which is over $9 million. That is under two percent of the total budget with respect to that particular line item - a 25-percent error - and I believe it is incumbent on the Minister of Finance to explain whether he thinks the budgetary system is working and, if not, whether he has any explanation or whether he has some changes to the budgetary projection system that would cause that sort of error to be eliminated.

The Government Leader has, on many occasions, indicated that we are going to be more self-sufficient. If we are going to raise more of our revenue, it would certainly give us more comfort if we knew that our system of projecting revenues is a little more accurate than this obviously is. When we have 25-percent errors, that is certainly not the sort of confidence builder the people in the street would like.

That is all the comment I can add to the previous speakers' comments.

Speaker:

If the Member now speaks, he will close debate. Does any other Member wish to be heard?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I will try to go over some of the comments that were made this afternoon and we will get into the meat of a lot of this in general debate.

First of all, I want to make one point. These supplementaries were just to bring the previous supplementaries up to date. A variance has not been done yet so there will be another supplementary coming in later on, after all the numbers are in - year-end. This was to bring things up to date with the best information we had as of March 31. It is the same situation we were in last year. It was the end of May or June before we could get accurate figures of what the departmental spending was, what the lapsed funds were and what the revotes were going to be. That comes out in the fall and we will be debating that in that supplementary. I know the Members opposite want to know them and we will do our best to try to bring them up to date the best we can, but again I want to say that these are just to bring the supplementaries up to date from what we tabled in the first set of supplementaries.

I want to also say that this supplementary, as well as the first one, reflects a far more responsible way of budgeting than what was done by the previous administration, which was coming in with millions of dollars of supplementaries. We are trying to project accurate spending figures and accurate revenue figures. I am not any happier than the Members opposite about the income tax figure. I do not know what has happened, but I would not be surprised, somewhere down the road, to see that that was adjusted by federal Finance. We will bring in what explanation we can for general debate on that.

In reply to the Member for Riverdale South on the fact that we have a surplus, she is totally wrong. We still have a deficit. After all is said and done, all the numbers are in and everything that can has been written off, the best we could hope for is still a $7 million accumulated deficit. That will be brought in and we will go through it in general debate.

I want to go back to the Member for McIntyre-Takhini, because he was very indignant in some of his statements about how we are handling finances as a government, and he made allegations that we are trying to paint a bleak picture.

We did not have to paint a bleak picture; they did it for us: a $64 million deficit in one year. That is what is bleak. The Members opposite say we are better off than any other province. You bet we are, but we also know how hard the Members opposite tried to get their hands on the workers' compensation fund, prior to the last election, because they knew the finances of government; they misled the public going into the election, and they did not table a budget to tell everyone they had a $64 million deficit. Talk about misrepresentation.

This government is trying to be fiscally responsible in putting together actual figures, not fantasy land figures. We are using prudent accounting methods and writing off our debts. When there is not much hope in collecting outstanding debts, it is prudent to write those debts off. That does not mean that we are going to give up trying to collect those debts. The Member for McIntyre-Takhini, who was the previous Minister of Finance, knows what a dim view the Auditor General takes of governments that do not reflect their bad debts or make allowances for them.

The Member talks about the huge employees' fund, where every employee could quit and we could pay them out. That is right, we could. Yet, if we were to limit that, I am sure that there

Page Number 2191

would be a line in the Auditor General's report saying that we are not carrying out prudent financial management of the territory. Use of reserve funds, which they had for special occasions, is what got other jurisdictions in trouble. The previous administration tried their best to get their hands on the funds in the workers' compensation fund prior to being defeated in the election. There was a great debate over it and, if it had not been for the Members of the Yukon Party, it would probably be gone. The previous administration knew the finances of government, and that is why they were trying so hard to get their hands on this fund.

Some Hon. Member:

(Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I am going to disagree with the Member for McIntyre-Takhini, when he says it does not, because it certainly does.

Some Hon. Member:

(Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

Mr. Speaker, if you would bear with me for one moment, I will give the Member for McIntyre-Takhini a lesson in net worth accounting, such as that carried out by Statistics Canada.

The report that was done by Statistics Canada was based on the March 31, 1992, year-end, when the previous administration had a $50,846,000 surplus to start with. It is all gone now, and we are left with a $13 million deficit in two short years.

To that, Stats Canada added the compensation fund of $84,278,000. To that, they added the net worth of the Yukon Development Corporation, another $40,810,000. On top of that, they added in the Lotteries Commission at $834,000. That came to a total of $176,768,000.

From that, and I hope the Member for McIntyre-Takhini is listening, they deducted the inventories and any fixed assets we carried on our balance sheets: $20,281,000 that they subtracted. Then, on top of that, they added in miscellaneous revenues, such as our road replacement equipment reserve fund and our health investment fund of another $2,147,000, for a total of $158,634,000.

I believe the Member for McIntyre-Takhini will say that is the figure that came out as the net worth of the Yukon. That report was done by Stats Canada. If the same report had been done as of March 31, 1993, after the NDP squandered the $50 million surplus that they had, we would have had a net worth of $48 million - $100 million less than we had two years ago. That is what we would have had.

Some Hon. Member:

(Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

The Members opposite are always full of doom and gloom about the economy of the territory. They have no faith in the economy of the territory, but many other sectors do have a lot of faith in it.

Let us just take a look at what is happening in the Yukon today. The March employment figures show that we have 700 more people working in the Yukon this March than we had a year ago.

Some Hon. Member:

(Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

The Member asks how many people are on social assistance. There are a lot less than when the NDP was in power. Along with that, I think a perfect indication of what is happening in the Yukon is that there are 1,000 more people working than in March of 1992, when both of our hard-rock mines were operating.

That shows there are people out there who have faith in what this government is doing in the Yukon and the economic climate that we are setting for the private sector.

Statistics Canada says that capital expenditure in the Yukon is going to be up over $36 million this year. That was prior to the mall being built. Now that the mall is going ahead, another $5 million or $7 million will make that figure in excess of $40 million.

There are over $200 million in capital expenditures in the Yukon. The Member for McIntyre-Takhini cannot tell me that this will not create jobs in the Yukon.

Retail sales are up, month after month. The Member for Riverdale South says that is not what people are telling her. The breakdown we have here is that retail sales are up in grocery stores and supermarkets. There must be people in the Yukon buying groceries. Motor vehicles and recreation sales are up. Household furniture and appliances sales are up. Those are some of the areas where we have details.

I want to make another point: we have five mines going through permitting in the Yukon today. That is more than there has been in a decade, after the Members opposite drove every mine out of the Yukon during their tenure. There were six of them operating when they took over. They put all their eggs in one basket, and it closed down. They have faith in the economic climate this government is creating even if the Members opposite do not. Those five mines will employ in the neighbourhood of 500 men or women - 50 to 100 in each one. They put all their eggs in one basket and let it go down the drain.

The economic reality of it is that the Yukon is coming back, better than we even expected. Now we have a mall enterprise that will add 15 more stores to the Yukon. They have faith in the economic climate this government is setting. Those stores will be open next spring, not two or three years down the road.

We made a commitment to come in with a balanced budget and we have.

Some Hon. Member:

(Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I do not know much about mini-golf.

The fact remains that we are pleased with the direction the economy in the Yukon is going. We are pleased with the number of jobs that are being created. We are pleased with the fact that our workforce is continuing to grow. We are pleased that unemployment is two percent less than one year ago in March. We are pleased with the $7 million job creation program we introduced last winter; it has worked.

It is work that has kept people off the unemployment rolls and we are going to continue to set an economic climate where private enterprise can flourish in the Yukon.

We will be answering, to the best of our ability, the increases in revenues in general debate.

Some Hon. Member:

(Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

The Member does not need to be depressed - he just has to look at his own record. What we had growth in back then was government and the O&M of government. That is what we had growth in. If we are going to continue to support the private sector out there we have to have money for capital projects. We have to control the O&M of government.

The Member talks about taking money out of roads. That is what they did. They took a substantial amount of money out of the highway budget since 1990 for O&M of government - a substantial amount of money.

The Members opposite just hate to see a balanced budget. They hate to see somebody being fiscally responsible. The Member for Riverdale South says that she does, and I am glad to hear that. I am glad to hear that she loves a balanced budget.

The Member for Riverdale South asked a question - how do we know that we have cuts coming. We have been told. The federal Finance Minister phoned me prior to tabling his first budget. He said that, in the next three years, they want to see substantial cuts in transfer payments to the provinces and the territories. They are talking about the capital assistance programs. I am sure I am not the only one who listens to the TV. I have heard Mr. Axworthy on there talking about the cuts he wants to make. They are tremendous cuts, and the provinces and territories have time to prepare for them. If we do not take advantage of that time, we could be in very

Page Number 2192

serious difficulty. We really could.

That is what we are trying to do. We do not have a big reserve fund, as the Member for Riverdale South said. We do not have a reserve fund. We still have a deficit and we will have a deficit even after tabling our next budget.

Again, I want to say that a variance report was not done for these supplementaries. These supplementaries were prepared to bring the other supplementaries up to date. There are still some that need to be done. There will be some lapses; the Member opposite knows that. We do not expect the lapses to be very much and we are expecting a possible figure somewhere in the $8 million to $10 million range. From that there will be a substantial number of revotes. We expect that we will only be able to apply about half of that money to the deficit.

As I said to the Member for Riverdale South, when all is said and done, we will have a deficit of approximately $7 million.

We have to control the costs of operation and maintenance. If we continue to allow the costs of operation and maintenance to grow, we will be in serious financial difficulty.

Motion for the second reading of Bill No. 16 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 now call Committee of the Whole to order.

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

Recess

Chair:

I will now call Committee of the Whole to order.

Bill No. 40 - Subdivision Act - continued

On Clause 3(1) - continued

Chair:

Is there further debate on subdivision of land, clause 3(1)?

Ms. Moorcroft:

When we left this in Committee yesterday, we were discussing agricultural parcels, and the Minister indicated that the Agricultural Association supports the Subdivision Act. What I have been provided with is a copy of a letter of December 20 in which the Agricultural Association executive states it has discussed the Subdivision Act and a formal consensus has not been reached. The letter further states that the Agricultural Association will consult with its members to establish its position on subdividing agricultural land.

Is there a subsequent letter of support, or is this the letter to which the Minister was referring?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

No, that is the letter I was referring to and I attended a meeting of the Agricultural Association, but I believe I indicated yesterday that they were going to be discussing it when they do their policy review.

Ms. Moorcroft:

My reading of the Hansard was that the Minister felt he had a letter of support.

In any case, there were some questions being raised about the subdivision of agricultural land and the concern was that the Subdivision Act would capture agricultural parcels so that there would be consistent decision making. Certainly, in raising the questions about this act, I want to make it clear that I support that the government should make the development of land flow in a consistent and sensible way and some of the Minister's statements have indicated what a strong need there is for planning. The fact that the Minister could not state whether he believed a quarry in the general neighbourhood of a country residential area is a conflict or is improper land use presents a problem and makes it clear that we need a planning act as soon as possible.

Does the Minister have any time frame on when they would bring in a planning act?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

No, we have not established a timetable. We have discussed having a planning act for the Yukon Territory, but we certainly have not set a timetable for when we would start or when we would complete that act.

Ms. Moorcroft:

I would like to make a representation that the Minister should consider bringing that forward soon.

I met with a couple of Ibex Valley hamlet councillors who had some concerns about statements that were made yesterday. The Minister and the department were in receipt of letters for some time, expressing the concerns of the residents and of the hamlet council. The Minister stated that this planning process was going on for four years, but the first time the Stevens subdivision became public was in late October or November 1992. At that time, there was a meeting held at the public library about the Stevens subdivision, Mary Lake Phase II and Canyon Creek.

Residents made it clear from the beginning that they had concerns, with letters to the editor and a meeting with hamlet councillors. They have expressed the concern that the Yukon government is in a conflict-of-interest position as both the proponent of the development and guardians of the residents' interest.

I think that to meet the concern that an industrial development, such as a quarry pit, is not compatible with country residential, and other concerns of the hamlet council residents, the Minister would do well to meet with the councillors and the residents. Certainly, the hamlet council meeting that I attended last week, where a number of area residents as well as the councillors were in attendance, lead to some discussion about why the Minister did not attend the meeting. I know he had to cancel attendance at that particular meeting because he went out of town, but I would like to ask him if he will meet with the council and residents, and when he will do that.

Chair:

Order please. I would like to remind Members that we are dealing with clause 3 and that general debate is over.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Will the Minister be meeting with the hamlet council and residents?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

One of my staff members is setting up a meeting with the hamlet council. I have agreed to meet with them here. They want me to meet after 5:30 p.m. one evening. I probably will be able to do that at some time.

I should make it clear to the Member opposite - if Mr. Chair will just bear with for me for a few minutes - this is not part of the Subdivision Act, and I do not know why we are in this debate, because it has nothing to do with the Subdivision Act. However, I do want to make it clear that the Yukon government, in the case of the Stevens subdivision, is the developer. In fact, we addressed the concerns of the people that came in and dealt with me. They now have further concerns. We will address them.

The letters the Member opposite mentioned have been replied to relatively recently. I cannot remember if it was yesterday or Friday when I signed them, but there was a reply sent to them.

Chair:

Is there further debate on clause 3?

Ms. Moorcroft:

Like the Minister, I have no desire to go over old ground. This matter could be settled if, as I understand it, the Minister has given his commitment to meet with the hamlet council and the residents.

The correspondence I have been provided with indicates that

Page Number 2193

the concerns were not addressed appropriately. I think that is a matter that the Minister should resolve when meeting with the residents.

I would like to ask the Minister to clarify the subject about the subdivision of agricultural land. Yesterday, there was much discussion about what kinds of parcels would and would not be covered in this legislation. I would like to ask the Minister whether any possible amendments to the Land Title Act might assist in capturing all agricultural parcels under the subdivision restrictions.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I do not see how an amendment to the Land Titles Act could capture those parcels that we were referring to yesterday.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Does the Minister then have a definitive answer on how many parcels there will be ambiguity about?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

We think there may be upward of a dozen parcels, but it would take a great search. We would not only have to go through land titles, which is not terribly difficult, but we would also have to go back through all the old agreements for sale from the federal government and do a thorough research on approximately 40 properties.

Ms. Moorcroft:

I thought the Minister stated yesterday that, where there was an agreement for sale that mentioned agriculture, the limits on subdivision would be covered in the Subdivision Act.

He also stated that, where the title was raised, in some cases, there was no record of "agricultural" on the title. However, my understanding of what he said was that, if the title indicates it is an agricultural parcel, they would not be able to subdivide it. Is that true?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

(Inaudible)

Chair:

Is there further debate?

Mr. Cable:

I have a couple of areas of concern under clause 3(1)(c). In the Minister's view, what would be a proposed planning scheme? At what stage of development would that launch itself into something that the approving authority could use to either exclude or accept the application?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

For instance, the Mount Lorne plan - which is a planning exercise but it has not come to the Yukon government yet - is sufficient to call it a planning scheme. It could be any authorized planning scheme, such as what we intend to do with the Ibex Valley. When Indian land selections have been finalized, Ibex Valley will be entering into a planning scheme. The Yukon government will be paying a portion, or all, of the cost of that planning exercise, and that would be authorized by the government. When they enter into that planning exercise, we could safely call that a planning scheme.

Mr. Cable:

Is the Minister then saying that the commencement of a planning exercise, the initial product, the first draft of some sort of planning scheme, is what determines people's rights? Is that basically the position of the Minister?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

It would not be quite as cut and dried as that. It would reflect on their rights more than it would determine them. I believe that would be a better terminology.

Mr. Cable:

Surely the Minister is aware of municipalities in Canada that have received applications from developers, for example, and then have run to their staff and tried to create zoning bylaws that would block them, sort of after the fact. I am concerned that this sort of thing might lead itself to that kind of exercise. Is the Minister prepared to define the proposed planning scheme so that at least we know exactly what it is, and that it is not just sort of the germ of an idea in some bureaucrat's mind?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

We will have a more definitive definition - it may already be in there. I was going to say that it would be in the regulations.

Mr. Cable:

It is not in the definition in the act. It talks about a planning scheme - am I missing something - but not proposed planning scheme. A planning scheme is a document that somebody has approved or authorized. A proposed planning scheme could be anything. It could be something sitting in somebody's file.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

We can make a better definition in the regulations when the regulations are developed. The regulations are part of the consultation process so we will need to discuss that and come up with a definition of what a planning scheme is for the regulations.

Mr. Cable:

Could I suggest that the proper place for that definition is the act? I do not think it is up to parties to interpret the verbiage; it is up to the courts to make those interpretations. Once the verbiage is set in place, that is properly the preserve of other bodies, not the Minister issuing a Commissioner's order.

The Minister has started the definition by referring to a planning scheme in the act. Why would not "proposed planning scheme" be properly found in the act?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I think that when the plan is authorized by the Minister or by Cabinet, a proposed planning scheme could be a request from an area such as the Ibex Valley or Mount Lorne. Once the proposed planning scheme has been sanctioned by the Minister and by Cabinet then the plan would be authorized. I think an authorized planning scheme would fit into section 3(1)(c), where it says that the proposed subdivision must conform to any existing or proposed planning scheme that affects or will affect the land or adjacent land.

I think that we are playing with words here. I think that there is protection, since it would be something that is sanctioned by either the Minister or by Cabinet, and once it is sanctioned, it would become authorized.

Mr. Cable:

That sort of explanation, left hanging in Hansard, rather than in the act, is an invitation to litigation. It is also an invitation to people who misuse their powers in the unincorporated municipal bodies. If someone runs in with an application for something, and the group gets together the following day, because they do not like the application, and passes some plan on to the Minister, surely we can see where there may be some misuse of the power of the group that is proposing the plan. Some definition of that is desirable. Would the Minister not agree?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I do agree, to some extent. However, I think we can become somewhat more definitive in the regulations and explain what a proposed planning scheme actually is. I think the Member is correct that, in order for someone to stop or stall a subdivision, they can quickly send a letter in to the Minister asking that a planning exercise be undertaken, or something like that. That would be considered to be a stalling tactic, which is not what the intent is.

If some group is intending to enter into a planning exercise to come up with a community land use plan of some sort, then we do not want to jeopardize the planning process. It is kind of six of one and half a dozen of the other. We do not want to stop a subdivision but, also, if there is a genuine, bona fide, exercise taking place, that should have precedence.

Mr. Cable:

If there is a bona fide exercise that has been concluded, it should have precedence. If I have the Minister's indication that he is going to deal with it in the regulations, I will pass on to the last clause in sub-subparagraph 3(1)(c), which gives me some greater apprehension. What is the purpose of that clause, "or is in conformity with a logical extension of the planning scheme"? I ask this in the context of why we do not have a variance clause that would be much more definitive than that rather indeterminate language.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I believe what it permits is that if there is a planning area set aside in which there is a community or land

Page Number 2194

use plan, it is possible that there is some development very close or adjacent to that particular planning area. If someone wanted to conduct a development that was not in conformity, the approving officer would have the ability to either stop the subdivision or development or approve it if it conforms to the existing planning area.

Mr. Cable:

Would the Minister not agree that that verbiage is subject to a very wide interpretation, depending on which particular approving officer happened to get that file?

The variance procedure in the Municipal Act is much more definitive. Would it not be a preferable procedure in relation to subdivisions that appear to be, but are not exactly, covered by the plan?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I think the Member opposite has a good point. Some of the problem that the Member is seeing here is that it would give some authority to the approving officer. If the approving officer were to abuse that authority, it could make a difference. However, there is appeal. If the approving authority does make a decision with which the applicant is not satisfied, there is an appeal of that approving authority.

Mr. Cable:

I do not want to beat this to death, because I would like to make a motion to delete it if the answers are not satisfactory. In the Minister's view, what is a logical extension of a planning scheme? Are we talking about geography, or the quality of the dirt? What is it?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I believe a logical extension of a planning scheme could definitely involve geographical and physical considerations, which is what I would see as the logical extension of a planning scheme.

Mr. Cable:

Would it also relate to the zoning usage of the land? That is sometimes usual when we talk about variances to a plan.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I think that zoning could be considered if the area is actually zoned in the first place. A lot of areas are not zoned, outside of municipalities.

Mr. Cable:

I have a lot of apprehension about that clause. I do appreciate the Minister's staff working with Mr. Wright to come to some amendments that might work.

Amendment proposed

Mr. Cable:

I would like to file an amendment to clause 3(1)(c) by deleting the words "or is in conformity with a logical extension of the planning scheme".

Chair:

Before I read out the amendment, I would like to ask the Members at this time to clear clause 3(1)(a) and clause 3(1)(b).

Clause 3(1)(a) agreed to

Clause 3(1)(b) agreed to

Chair:

It has been moved by Mr. Cable

THAT Bill No. 40, entitled Subdivision Act, be amended in clause 3(1)(c) at page 3 by deletion of the words "or is in conformity with a logical extension of the planning scheme." Is there any debate on the amendment?

Mr. Cable:

Maybe I will make a point or two.

Some Hon. Members:

Agreed.

Mr. Cable:

Maybe I will change my mind.

Clause 3(1)(c) agreed to as amended

On Clause 3(1)(d)

Clause 3(1)(d) agreed to

On Clause 3(2)

Clause 3(2) agreed to

Clause 3 agreed to as amended

On Clause 4

Clause 4 agreed to

On Clause 5

Clause 5 agreed to

On Clause 6

Clause 6 agreed to

On Clause 7

Clause 7 agreed to

On Clause 8

Clause 8 agreed to

On Clause 9

Clause 9 agreed to

On Clause 10(1)

Amendment proposed

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I move

THAT Bill No. 40, entitled Subdivision Act, be amended in clause 10(1) at page 5 by adding after the phrase "must hold a hearing" the following: "within 90 days of receiving the notice of appeal,".

Chair:

It has been moved by the Hon. Mr. Fisher that Bill No. 40, entitled Subdivision Act, be amended in clause 10(1) at page 5 by adding after the phrase "must hold a hearing" the following: "within 90 days of receiving the notice of appeal,".

Clause 10(1) agreed to as amended

On Clause 10(2)

Mr. Cable:

I have some questions on clause 10(2).

Who would the Minister view as having an interest in, or being affected by, the subdivision of land? Does the approving authority make that kind of decision?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

It would be the appeal board.

Mr. Cable:

What would be the original decision? Would that decision be made by the approving authority?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

If someone appeals, then the appeal board will decide who has an interest in that particular appeal. What would constitute an interest will be explained in the regulations.

Mr. Cable:

It is not totally clear that that sort of decision will be made by the board. For instance, who are the parties who can appear before the board?

I would make the suggestion and go so far as to propose another amendment that the verbiage "the board determines" should be added after the word "who" in the third line of the clause to make sure that everyone knows it is the board that determines who is going to make a determination about who can appear before the board.

Amendment proposed

Mr. Cable:

I will make that amendment, Mr. Chair.

The Minister of Justice wants to say something, but I will file this anyway. I am making an amendment to clause 10(2). I move

THAT Bill No. 40, entitled Subdivision Act, be amended in clause 10(2) at page 5 by addition of the words "the board determines" after the word "who" in line 3 of the clause.

Chair:

At this time, I would ask Members to give the Chair a moment.

It has been moved by the Hon. Member for Riverside

THAT Bill No. 40, entitled Subdivision Act, be amended in clause 10(2) at page 5 by addition of the words "the board determines" after the word "who" in line 3 of the clause.

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

It is my concern that, without amending this, the board would be the body that would be making the decision about who could appear before it. Logically, I would respectfully submit that, by adding these words, there would be the potential for a person who wanted to appear before the board being not allowed to. That person would not have an appeal to the court for an administrative order forcing the board to hear them.

On the face of 10(2) now, the board would make that determination, because it is the body that allows people to appear before it. If someone says that they would be affected by the subdivision of the land and that they want to appear before the board and the board refuses because, in their opinion, the person does not fall into that class, surely the danger, then, is that that person has no

Page Number 2195

redress. They could not go before a court and seek mandamus - an order compelling the board to hear me.

There is an issue as to whether or not a person has an interest or is affected, and the board, in the first instance, the way it is worded now, makes a decision based on that. Putting these words "who the board determines" in there, it seems to me, forecloses my redress if I am a person who wants to be heard and I am refused by the board because they have determined that I do not have such an interest or that I am not affected.

Does it not, then, mean that I want to appear before the board because I am going to be affected by the subdivision? Now, the act says they determine who is affected and if they decide I am not I would not have the right then, or I would not have a case then, to go to the court and ask for a writ of mandamus that tells the board it must hear me. That is foreclosed because this amendment leaves it entirely to the discretion of the board.

If the board determines I am not affected by the subdivision, I have no redress. If it is left the way it is, the board in the first case can say they do not think I am affected and therefore they will not hear me. I can then go to a court and make my case to the court that I am affected, and if I am successful they, through a writ of mandamus or whatever administrative writ it is, can compel the board to hear me.

My appeal to the mover of this motion is that surely we ought not to be making the board the final decision maker about who can appear before it. Under the normal rule, if a board refuses to hear someone, at least that person then has the right to go to the Supreme Court of the Yukon Territory for an administrative writ.

Mr. Cable:

I enjoyed practising law against the Minister of Justice because he had a crystal clear mind but this may be the first time it is not crystal clear.

I think the Minister indicated that he thought it was the board making the determination. In that we are having a debate over this, it is not clear who is making it. I think we should have that clause in there. It triggers the appeal procedure and then the courts, as the Minister of Community and Transportation Services has indicated, will then be able to review it. If in fact there is an order made saying, that Mrs. Smith or Mr. Jones does not have standing, then that will trigger the Yukon municipal board to make the finding.

With respect, I would like it recorded that this is the first time that I have ever disagreed with the Minister of Justice.

Chair:

Is there further debate on the amendment?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

I am alarmed by this turn of events.

Chair:

Is there further debate on the amendment?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I am certainly not a lawyer like the two fellows debating this, but I think that the Minister of Justice has a very good point.

Some Hon. Member:

(Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

His point is that the appeal board can hear anyone who has an interest, but if you put in the words suggested by the Member for Riverside, so that it says the board "determines", then it is kind of up to the board to "determine" if that person had an interest, whereas the way it is worded currently, without the amendment, it would appear to me that any person who perceives that he has an interest and makes an appeal, has to be heard by the board. If it does not, he does have recourse.

Mrs. Firth:

Perhaps the Minister could stand up and explain exactly what the intention of this clause is and give us an example.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

The intent of the section is to allow someone who lives next to, or adjacent to, or near, a proposed subdivision, to have some ability to make his/her views known to a body other than the person who wishes to do the subdivision. I think that is the intent of it.

Ms. Moorcroft:

I applaud the sentiment the Minister just expressed, that a person who lives near to, or adjacent to, an area scheduled for subdivision be able to appeal, or to be heard, on that subdivision. It raises the question of why the Minister is reluctant to hear the concerns of Ibex Valley Hamlet Council regarding the Stevens subdivision.

Some Hon. Member:

(Inaudible)

Ms. Moorcroft:

Can the Minister explain why the municipalities are excluded from this, then?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

At the outset, I made it very clear that this act is not for municipalities. Municipal subdivision is covered under the Municipal Act, so this act is for lands outside municipalities.

Amendment to Clause 10(2) negatived

Clause 10 agreed to as amended

On Clause 11

Chair:

Is there any debate on clause 11?

Mrs. Firth:

I would like to ask the Minister if he could explain clause 11(a) and its meaning, where it states the board may confirm, reverse or vary the decision appealed from and may impose conditions that the appeal board considers proper and desirable in the circumstances. In particular, I would like to know what conditions the board would consider proper and desirable in the circumstances?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

The appeal board could vary the subdivision. If people appealed a subdivision on the grounds that it was going to be affecting another property, or something of that nature, the appeal board could vary the subdivision. Perhaps that is the answer the Member opposite is looking for.

Mrs. Firth:

I guess I am looking for something a little more than that. I suppose the guidelines are going to be included in the regulations. Is that going to be the case? It is very difficult to know what the rules and guidelines are when we do not have the regulations.

When I read this clause, where it says it may impose conditions that the appeal board considers proper and desirable in the circumstances, that definition is wide open. The board could consider just about anything proper and desirable.

I would like to get a definition from the Minister about what he thinks is going to be included in the regulations that the board could consider proper and desirable, and under what circumstances.

Perhaps the Minister could cite some examples to illustrate exactly what the government's intention is.

When I read this clause, it is an open-ended free-for-all.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

We were just talking about an example. Possibly, one example might be a person subdividing a parcel of land down to a certain number of lots. If the approving officer said they wanted a 60-foot road right of way, and the appellant asked why, because all the other roads in the general area have 50-foot rights of way, then the board could change what the approving officer had determined. That would be an example.

Mrs. Firth:

The Minister is just confirming that the board is going to have a lot of latitude. I could give him an example. They could appeal it based on what they consider to be a circumstance that is undesirable. Perhaps they find the whole prospect undesirable, because of the number of trees that will be there, or the number of trees that are not going to be there. There are no parameters; there is no definition; there are no rules in place. This appeal board is going to have the ability to make a final decision, and I want to know that it will be based on good, sound judgment. Right now, we have no evidence of that.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

This refers to the appeal board, which cannot go outside of the act, nor can it go outside the regulations. If someone were to do a subdivision that was approved by the approving officer, there would be one person involved. If someone else did not like that decision, they could appeal to that board. The

Page Number 2196

board could confirm, reverse or vary the decision, but it could not add something in that had not been there before. They could only act on something that was appealed initially.

Mrs. Firth:

That is not clear in this clause. It says they may impose conditions that the appeal board considers proper and desirable. It does not say what the Minister just said.

Perhaps I could ask the Minister about these draft regulations. Have they been drafted? Are there any in place yet?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

No. The regulations will involve a very thorough consultation process. I hope that will be carried out by the fall of 1994.

Mrs. Firth:

I understand the process is that there will be draft regulations developed, which will be reviewed through a consultative process. They will be modified where required as a result of the process. Surely, the Minister is going to go out with some draft regulations already written.

When I was briefed on this act, I made a note here by the word regulations "draft six weeks". I am sure it has been six weeks since I was briefed. I would feel a lot more comfortable debating this piece of legislation if I even had a set of the draft regulations, recognizing that they could be modified. Right now, I do not have any specific indication of where the government is coming from or what its specific intentions are.

Could the Minister tell us when the regulations are going to be drafted? What is their status? Are they being worked on? Are they half way there? Is there any chance we may have them during the next six weeks that we will be in the Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

No, there are no draft regulations at this point. The staff just has not had the opportunity or time to create those regulations.

Mrs. Firth:

Then, what is the urgency in proceeding with the legislation? It cannot come into force without any regulations to guide it. Perhaps we should be waiting until we have the regulations.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

Parts of the act can come into force. For instance, 3(1) and 3(2) can actually come into force immediately upon signing by the Commissioner.

Mrs. Firth:

Could the Minister tell us the status of the draft regulations?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

My understanding is that they are just starting to pull some information together and do some research. They have not started drafting the regulations at this point.

Clause 11 agreed to

On Clause 12

Clause 12 agreed to

On Clause 13

Clause 13 agreed to

On Clause 14

Clause 14 agreed to

On Clause 15

Clause 15 agreed to

On Clause 16

Clause 16 agreed to

On Clause 17

Amendment proposed

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I move

THAT Bill No. 40, entitled Subdivision Act, be amended in clause 17 at page 7 by adding the following section:

"Appeal

"17.1(1) Where the approving officer in dealing with a plan of subdivision under section 17

"(a) defers the approval of a plan of subdivision,

"(b) refuses to approve a plan of subdivision,

"(c) alters or cancels any condition subject to which the application was approved; or

"(d) imposes any additional conditions on the plan of subdivision,

"the applicant may appeal to the appeal board by serving on the appeal board written notice of appeal personally or by certified mail within 30 days of having been served with the decision of the approving officer.

"(2) Sections 10, 11 and 12, modified to suit the case, apply to an appeal made under this section."

Chair:

I would like to say to the Members that this is actually adding a new clause. Do the Members want me to read the additional clause?

Mrs. Firth:

On clause 17(e), I just want to register a concern again with the Minister and perhaps he could give me some examples of this. We are talking about imposing "any additional conditions on the application that he or she considers necessary in the circumstances". I guess I find that phrase discomforting, because it is so wide open, and because we do not know what it means until we see the regulations. Perhaps the Minister could give us some examples of what these additional conditions may be, that "he or she would consider necessary", and under what kind of circumstances.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I do have a note on that. It certainly is not the intention to hinder development; however, it does provide an opportunity for both the approving officer and the applicant to reconsider the proposal where situations may arise that could have a negative impact on the subdivision.

Mrs. Firth:

What could that negative impact be? What do they have in mind. Why do we need this clause here? What awful thing is going to happen that we need this clause to stop it from happening?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I think that it could be the same as the one that we discussed previously under the appeal board.

For instance, if the applicant were not going to put in a proper size of road right-of-way, then the approving officer could impose that condition on the subdivision, or possibly in an area that floods periodically. For instance, there could be a case where the approving officer would make some conditions if there were a flooding situation.

Again, this is the approving officer and the applicant would have the right to appeal the decision if they were not satisfied with those conditions.

Mrs. Firth:

That reinforces the concern I have. First of all, we have to find out who determines what the proper size is, the proper location, proper height, proper weight and other items that will be considered.

The point that I am trying to make and illustrate to the Minister is that the comment has been made to me that some people felt that this act did not really encourage subdivision, and the Minister alluded to that this afternoon when he said he did not want to hinder development and the development of subdivisions.

I am very concerned about the bureaucratic maze being created here. Why do we not get on with making land subdividable and make it as simple as we can. I can appreciate that there has to be a check-and-balance system in place and that everyone has to have a fair hearing. If the government really wants to promote this initiative they should be trying to make it as easy and as uncomplicated as they can, and as clear as they can.

I do not know if the Minister shares these concerns or not, but I certainly feel that we are getting a little bit complex about something that should be a relatively simple procedure in the Yukon. We are not dealing with cities the size of Vancouver, Toronto or Victoria. I do not think that we need a huge bureaucracy in place and all kinds of levels of systems in place so that people can subdivide their land. If people are allowed to subdivide their land, make it easy for them to do so. Do not put up 45 roadblocks

Page Number 2197

so that they have to comply with every kind of funny, little regulation in order to do the chore.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I agree with the Member opposite. The idea of this whole act is to bring all the subdivision rules and regulations under one piece of legislation. We do have a bit of a mess out there right now. The idea was to put it in one act and outline a process by which one could subdivide.

The intent is for a bona fide developer, or someone who wants to subdivide, to have a process to follow. However, again, there are some legal requirements for anything to do with land. There will be appeals to and from that board and the approving officer. I think we have to cover those bases, in the event that there is a dispute or disagreement with either the approving officer or because of neighbours, or anything else. It is important that we have those bases covered as well as we can.

Chair:

It has been moved by the Hon. Minister of Community and Transportation Services

THAT Bill Number 40, entitled Subdivision Act, be amended in clause 17 at page 7 by adding the following section:

"Appeal

"17.1(1) Where the approving officer in dealing with a plan of subdivision under section 17

"(a) defers the approval of a plan of subdivision,

"(b) refuses to approve a plan of subdivision,

"(c) alters or cancels any condition subject to which the application was approved, or

"(d) imposes any additional conditions on the plan of subdivision,

"the applicant may appeal to the appeal board by serving on the appeal board written notice of appeal personally or by certified mail within 30 days of having been served with the decision of the approving officer.

"(2) Sections 10, 11 and 12, modified to suit the case, apply to an appeal made under this section."

Amendment agreed to

Clause 17 agreed to, as amended

On Clause 18

Clause 18 agreed to

On Clause 19

Clause 19 agreed to

On Clause 20

Ms. Moorcroft:

Can the Minister explain what is meant by "(b) reserves"? Does that refer to environmental reserves, or road reserves? What does that cover?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

It could mean all of those. It could also mean highways, lands for public utilities, and any other areas of public interest.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Is this going to be defined in the regulations? What is an area of public interest? Would this include recreational reserves as well?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

It could very easily include parks and that sort of thing, depending on the size of the subdivision. There will be definitions in the regulations for various size subdivisions about what would be reserved for public use, or whatever.

Mrs. Firth:

What did the Minister just say? Is he saying that when there is land to be subdivided, the approving officer or someone is going to have the ability to set part of the land aside as a public access area or a reserve? Could he elaborate on that?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

Yes, it could very easily be. If someone is subdividing a large parcel of land for residential lots, there could very easily be some requirements for public use areas, highways and public utilities. The act does limit the amount of land - in section 20(2), "being not more than 10 percent of the land being subdivided".

Mrs. Firth:

I want to point out to the Minister clause 20(3). This clause, again, does give quite a bit of authority to the approving officer, who "may require that these areas be provided as reserves in addition to the reserves to be provided under subsection (2)". Another concern I have is that where there is any questionable land like swamps or gullies, ravines and so on, it is up to the approving officer to make the determination, and I think there may be times when the approving officer's ideas or conditions or standards may differ from those of the individuals who want to do the subdividing. I have some concern there that there is a potential for conflict and that we are perhaps giving a bit more authority to an approving officer than may be considered fair.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

The Member opposite is correct, it could very easily get into that situation, but remember that any decision the approving officer makes can be appealed through the Municipal Board.

Ms. Moorcroft:

In section 20(3), there is also a statement, "land that is unsuitable for building sites or private uses." Could the Minister give a definition of "private uses".

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I guess private use is pretty well whatever private use someone wanted to make of his or her land. Maybe they want to grow a garden. Maybe it is for storing a motor home on. I do not know.

Clause 20 agreed to

On Clause 21

Clause 21 agreed to

On Clause 22

Clause 22 agreed to

On Clause 23

Ms. Moorcroft:

This clause is talking about reserves for the purposes of schools, public parks recreation area, and other public use. Is this open to a process where there would be public hearings, and to the appeal to the Municipal Board? It gives the director of lands the ability to authorize the lease of the reserve or its sale in the manner and on the terms the approving officer may specify. Is there any obligation to create an alternative, if a reserve can be sold? Would they have to replace a reserve if it is sold?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I have a note on that. In this act, it clarifies the use for which a reserve is intended. If, for example, a particular reserve was no longer required due to circumstances that were unforeseen at the time of the original subdivision, it may be disposed of by the director of lands. The money derived from the sale of the parcel could be used to help offset facility costs elsewhere in the local area, but this will be clearly outlined in the Subdivision Act regulations.

Ms. Moorcroft:

The concern that I was expressing was about the ability to sell the reserve area, without creating a resulting obligation to replace it, could lead to abuse or undue pressure being placed on the public servants involved in making the decisions.

There is an awful lot that is going to be coming back in regulations and we are being told that we will have to wait to have a complete answer in due course, and I have reservations about that.

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

It seems to me that the concern expressed by the Member's question, if I understand it correctly, is that the subdividor would somehow benefit from the sale, and that is not the case. If the subdivision goes through and there is some land reserved, then it is government land. If the government wants to sell its land, it can, with the proceeds going to the government and not to the subdividor.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Will the public use land be replaced? Will we still have an area for a park or a recreation area?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

I understand, but I guess that concern is a general concern about government doing something that is not appropriate. I do not know that we could fetter government from

Page Number 2198

selling its land in the future.

Ms. Moorcroft:

With all due respect, I think that the Minister misunderstood my concern, so I would like to clarify it. It is not a concern that the person who is subdividing the land is going to make a profit from the sale of the reserve property. I understand that it is the government that would be selling the reserve property. The concern that I was expressing is that the director of lands may authorize the sale of the reserve property, which could serve the purpose of a school, public park, recreational area, or another public use. My concern is that there is no obligation to replace the reserve for public use.

Clause 23 agreed to

On Clause 24

Clause 24 agreed to

On Clause 25

Clause 25 agreed to

On Clause 26

Ms. Moorcroft:

I am sure the Minister could anticipate there would be some debate on the regulations, considering we have expressed our concern that so little is contained in the act and so much is set over to be dealt with in regulations.

In the regulations framework, the process for development of detailed regulations and guidelines is set out. In the general debate on this act, I was asking about the umbrella final agreement and regional land use planning, and that being set up in accordance with chapter 11 of the umbrella final agreement. The Minister stated that consultation with First Nations would occur during the regulations process.

The only statement I see here that might deal with that is that it says draft regulations will be reviewed through a consultative process with land-related interest groups, Yukon residents and municipal representatives. Is the Minister prepared to give a commitment that they will deal with the First Nations? Are they considered to be an interest group in this definition, or will there be some other process that will take into account the legislative obligations we have in signing the umbrella final agreement?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

The Indian bands could be considered as land-related interest groups or Yukon residents, either one. Certainly, I will make the commitment to consult with the First Nations.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Will the Minister commit to also bringing forward regulations pursuant to the Municipal Act? The Minister stated they wanted this act through so that there would be one act, which would make things simpler. However, what we are seeing here is a Subdivision Act and, then, subsequent Subdivision Act regulations, which really contain all the meat of the Subdivision Act. There is also the Municipal Act section on subdivision that applies to land within municipal boundaries. There are no regulations governing the subdivision section of the Municipal Act. Will those come forward at the same time as the Subdivision Act regulations?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I think I said in my opening remarks that the Municipal Act provides for subdivision within municipalities, if the municipality passes the bylaw to deal with subdivision. I think I also stated that, in the Yukon, the City of Whitehorse is the only municipality that has created a subdivision bylaw. The other municipalities rely on the Yukon government to cover subdivision for them. This act will apply to areas outside municipal boundaries, and the regulations under this act will apply for those municipalities that have not approved or passed a subdivision bylaw.

Ms. Moorcroft:

All Yukon municipalities, other than the City of Whitehorse, which has a subdivision bylaw, will be subject to the Subdivision Act - is that what the Minister just said?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

The municipalities that have not adopted a bylaw will be subject to the subdivision regulations, the regulations that will be created under this act, not to the act itself, because they have that authority. It is covered under the Municipal Act.

I would like to report progress on Bill No. 40.

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

I move that the Speaker do now resume the Chair.

Chair:

Are you agreed?

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:

The 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. Member:

Agreed.

Speaker:

I declare the report carried.

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

I move that the House do now adjourn.

Speaker:

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

Motion agreed to

Speaker:

This House now stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 5:26 p.m.

The following Legislative Returns were tabled April 18, 1994:

94-1-318

Finlayson caribou herd 1992 testing results (Phelps)

Oral, Hansard, p. 2104 to 2105

94-1-319

Health and Social Services District Board in Mayo: status (Phelps)

Oral, Hansard, p. 2106

94-1-320

Health and Social Services Contribution Agreements and Program Development Agreements with First Nations: list of with Kaska Tribal Council and Champagne/Aishihik (Phelps)

Oral, Hansard, p. 2109 to 2110

94-1-321

Prostrate cancer public information initiatives (Phelps)

Oral, Hansard, p. 2111

94-1-322

Secure and Open Custody program and Young Offender Facility staffing: number of First Nations persons (Phelps)

Oral, Hansard, p. 2115

94-1-323

Eagle's Nest program: aftercare/outreach service for young people (Phelps)

Oral, Hansard, p. 2116

Page Number 2199

94-1-324

Northern Network Services staff training: wood Homes in Calgary (Phelps)

Oral, Hansard, p. 2119

94-1-325

Woods Home in Calgary: probationers AWOL (Phelps)

Oral, Hansard, p. 2120

94-1-326

Woods Home in Calgary: number of children placed in programs and reasons for placement (Phelps)

Oral, Hansard, p. 2121

94-1-327

Whitehorse General Hospital Project: cost of temporary moves and relocations (Phelps)

Oral, Hansard, p. 2127

94-1-328

Whitehorse General Hospital Project: functional plan executive summary (Phelps)

Oral, Hansard, p. 2127

94-1-329

Whitehorse General Hospital Project: accountability and functional relationship of management structure (Phelps)

Oral, Hansard, p. 2127

94-1-330

Wood supply contract: suppliers, Government Services administers contract (Phelps)

Oral, Hansard, p. 2127

94-1-331

Woods Christian Home: origin and explanation of name (Phelps)

Oral, Hansard, p. 2153

94-1-332

Northern Network Service Treatment Home: tendering process; Woods Home in Calgary successful 1992 bidder (Phelps)

Oral, Hansard, p. 2154

The following Documents were filed April 18, 1994:

94-1-36

Implications of proposed Subdivision Act, section 3.(2)(a) and 3.(2)(b), relating to the subdivision of agricultural land: six scenarios (Fisher)

The following Sessional Papers were tabled April 19, 1994:

94-1-115

Yukon Human Rights Commission Annual Report: year ended March 31, 1993 (Speaker)

94-1-116

Deductions from the indemnities of Members of the Legislative Assembly made pursuant to subsection 39(6) of the Legislative Assembly Act (Speaker)

The following Legislative Returns were tabled April 19, 1994:

94-1-333

Long-term leases for Crown corporations: status (Nordling)

Oral, Hansard, p. 2072

94-1-334

Project Managers and Inspectors employed by Property Management Branch: number of; dollar value of projects for years 1992 to 1994-95 (Nordling)

Oral, Hansard, p. 1820

94-1-335

Janitorial services: Custodial Contracts Analysis (for 1992-93 and 1993-94) (Nordling)

Oral, Hansard, p. 2072

94-1-336

Architectural/engineering consulting services in other Canadian jurisdictions: tendering process for services (Nordling)

Oral, Hansard, p. 2078

94-1-337

Architectural proposals: evaluation process; evaluation criteria and descriptions (Nordling)

Oral, Hansard, p. 2074

94-1-338

Contract regulations review: consultation process; status (Nordling)

Oral, Hansard, p. 2086