Whitehorse Yukon
Tuesday, April 26, 1994 - 1:30 p.m.
Page Number 2285
Speaker:
I will now call the House to order. We will proceed at this time with silent Prayers.
Prayers
DAILY ROUTINE
Speaker:
We will proceed at this time with the Order Paper.
Introduction of Visitors.
Are there any Returns or Documents for tabling?
TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I have a legislative return.
Hon. Mr. Nordling:
I have a legislative return for tabling, in response to a written question.
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I have the missing legislative return that was supposed to be tabled yesterday, but I forgot.
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I have the annual report of the Department of Education for 1992-93.
Speaker:
Are there any Reports of Committees?
Are there any Petitions?
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?
This then brings us to the Question Period.
QUESTION PERIOD
Question re: Landlord and Tenant Act
Mr. McDonald:
I have a question for the Minister of Justice. I have a number of constituents living in a trailer park who are being evicted from the place they are renting. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act, they have been given the proper notice, but that notice period is completely inadequate for their purposes. They had a month and a half to move their trailers, only to find that because their trailers are over 10 years, they cannot resituate them anywhere in Whitehorse. Clearly, they have had insufficient time to react, and the Landlord and Tenant Act needs a change to increase the time for notice of eviction for similar cases in the future. Is the Minister prepared to change the act in the near future to accommodate trailer home owners in need?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
My understanding about this particular issue is that it has to do not so much with the Landlord and Tenant Act as it does with the issue of the condition of the actual trailers that would have to be moved. Because of the year in which the trailers were built, they do not meet the rather strict requirements under zoning. I understand, as well, that the Minister responsible for Community and Transportation Services has been looking at the specific issue to see what can be done to assist the people in need. I am certainly willing to look at it from the aspect of the act itself, but I suspect that the kind of flexibility that the Member is asking for may be difficult to provide in a manner that would leave landlords and tenants with the kind of certainty that is required under the act.
Mr. McDonald:
Clearly, these people have been placed in almost an impossible position. They cannot move their trailers, yet they have been given, in this particular case, 45-days' notice to leave their investment, leave their homes, and perhaps go someplace else. Part of the problem they face is that they have had such little time to react. Because they have only a few days, essentially, to find an alternative, they have had to make decisions that, for the rest of us, are normally reserved for months and months of deliberation in our households.
So, I will ask the Minister whether he is prepared to consider a change to extend the notice period for this particular situation, particularly for trailer home owners who feel that they may be placed in a situation in the future where their trailer must be moved. I will remind the Member - and I am sure the Member knows this - that there are probably hundreds and hundreds of trailers in the City of Whitehorse that are older than 10 years, and every year that passes, more trailers enter that category.
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
I thought I might be able to add a little bit to this. I have to agree with my colleague that, under normal circumstances, the period is probably justifiable, but in this case, I have to agree with the Member opposite - this is a terrible situation for those three home owners. There are certain avenues, such as a home repair loan, that may be available to these people, which will help them out. Unfortunately, the landlords are totally within their rights to ask these people to move. How it can be brought up to standard beforehand is our dilemma. I would like to assure the House that we are doing everything we can to help the people.
Mr. McDonald:
I do not have any concerns at this point with the good work the Yukon Housing Corporation is doing to try to cut through all of the red tape and provide some individual relief for these people; however, what we are discussing here is the rights that landlords have, and the appropriate limitations we will put on those rights through the Landlord and Tenant Act.
The question I would like to ask the Minister responsible for the act is this: given that, under the Landlord and Tenant Act, trailer home owners are essentially given the same notice, either for a rental increase or for removal of their trailer from a rented pad, as anyone is who rents any apartment anywhere in the territory, and given that the responsibilities are much more significant for a trailer home owner than they are for a normal renter, is the government prepared to consider an increase in the notice provisions for trailer home owners, so that they may have more time to react to difficult circumstances?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I thank the Member for his question. It is certainly a valid issue for us to look into and we will look into it to see what might be done by way of amendment to the act in question in order to try to assist with this type of problem.
The point we were trying to make in our earlier responses was that there seems more to it than just a matter of time. There is the whole issue of the regulations and the problem of the trailers being upgraded to meet the code, which has changed over time; it is a moving target. I appreciate what he is saying; I think I understand what he is saying, and I will look into it.
Question re: Landlord and Tenant Act
Mr. McDonald:
I would like to thank the Minister for that commitment because, certainly, these trailers for most of the residents are a life investment and they cannot just leave it behind whenever they want to change the location of their living accommodation.
Because this has been raised as an important point as well, some people have made it very clear to me that in certain cases, even if they wanted to move the trailer, they would have to endure the expense of moving other trailers in the same trailer court because they had been sandwiched in so tightly. The situation for them, then, becomes one where the costs associated with a typical move are astronomical and probably not worth the effort even if they did want to leave. Is the Minister prepared to consider looking into the Landlord and Tenant Act to accommodate this particular and very specific concern that is of such great importance to some people
Page Number 2286
in this city?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
That is also a valid point, and one we will look into. I understand the position, and it seems to me to be something that we should take under advisement, to consider whether or not there might be appropriate amendments to the Landlord and Tenant Act.
Mr. McDonald:
On the same issue, I have a question for the Minister responsible for lands. Part of the problem boils down to the trailer home owner not having a place in Whitehorse to relocate, either to purchase or to rent.
Can the Minister tell us whether or not he is prepared to work with the City of Whitehorse to identify realistic alternatives for other sites within the city limits to which many of these unfortunate people would be able to have access?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
I do not think it is a problem to find a piece of ground for the people. The problem is with the structure. Of the three trailers we are speaking about right now, I believe the newest one dates from 1968. I may be wrong. They are older buildings; the electrical does not meet the current code; the plumbing does not meet the current code and, in some cases, the structure itself does not meet the current code.
If you move those trailers off the pad and try to set them up in, say, Arkell subdivision, where there are some lots available, they could not be hooked up to power or water until there is a complete rebuild of the trailer.
To go one step further, in the City of Whitehorse we currently have 930 trailers built prior to 1980. Although it is extremely unfortunate for the three families we are speaking of here today, it is just the tip of the iceberg.
Mr. McDonald:
The fact that it is only the tip of the iceberg is all the more reason why we should be pursuing this more aggressively, both through changes to legislation regulating the landlord and tenant relationship and through making alternatives available to the hundreds of people who may be faced with the same situation over the next number of years.
Many of these people already have an investment of up to $20,000 or $25,000 in their trailer. Many of them are not high income people. They cannot simply step away from that investment. Many of them are prepared to upgrade their trailers. They know that they have to be upgraded to meet the code if they want to move them. They are willing to invest some money - that they do not think they really have - to ensure that they have reasonable living circumstances. However, they cannot even do that if they do not have anywhere in Whitehorse to move to.
I would ask the Minister whether or not he would be prepared to speak with the City of Whitehorse with a view to making land available to people who are in these circumstances, so that if they decide to make an investment of $10,000 or $12,000 to upgrade and move their trailers, they can still move within the City of Whitehorse to land that they may be able to own?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
I do not have a problem speaking with the City of Whitehorse. In fact, we already are doing so through Yukon Housing Corporation.
I am not sure if the proposed solution by the Member opposite is the correct one. It is something we can investigate, but I am not sure if the City of Whitehorse or the Government of Yukon wants to engage in running a trailer park of some sort, whether it owns it or not.
As I said before, the Arkell subdivision does have lots available for trailers. If these trailers came up to code, they could go there. However -
Some Hon. Member:
(Inaudible)
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
Someone on the opposite side said they cannot. Well, that may be.
Some Hon. Member:
(Inaudible)
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
Yes, okay. They will not do it, because the trailers are older than 10 years.
The other problem these people are facing - and many more will face at any time - is the fact that the trailers were built prior to 1980. There are 930 of them that have to be upgraded. In most cases, they are not worth the upgrading.
Speaker:
Order. Before going into the next question, could I remind Members to please try to keep their questions and answers shorter.
Question re: Education, grade reorganization
Mr. Cable:
I have some questions for the Minister of Education on grade reorganization.
On April 11, 1994, there was a news clip indicating that one of the Minister's officials was preparing a report on grade reorganization for the Minister, and that he expected to give it to the Minister within a week or so.
I gather that has not as yet taken place. Could the Minister indicate the reason for the delay and when he expects to receive the report?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I have seen a briefing note on the grade reorganization consultative talks and I imagine that the final report will be completed within the next few days. I am not sure when.
The grade reorganization was a fairly complicated process and I understand that over 200 people made presentations. Due to the number of representations, it will take some time to compile the final report.
Mr. Cable:
I believe that this exercise began by the presentation of an options paper in March and April of 1993. There were then some meetings in June of 1993.
The stakeholders were then advised on March 10, 1994, of some public meetings that were to take place. There was an options paper presented with the covering letter. Could the Minister indicate why it took so long to get the letters out to the stakeholders when the meetings were held in May and June of 1993?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I do not know which letter the Member is talking about. We completed the first round of consultations in the fall of last year. We then spent the time compiling the figures on the costs of schools and the various options. I believe that information was released in late February or March. The second round of consultation took place, and they are now in the process of finalizing it.
I am not sure which letter the Member is talking about.
Mr. Cable:
I have a letter dated March 10, 1994, which carries, as an attachment, an options analysis. The question I asked is why, in view of the fact that this is a very complicated exercise dealing with a fairly complex subject, were the stakeholders given only two weeks to prepare their presentation for the public meetings?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
That is a valid concern and is something we are giving consideration to at this time. When I get the final report, we will decide at that time what we will do. I have had representations made to me by some school council members, and others, that they felt they needed more time and more consultation, and I would give that consideration when I have a look at the report.
Question re: Education, grade reorganization
Mr. Harding:
I also have a question for the Minister of Education on grade reorganization.
The Yukon Party promised in the last election campaign to build a high school in Porter Creek, a Catholic school, and they made some commitments for a French language school. I would like to ask the Minister how these election promises are going to impact the Minister's grade reorganization decision?
Page Number 2287
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I was hoping that I would have representations made to the department by concerned citizens about the need for a new high school - whether we wanted one high school or two high schools. Certainly, in the case of the French school, l'Ecole Emilie Tremblay, we have been working with the federal government on it and I am very pleased to say that we now have an official who just had meetings recently, or is meeting almost as I speak, with federal officials in Ottawa, and we are very optimistic about reaching an agreement with the federal officials on replacing that school.
Mr. Harding:
With all due respect, the Minister did not really answer my question. I believe these election promises are going to have an impact. Either they follow the reorganization recommendations to the letter from the department, or they wrap the recommendations around their election promises, or they break their promises.
Concerning the report from the department, when does the Minister expect the report and can we get a copy of the recommendation analysis that the department has made in that report?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
In the election campaign, one of the things we heard from many, many people was that they felt they needed a second high school and that was something we felt was important as well. However, I have said it before in this House and I have said it publicly in many, many meetings, and just as recently as two weeks ago to the Association of School Councils at their meeting, we will listen to the school councils' recommendations and follow through on them. I hope that by the end of May or early June I will have things finalized well enough to make a decision one way or the other on what we are going to do with grade reorganization, the need for a second high school or an addition to the existing high school.
Mr. Harding:
The thing that concerns me - and I have the Yukon Party four-year plan in my hand - is that they have promised unequivocally to construct new schools, beginning with a new high school and junior high school in Whitehorse. I think these decisions are really going to impact on it, so because I did not get an answer to the question about whether we can have a copy of the report that the department is making to the Minister, I will ask him that again. He said it is going to be due soon. May I or the Legislative Assembly and Yukoners get a copy of the recommendations and report by the department to the Minister on grade reorganization?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I can look into doing that.
Question re: Government employee per diem rates
Ms. Moorcroft:
I have a question for the Minister of Government Services who is also the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission. Will the Minister confirm that per diem and travel rates for government employees were increased effective April 1 and explain why this increase came about.
Hon. Mr. Nordling:
Yes, I will confirm that, and I understand that it came about because it is tied to federal rates and that it was something we had committed, or were obligated, to do - that is, it was a natural increase.
Ms. Moorcroft:
I was hoping the Minister would acknowledge that collective agreements have some validity because I believe that has something to do with the increase. It is interesting that while this same Minister is trying to claw back employees wages by two percent and freeze them for three years, we see a boost in travel allowances by 12 percent. Can the Minister tell us how much more it costs Yukon taxpayers to send the Government Leader and his economic apologists around the territory after the rates went up, than it would have cost a month earlier?
Hon. Mr. Nordling:
No, I cannot, off the top of my head, and I do not have that information here. But I will look into that for the Member for Mount Lorne and get back to her.
Ms. Moorcroft:
Apparently, the Minister now accepts that it costs $55.15 per day for a public servant or a government politician to travel, yet the same government expects a pregnant woman from one of the outlying communities to get by on only $33 per day. Can the Minister of Health and Social Services give us some assurance that the rates for health-related travel will be adjusted to a more realistic rate?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
Those rates and policies are all under review.
Question re: Stevens subdivision
Ms. Moorcroft:
I know the Minister of Community and Transportation Services is going out to meet with the Ibex Valley hamlet tonight, and I would like to give the Minister the benefit of advance preparation by asking him a few questions I know are on the residents' minds.
Last week, I tabled a petition that indicates that at least 67 area residents have very real problems with industrial and residential land being developed side by side in the proposed Stevens subdivision. Why is the government proposing to develop a country residential subdivision next to a gravel pit?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
We wanted to identify that there is a source of gravel there. The pit will not be opened in the immediate future, such as the Ear Lake or McLean Lake pits are, because we do not necessarily need the material from that pit yet. We wanted to make sure that people understood, when they bought the lots that, at some point in time, there would be a gravel pit in the area. As such, we will be opening a public pit from which people can get truckloads of gravel.
Ms. Moorcroft:
People understand very well that a gravel pit is dusty and noisy. People are concerned about vehicle traffic and safety. Why did the government not think about these factors before planning to put a subdivision next to a gravel pit, or do they not care about that?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
We certainly do care about it. I do not much appreciate the inference the Member opposite is making that we do not care. That is one of the reasons why we wanted to make sure everyone was aware that there is a gravel source there and that, at some point in time, it will likely be opened. It will be a public pit, and there is a difference between a public pit and what we have at McLean Lake and Ear Lake.
Ms. Moorcroft:
Residents are recommending that there be no development until their concerns, which also include the possibility of increased rural taxation and of city annexation, with the development adjacent to the hamlet, are addressed. Is the Minister prepared to put a hold on the Stevens subdivision until he has responded to the residents' concerns?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
We have addressed the concerns that were relayed to me about the possibility of increased taxation in the Stevens area. I do not have any control over that; that is the responsibility of the City of Whitehorse. As to the possibility of the City of Whitehorse annexing the Ibex Valley, I would certainly not support that type of move at this time, but I am certainly not going to make a commitment for 20 years down the road.
Question re: Stevens subdivision
Ms. Moorcroft:
I have a question for the same Minister. We have talked in this Legislature about rational land use planning and compatible land use. Some land development in the Yukon falls under the LARC process, which brings together federal, territorial and First Nations interests. Is the Stevens subdivision subject to a land application review committee review?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
No, my understanding is that it is within the City of Whitehorse, and thus is under its community development
Page Number 2288
plan and development schemes. Because of that it is not necessary to go through the LARC process.
Ms. Moorcroft:
Yukon land claims will require all governments to have a process to screen development. We have observed that this government has not been very responsive to the needs of First Nations people. Did the Yukon government, as the developer of the Stevens subdivision, talk to either the Kwanlin Dun or the Ta'an Kwach'an about the Stevens subdivision before they did the planning?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
I completely disagree with the Member opposite about our planning process. If the Member opposite has the knowledge that she feels she has, she should realize that the Stevens subdivision was, at one time, under a land selection. So yes, we have in fact dealt with the land claims.
Ms. Moorcroft:
We have not seen very much evidence of good planning processes over there.
I would like to ask the Minister if there are any lots targeted for First Nations use as community land selections in the area near the Stevens subdivision?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
The Member opposite can look at the maps, as I have.
In the Stevens subdivision, I do not believe that any lots are set aside specifically for any First Nation.
Question re: Whitehorse waterfront
Ms. Commodore:
I have a question for the Minister responsible for land claims, the Government Leader.
Despite previous commitments made by the Yukon government, it appears that planning is going ahead for the waterfront without either the Ta'an Kwach'an or Kwanlin Dun being involved. As the Government Leader knows, First Nations have used the waterfront for generations. Commitments have been made to have this land dealt with at the negotiating table.
I would like to ask the Government Leader if he still believes that the two First Nations have a legitimate right to those areas?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
The Member opposite, having the information she has, should also be aware that both First Nations have been invited to participate in the planning process.
Ms. Commodore:
That is an old excuse. We keep hearing it all the time.
The Government Leader has signed the UFA and has publicly committed his government to the outstanding claims. He has sent a letter to the First Nation stating quite clearly that no activity, development or even planning for development will occur on the waterfront without First Nation involvement.
I would like to ask the Government Leader why he has not attempted to settle this outstanding issue before proceeding with any waterfront planning and/or development.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
The Member opposite is wrong. We have been working very diligently with the Ta'an Kwach'an and Kwanlin Dun to settle the land issues in the City of Whitehorse. We are continuing to work in that direction. It is not as if we have not done anything; we have been in very intensive negotiations with them.
Ms. Commodore:
That is not what I was asking him.
It is my understanding that waterfront planning is going ahead without the two First Nation groups. The Minister talks about settling land claims, but he still goes ahead with talk of planning.
In order to ensure that First Nations will be involved in further planning, I would like to ask the Government Leader if he will make a commitment in this House that his government will not undertake any more activity and planning on the waterfront before settling the outstanding issue of land claims in that area.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
The Member still has not understood what I said in my first reply. The First Nations have been invited to participate in the waterfront planning. There are also some lands on the waterfront that are third-party lands.
Both First Nations have been invited to participate in the planning and it is a process that is just starting.
Question re: Energy Corporation, CYI participation in
Mrs. Firth:
I have a question for the Government Leader about the contracts for Mr. Boylan.
So that I can share some information with other Members of the House, I have copies of the contracts that have been tabled. There are two contracts for $10,000 each. One is dated February 14, 1994 to March 15, 1994. Surprisingly, I cannot read the dates on the other contract.
Perhaps when the Minister answers my question he can clarify exactly what the dates are. It does say that it is still in process, so perhaps he can clarify that.
The most interesting observation about these contracts is that the first contract does not have a business licence number on it, but the second one does.
On the bottom of the legislative return it says, "Initially there was an oversight in that the contractor had not obtained a business licence. This has now been corrected by the contractor." Interestingly enough that must have happened yesterday afternoon. I spoke to the city yesterday morning and there had been no business licence at that time.
Perhaps the Government Leader could stand up here this afternoon and tell us why this government entered into a contract with Mr. Boylan when he did not have a business licence. It is defined by law that businesses that operate in the Yukon must have valid business licences.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
Maybe he was in the process of getting licensing. That happens when one gets into bureaucratic systems such as the municipal government or territorial government or the federal government.
In reply to the first part of the Member's preamble where she could not read the date, it is April 1 to May 6 - that is the second contract. The second contract is because of a change in positions at CYI. They decided to go ahead and get into further investigations so the contract was extended for that period.
As for the fact of the business licence, this certainly is not the first time that a contract has been entered into by government with a person who did not have their business licence in place. It has happened before and I am sure it will happen again.
Mrs. Firth:
That does not justify what has happened here. The issue here was one of political patronage and political payoffs; it has now become one of covering up. That is what is so bad about it.
I could see this individual not having a business licence, because he was hired as a lawyer and it was probably assumed that he was an active member of the Law Society; but then, two Ministers stood up in this House and said he was hired as a consultant, not as a lawyer, so he had to get a business licence as a consultant. The two Ministers said that yesterday afternoon.
I want to ask the Government Leader this: any business that operates without a valid business licence is subject to a penalty of 10 percent of the business licence fee for each month or portion thereof while the business operates without a licence. Has he required that Mr. Boylan pay that penalty?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I believe the Member should be asking the City of Whitehorse that. This is a City of Whitehorse business licence, not a territorial business licence. It is a business licence to do business in the City of Whitehorse, and I think she should direct that question to the City of Whitehorse.
Mrs. Firth:
The City of Whitehorse did not screw up here, the government did, and then they try to cover it up. Then the
Page Number 2289
Government Leader is going to cry because his press coverage is not very good. What do these people expect?
I want to ask the Government Leader if he will take it upon himself to clean up this mess immediately - not wait for the city or somebody else to do it - if he will clean it up and issue a statement tomorrow saying that it has all been cleaned up, that Mr. Boylan is all paid up - all his dues and penalties - everything is paid up. Will he give a commitment to the Yukon public to do that?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
That matter has been looked after. The man has a business licence and, if the Member wants to pursue it, she should pursue it with the city.
Question re: Yukon Energy Corporation, CYI participation in
Mr. Penikett:
I have a question for the Government Leader about the gentleman from Vancouver, who was a lawyer until we found he could not practice law here, and was a consultant until we found he did not have a business licence, and who, yesterday, was described in this House as an exploratory negotiator, even though the government had told us they had no mandate for this person.
Could the Government Leader explain to the House, in respect to this gentleman, who has been retained by the Executive Council Office, what exactly he hopes the exploratory negotiator, Mr. Boylan, will accomplish in his meetings with Yukon First Nations?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
That is a relatively easy question to answer for the fourth, fifth, sixth, or twentieth time in this House. He has had discussions with the First Nations about their interest in entering into negotiations with this government in regard to assets of the Yukon Energy Corporation, and to discuss on behalf of this government the approach that might be taken with the federal government regarding the issue of the debt that is owed by the Yukon Energy Corporation to the federal government.
Mr. Penikett:
I would like to put my supplementary to the other Government Leader, the one who is responsible for land claims and Finance, and who we have heard is concerned about helping the federal government with its debt.
Does this Minister consider it a realistic expectation that the federal government, which has a $500 billion debt, will forgive, write down or transfer the territory's outstanding debt arising from the NCPC assets? Is it the position of this Minister of Finance, the Minister of land claims, this Government Leader, that that is a realistic prospect?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
The issue has to do with the write-down of part of the debt. In the opinion of some of those who advise CYI, obviously there is, in their view, a chance of just that occurring.
Mr. Penikett:
I would like to ask a question of the Government Leader this time, since none of my questions have been answered yet, and since we have been told by federal officials that there is no prospect whatsoever of having this debt written down or written off, because, as all sides have recognized and as it has been described in the House, the Northern Canada Power Commission deal was essentially a very good one for the Yukon Territory, and that a cash-strapped federal government is not likely to make it even sweeter.
I want to ask the Minister responsible for land claims, the Minister of Finance and the Government Leader, if he can tell us how the Yukon Party Cabinet proposes to finance the purchase of up to 30 percent of the Yukon Energy Corporation shares for First Nations in the absence of a federal write-down, and in the face of the reality that after a year and a half in government, they have reached no final land claim settlements with any First Nations, other than the ones reached with the previous government.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
We have said time, and time, and time and again in the House that unless there is a net benefit to the rate-payers of the Yukon Energy Corporation, we will not be going ahead with any restructuring of the company. Because one source of revenue may possibly be - or is perceived by the Leader of the Official Opposition to be - shut off from First Nations, that does not preclude them from other sources of financing.
Speaker:
The time for Question Period has now elapsed.
Notice of Government Private Members' Business
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
Pursuant to Standing Order 14.2(7), I would like to identify the item standing in the name of the government private Members, to be called on Wednesday, April 27: Motion No. 64, standing in the name of the Member for Vuntut Gwitchin.
Speaker:
We will proceed to Orders of the Day.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
GOVERNMENT BILLS
Bill No. 15: Second Reading - continued
Clerk:
Second reading, Bill No. 15, adjourned debate, the Hon. Mr. Brewster.
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
During the different conversations that were heard here the other day, remarks were made about nobody working in the winter. I would suggest that nobody on that side had ever gone north into the Beaver Creek area, the Pine Valley area, or almost down to the Donjek, where every short distance you would find crews cleaning out the bush to get ready for the Shakwak project. You would find other crews making gravel pits, getting ready for the project, and three big companies worked for a large part of the winter. They only shut down for a short period. I would suggest that those Members should look beyond just their own little home riding.
The four-year plan outlined our commitment to immediate action on hazardous waste. Since that time, the Departments of Renewable Resources and Community and Transportation Services, together with local businesses and non-governmental organizations, have been working on the development of special-waste regulations for the Yukon. A discussion draft of these regulations has been released and comments are being received. A final draft will be released shortly for a six-day public review.
In addition, the special-waste program has been transferred from the Department of Community and Transportation Services to the Department of Renewable Resources in order to avoid overlapping functions within the department.
PCB-contaminated soils were removed from the Yukon in 1994 to Swan Hills, Alberta, for disposal. Funding for the clean-up work and disposal came from the Arctic environmental strategy and national contaminated sites fund. Use of the Swan Hills facility for Yukon PCB waste resulted from cooperative efforts by both the Yukon and Alberta governments. I might say that this was a lot cheaper than the $4 million fence that we still do not know what to do with.
In addition, the government conducted an inventory of special waste with Yukon businesses and arranged for the transportation of that material to a treatment facility outside the Yukon. Three truckloads of material were sent out in the fall of 1993. During the spring and summer of 1994, another shipment of waste might be sent, depending on our inventory work now underway. Shipping and treatment is provided on a cost-recovery basis.
In recent years, a lot of focus has been given to site selection
Page Number 2290
and construction of a permanent special-waste storage facility in the Whitehorse area. Given the costs associated with the construction of this type of a facility, we intend to continue with a collection and removal program. This will provide us with information on volumes of waste, and allow us to make an informed decision on what type of facility would suit Yukon's long-term needs. Of course, this data will also be useful for anyone interested in a business venture in this area. Businesses involved in the special-waste regulation committee acknowledged that business opportunities exist that will be enhanced once the regulations are in place.
In order to provide immediate storage for abandoned wastes, we intend to install a modest facility on the previously prepared facility site. The volumes of abandoned waste generated on Commissioner's lands are not expected to be high, but we feel that we need to be prepared to handle it.
I would now like to speak about the Aishihik caribou recovery program. However, the cooperation that I intended to ask for from Members on the side opposite, I realize I will not receive after I heard the comments made by them yesterday.
The purchase of a security system by the Department of Renewable Resources has recently come under scrutiny. I would like to point out that the decision was made to install a security system after airplanes were vandalized, tires slashed and phone calls were received late at night at the homes of Renewable Resources staff.
My first priority in carrying out the Aishihik caribou recovery program was, is, and will continue to be, the assurance of the safety and welfare of department and personnel.
Our purpose in initiating the Aishihik caribou recovery program last year was to return the caribou herd population to reasonable numbers. We knew that undertaking would be costly. I doubt that anyone, in good conscience, can place a dollar figure on the value of our wildlife.
I firmly believe that the government should provide the public with an accounting of activities in which it is involved. In the case of the Aishihik caribou recovery program, it is not possible to provide daily, or even monthly, reports while the crews are in the field, without jeopardizing the safety of the crews.
During the caribou recovery program, we have offered briefings and media sessions whenever and wherever possible. Every political party represented in this Legislature stated during the election campaign that they would carry out a caribou recovery program. Whether their pronouncements were sincere is not in question. Although, sometimes I now wonder about the statement that was made.
Instead, I would ask that this Legislature show solidarity and not use the Aishihik caribou recovery program as a political football. It is essential that we protect our game populations, because so many Yukoners depend on the wildlife.
I am confident that the majority of Yukon residents support the program. Although they would rather not conduct the program in this way, the Department of Renewable Resources and I share that same philosophy. The caribou recovery program is something that must be done.
I have noticed as our program proceeds that interest groups protesting the caribou recovery have not offered any viable alternatives or suggestions as to how we can preserve our caribou and moose populations.
I would like to thank the First Nations and the many Yukon residents for their cooperation and for working with us in the caribou recovery program. Again, I would urge all Members of this Legislature to cooperate in the same manner.
Our efforts related to the Aishihik caribou recovery program are intended to protect, preserve and restore the wildlife population in the area to the benefit of all future generations.
Work derived directly at Aishihik and indirectly through other activities within the fish and wildlife branch will have an important management and educational value in the future. Because the work will have an overall positive benefit for our understanding and knowledge of wildlife management in various parts of the Yukon, one could argue that the entire fish and wildlife branch budget is in some way touched by the Aishihik program.
I would like to make it quite clear that the cost estimates for the Aishihik caribou recovery program were stated publicly at the start of this program in 1992-93. I find it necessary to repeat these figures. Those estimates were $600,000 in 1992-93, $289,000 in 1993-94, and $150,000 in 1995-96. I would like to point out that there are surveys in the Aishihik area, radio collaring in Wolf Lake, post-calving surveys in Wolf Lake, rut counts in Wolf Lake, late winter counts in Mayo, Big Salmon, Dawson and Aishihik, elk surveys, community participation, conservation education, steering groups, interviews with elders, signs, school participation and community participation in this program.
I would now like to move on to the Yukon Liquor Corportion. For the current year, the corporation is anticipating similar dollar and volume sales as in the past year. Challenges to the corporation will be how best to achieve an optimum level of net income while faced with rising operating costs attributed to those inflation factors that are facing Yukon businesses. In order to help offset various costs, the corporation will, as it has done in the past, refine its purchasing and inventory management practices further to reduce the total amount of inventory that is required on hand to meet the demands of both the public and licensees. These refinements, once fully implemented, will further demonstrate the corporation's commitment to cost-effective management, while at the same time maintaining or improving client service.
The 1994-95 fiscal year will represent the third and final year in the corporation's three-year plan for its investment in facilities. These investments have led to not only improved facilities to better service licensees and the public generally, but also through the construction phase led to local employment opportunity. Specifically, during the 1994-95 fiscal year, a new liquor store and territorial agents office will be opened in the community of Watson Lake.
In addition to improving the corporation's capacity to better serve the community, the space vacated by the corporation in the government's administration building in Watson Lake will provide a potential opportunity for the Watson Lake Public Library to expand its facilities and service.
Within the Liquor Corporation's social reponsibility budget, the corporation will continue with various past initiatives, as well as undertaking new ones. An example of a continuing initiative is the corporation's radio program, which promotes various facets of responsible drinking, particularly with the operation of snowmobiles and driving.
The BARS - be a responsible server - program will soon be introduced to the public by the Yukon Liquor Corporation as part of the corporation's move toward a pro-active approach to inspection enforcement. This program will educate lounge and bar operators about their responsibility with respect to the serving of alcohol and focus on various alternate techniques and approaches, ensuring a participant's compliance with both our legal and social requirements.
Over the coming year, the BARS program will be delivered throughout the Yukon. The corporation will continue with its teddy bear program again this year. This will represent the third year that, through the generosity of the public, over 500 teddy bears will be made available to Yukon children, with the assistance of various charitable and service organizations.
Page Number 2291
Another incentive initiative that is currently underway is the corporation's high school poster contest. Through this initiative, high school students will be able to express their concerns about alcohol abuse.
In closing, I would like to publicly thank all the people in my departments, both the Yukon Liquor Corporation and the Department of Renewable Resources, for the way they worked and were able to bring our budget down and bring it in under budget. I will certainly support this budget all the way.
Mr. Cable:
Last night, the Member for Riverdale South spoke about the good, the bad and the ugly. I was trying to remember the theme song, so I could sort of hum along with her.
Today, I would like to talk about the good and the confusing, which is what I find has taken place over the last few months with the government's financial situation. In opening, I should say that it is encouraging to note that the budget is balanced, and that there is likely to be a small operating surplus.
It is also encouraging that, when the lapses and other factors are taken into account, and when all the smoke and mirrors have cleared, there will likely be a small accumulated surplus, and we, in the Yukon, will be debt free.
It is also encouraging to note that Yukon government finances are not in as desperate shape as some would have had us believe.
What is not encouraging is the fact that we have been led to believe the contrary by the party in control of the numbers, namely the government. Over the last several weeks, we have witnessed a not particularly artful bit of financial flim-flammery.
We have seen the government launch its wage freeze and rollback drive, talking about the possibilities of massive layoffs and the enormous impact on the economy. Unless the employees just up and saluted and accepted what the government proposed, there would be Armageddon.
It was an open attempt, in my view, to cow the employees with bogus threats. A whole series of rationales for the cuts were being offered - none of them very convincing. Increases in working capital were needed. The federal and Yukon debt reduction requirements had to be brought into play. Then, if one reads the press release, there was a trade-off of job security for wage concessions. I even heard that there would be more schools if the teachers went along.
Then we had the government handing out wage comparisons between our teachers and those in other jurisdictions, suggesting slyly that teachers are overpaid. This was followed later by a statement in Question Period that wage levels as such are not an issue and that, in the opinion of the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission, government employees are not overpaid.
Then we had the Government Leader tell us during an open-line show, shortly after the wage concession announcement, that the savings were not fully calculated but would likely be around $10 million. The budget address says savings will be between $13 million and $18 million over three years - approximately one percent of the total anticipated budgets for that period. The whole exercise has a faintly suspicious smell about it. The government launched a wage assault on collective bargaining, attempting to coerce the employees and the public and, knowingly or unknowingly, played off the business community against its own employees, without a clearly articulated, valid objective.
There is an old adage in business - which I wrote last night - to the effect that if one tries to smoke one's employees with financial mumbo jumbo, they will eventually smoke you.
Now, translate it into the political scene. If the government tries to put one over on its employees and the public, then there will be a day of reckoning, and it is called an election.
Another element of the wage thrust that seems disconcerting is the somewhat submissive posture the government appears to be taking to the federal government. "We must be doing our bit, we must help pay down the federal debt, financial Armageddon is just around the corner." It is hoped that budget preparations by this government are not driven by some notion of what would please the Ottawa bureaucracy. There are some tough negotiations ahead, and we all hope the government does not start these negotiations off in some supine pose.
This budget clearly indicates that the government's fiscal position is much better than reported earlier by the government. I would like to pass along a few observations that arise from the exercise we have just witnessed. The first is that, clearly, the government can no longer point to its present fiscal position as an excuse for inaction, or as a means of justifying Draconian measures such as wage rollbacks. The government must be prepared to defend its decisions and policies on their merit. It has to take ownership of the decision-making process. It will no longer suffice to point fingers at others, or complain about the previous administration, as it has done for the last year and a half. It is now accountability time.
Another observation I make, and it is something I hear often in the streets, is that to get people on side, growing together, the government must clearly articulate its agenda to the public and the rationale for its policies and decisions. In my view, for what it is worth, this has not been done, where the government's financial position is concerned. This budget contemplates the creation of cash reserves for rainy day purposes. That may be all right. There should be general agreement that the funds are necessary.
The government must be prepared to defend how it goes about creating them. It should not just be some afterthought on a talk-in show. And what is most important is that Yukoners must feel confident that the funds will be used for stabilization, not as a savings account to be used in an election year.
It was interesting to note that at the Yukon Party convention there were comments about getting out the message. Perhaps a more fundamental question is: "what is the message?" Mixing "sky is falling" talk with talk about a decade of prosperity is not particularly coherent or confidence-inspiring.
I would also like to comment on the general tone of the budget. While Yukoners would certainly welcome a "decade of prosperity," the state of our economy is not as positive as the government suggests. We all hear in the streets about problems that are taking place in the business community, such as the Motorways and Kelly Douglas closures, or Mr. Mike's and other businesses that have failed.
What the government is saying by way of statistics does not concur with some of the information that we on this side of the House are getting from people on the street. Similarly, mines in the permitting stage do not create many jobs or business opportunities.
While I am certainly glad to see and hear less doom and gloom coming from the government, we must be practical, as well. The fact is that there is very little confidence in the Yukon economy at present. The government must be committed to nurturing and contributing to confidence.
Some Hon. Member:
(Inaudible)
Mr. Cable:
That is precisely the point I make. We cannot have it both ways. Doom and gloom, doom and gloom, doom and gloom: that exactly what we have been getting. The government must be committed to nurturing and contributing to confidence where it has the opportunity to do so. I would hope that future government statements on its finances will also engender confidence.
Getting people to pull together requires more than financial
Page Number 2292
flim-flammery.
I look forward to further discussions of the budget during Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Penikett:
I would like to talk about the brain behind this budget. I want to begin by referring to the dictionary definition of the word "brain", as provided to me by the Clerks sitting at the table of this Legislative Assembly, from their excellent library. Their dictionary defines the word "brain" as "the convoluted mass of nervous substance contained in the skull of man and other vertebrates..." The definition continues "taken as the seat of sensation, the organ of thought, memory or imagination, intellectual power, intellect, sense, thought, imagination."
There is a theory of psychology that has been popularized by journalists called "the split brain theory". This theory argues that the right side of the brain performs one set of functions, while the left side of the brain performs different functions. Sometimes these functions are separated in such a way that you have to find a cure and a person has to be lobotomized. I will define the word lobotomized for the Members opposite. The definition reads "to sever the frontal lobes of the brain to deprive of sensitivity, vitality and energy." In medical science that was sometimes known as the liberal approach, but of course that is not the case here.
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask you to look at the Clerks' Table and imagine the government's brain.
Look at the books contained there and the two bookends. At one end of the Table you have a large lump of rock - I think it is probably galena. On the other end of the table, you have another large lump of rock that looks like pyrites. Between the rock and the hard place, you have the statutes, the dictionaries and other books - the knowledge.
Consider the rock at one end as being the right side of the brain, and the rock at the other end as the left side of the brain, and remember also that there are two functions of the brain. The right side is responsible for the creative side, the artistic side, the musical side, the poetic side, the side that writes fiction, creates fantasies, dreams and illusions. The left side of the brain is the logical, mathematical, rational and numerate side. Then think about the products of this government's brain, the budget that we had, which is represented by two documents: the budget address, which is very light and insubstantial, and the other product, the operation and maintenance estimates, the numbers, which is quite weighty, with some heft to it.
I want to suggest that this is not just an accident. Both of the documents are very prettily prepared. They both have the yellow stripe running down their back, and the sea of Tory blue to indicate their origin.
In thinking about this, I realized the people opposite should not be called red Tories or blue Tories. We should call them yellow Tories, as their budget book indicates.
It is very easy to see that the one document, the budget address, was produced by the right side of the brain, by the Dale Drowns and the Gordon Steeles - Dale Drown being that master propagandist, that absolute champion spin doctor, the grand illusionist of the government opposite, and Gordon Steele, who is a fine arts graduate, and appropriately so.
The other document, the operation and maintenance budget, with the numbers and dollars and cents is produced by the logical, mathematical and rational types, the left brain types of the government: the Charles Sandersons and the Statistics Canadas.
On one hand are the words from the right-brain side of the government - the poetic, fanciful, imaginative, creative, fantastic side of the government. On the other side we have the numbers from the logical, rational, numerical side of the government. I want to suggest today that we have a serious case of cognitive dissonance, because the right-brain budget - the words, the budget address - say one thing; the left-brain side of the budget - the numbers - say something quite different. This is not just a case of the right brain not knowing what the left brain is doing. This is something more serious.
Let me just give a few examples. The Minister of Finance has had words put in his mouth by the right-brain types. He said there are no new taxes in this budget. That is what the words say. The facts are - borne out by the numbers in this book, the left-brain type - that there is $1.7 million worth of new taxes in this budget. There is a difference between the rhetoric produced by the right brain and the reality conjured up by the left. The fact is that many of the unwarranted tax increases announced by the government in last year's budget are only now starting to kick in. Plus we hear that there will be a host of fee increases that have not been revealed. They are coming just as surely as the right-brain types will blame the previous administration or the Yukon News or the weather or the federal government or anyone else they can think of for the hike in taxation that the numbers show is taking place.
Another example - and this is a very important one: if one listens to the words, the words produced by the right-brain types, the poets, the artistic, creative people in the government, they will tell us that they have reduced government spending in this budget. That is what they claim; that is what the words say. That is the rhetoric.
However, if you go to the left-brain document and look at the numbers contained on page 3 of the financial summary, it shows quite clearly, that what they have done is created two slush funds. There was $4.5 million that the Legislature took out of the budget last year, which they have set aside to perhaps use again, and another $2 million contingency fund. I have not seen contingency funds, I think, for at least a decade in the House. They were removed some time ago at the, I think, request of the Auditor General, who found that they defeated the purpose of the budget, which is that the Legislature should know what the money is going to be spent on. The interesting thing about these numbers is that the $6.5 million slush fund is being shown below the total expenditure line. It is a very interesting bit of accounting, which I can only assume is a Cabinet decision, or a decision of the right-brain types in government. But the reality, nonetheless, when you look at the numbers is this, in pure and simply terms: if the slush fund is spent, if the $6.5 million dollars is added to the total expenditures proposed in the 1994-95 budget, we no longer have a budget cut. This is no longer a reduction in the budget as the headlines in the Whitehorse Star screamed, but a record high budget. But, if the slush is not spent, if the slush is kept in the fund, in the cooler, away from the hot hands of the Members opposite, guess what? We do not have a deficit. So, the spin doctors, the fantasists, the poets, the creative writers have tried to tell us we have both cuts, and a deficit. The fact is, one can either have cuts and a surplus, or one can have a deficit and a record budget, but one cannot have both. The words and the numbers do not match. One of the two is not the truth. Well, let me be kind. Let me say that, at best, they are both half-truths.
The government has said - the right-brain side, the poets, the creative writers have said - that this government is committed to ensuring that the Yukon education system prepares our young people adequately for the current labour market. They have tried in this speech to convey the thought, the sentiment, that this government is committed to education. What do the numbers say?
The reality is that, if you look at the Education budget, they are slashing $1 million from education spending, ironically, just a year after the Minister of Education launched his infamous education review, because he felt the system was doing such a poor job.
It is amazing that the Members opposite, who have so little
Page Number 2293
respect for numeracy, literacy or education, would want to be making that assertion, and then trying to indicate to anyone that they have any commitment to education, when the numbers quite clearly show that the public schools budget is cut by two percent - the infamous two percent that seems to apply to everything that the government does not like - and the total expenditure O&M in Education is going down five percent. Consider this: every single jurisdiction in the world that is out-performing Canada economically, is increasing expenditures in education, but not this one. Even with an economy in trouble, we are cutting.
The Minister of Education is concerned about the education of the people in the Yukon. Consider this as an example of the split brain at work: in the middle of book week - book week - a national celebration of literacy, learning, the written word - we learn, not from the rhetorical statement, but the reality therapy statement, the numbers, that this government, this Minister of Education has cut funding for school libraries by 25 percent, effective immediately. It is just another case of the right brain giveth, and the left brain taketh away.
Perhaps the Minister's back-to-basics approach in schools will in time return us to the one-room schoolhouse, the slate, the crayon, the school teacher with the strap. Perhaps there will be one book to share among the students in the school. What I call basics - a mastering of mathematics, literature, history, science - has not been evidenced by anyone in the Cabinet.
They get zero on geography - they flunked the test.
Some Hon. Member:
(Inaudible)
Mr. Penikett:
Now the tune has changed. The Minister of Finance, in the poem of the wordsmiths said - and this is one of the most appallingly dishonest statements in the whole book, and one he should have been ashamed to make - that the budget for training programs has increased by 17 percent. One program has increased 17 percent, but what is the truth? What are the facts in the budget book? The facts and the numbers show that the reality is that the total for advanced education has been cut by 14 percent.
Only someone who is deliberately duplicitous or suffering a severe case of cognitive dissonance could claim this rhetoric that training had increased by 17 percent for one program, when the facts contained in the numbers of his own budget, produced by the rational, logical, numerative left-brained people in the budget - the bureaucrats they hold in such contempt and believe are paid too much - have told us the truth, which is that training has been cut 14 percent.
In the budget speech - the script for the Government Leader's little morality play, which casts him as the hero and everyone else as the villains - he told us that the government has made heroic efforts to control spending in the area of health and social services, and specifically mentioned that there is a $1.3 million decrease in social assistance payments.
No mention is made about the fact contained in this book, that since this government took office the total expenditures of the department have gone up by $30 million.
This budget indicates the actual spending in 1992-93 - $77 million - is now up to $20 million more than that. What does this government do in the budget address? They brag about a cut in one program of $1.3 million. Can you imagine that? The government takes one step forward after it has taken 30 steps in the other direction, talking only about the one step that it took.
Why do we have such huge numbers in the area of social expenditures? One of the reasons, apart from extended care facilities and hospitals - is that the economy is in a tailspin. We have more people on social assistance, more people who have no job options, no job opportunities, and to go back to my previous point, they have few training opportunities.
If the government really wanted to cut social assistance costs, they would do something about creating jobs. The trouble with creating jobs is that this government does not believe in creating jobs.
A few days ago I tried to make clear - based on a government document and not something that I invented, not some piece of socialist research, not some piece of academic analysis, but a document produced by this government - the relationship between income and health. The relationship between low income and poor health.
I made the argument, which I hope someone on that side of the House heard, that if you cut low incomes and make them even less, the probable impact is increased health expenditures. That is one impact. Perhaps the only single program that we can identify that has larger expenditures than social assistance is the health insurance program.
You cut one program that is climbing fast and you add costs to the other programs that are climbing fast. That is a penny-wise, pound-foolish strategy.
The rhetorical document, the script prepared by the wordsmiths, the right-brain types, brags about 1,000 more jobs in the Yukon economy than two years ago. That is quite an incredible statement. That statement could not have been made by anyone who has been out over the last two years - or at least a year and a half - and knocked on any doors. There are people who are losing their homes, their businesses, their jobs, experiencing bankruptcies and evictions.
The reality is that the Minister cannot explain, and does not even try to explain, why the unemployment rate last month was 14 percent. That figure is four points higher than it was two years ago in the same month.
Some Hon. Member:
(Inaudible)
Mr. Penikett:
Perhaps the Member could explain, when he is suggesting that there are 1,000 jobs, is he really suggesting that there are 1,000 more people working in full-time jobs? The statisticians do not believe those figures. In fact, a government official told a departmental briefing the other day that the number of 1,000 - if it has any explanation at all - is the conversion of the permanent jobs that we lost in Faro to many temporary, part-time, low-paying jobs, rather than the kinds of jobs that will feed a family.
I have colleagues in the caucus who have families and who, between them, now have five part-time jobs, because they do not have one single, decent high-paying job in their family.
In the government's rhetoric, we have heard the Government Leader say that unions and the NDP - and perhaps even the Liberals - are exaggerating the concerns of government employees and the way they have been treated. That is the rhetoric. What is the reality contained in this left-brain product, the operation and maintenance estimates? Let us turn to page 231 of this government document, the left-brained document, which shows that, in the Public Service Commission's statistics, employment grievances this year are expected to rise by 25 percent. The government also expects its own workers to launch 19 percent more adjudications or court hearings of grievances.
It also anticipates a 32-percent increase in the number of appeals arising from its hiring practices. I did not invent that. This is contained in the budget detail, in the left-brain product, from numbers contained in the budget address.
We have the claim in their rhetoric that there are no new taxes, but the left-brain product, the operation and maintenance estimates, show we have $1.7 million in new taxes, plus fee increases.
The rhetoric claimed that this government was committed to dealing with the problem of family violence. That is what they said. In your constituency, Mr. Speaker, they cut the funding for
Page Number 2294
the transition home. Now, we are supposed to have the absurd proposition that batterers will have to do it according to a schedule approved by government funding. If people who need help, families who are under threat to their lives, turn up at the transition home, and there is no one on staff because of funding cuts, where are they going to go? And the Members opposite think it is funny, while they are spending $1 million killing wolves, because wildlife has been decimated in the area for all sorts of reasons.
Some Hon. Member:
(Inaudible)
Mr. Penikett:
The Minister of Renewable Resources said... I have never been a big game hunter and am not an expert on killing wildlife. I do not know anything about it, nor do I claim to.
Let us talk about land.
Some Hon. Member:
(Inaudible)
Speaker:
Order please. Allow the Member to proceed.
Mr. Penikett:
The rhetoric of the government brags about the development of land.
The reality, the operations and maintenance estimates, show that sales are down. They are short of cash but they keep developing land - land they cannot sell.
Let us talk about cash. The rhetoric of the Government Leader says, "we got no money; can't do anything." Alan Blakeney, who is a person I really respect, a very brilliant man - and a Social Democrat; I should explain that to Members opposite - ran balanced budgets all the time he was Premier of Saskatchewan. Then he was followed by a right-wing Conservative who talked a tough anti-deficit game and left his province with $15 billion of debt. Not deficit, but debt - real debt.
He used to say that Tories love a deficit. Why? They love a deficit because it gives them the one excuse they need to dismantle public services, dismantle the public sector, hurt people who are their political opponents - low-income people, working people, aboriginal people, feminists, other groups they do not like, environmentalists - they can cut them off. How do they justify the cut? Because they can worship the great god: deficit. The great god deficit has demanded another sacrifice, so we have to offer up some human sacrifice to the great god, deficit.
If one looks at the cash position of the government and at the employee leave reserve, at the money that is socked away into land development, the money that we, the government, the Legislature, put into the Development Corporation - the Yukon Development Corporation, that is an interesting one. The Government Leader was on the radio just the other day telling us that we should not consider the money that is in the Yukon Development Corporation's bank accounts as public property because that would be like borrowing against the equity one had in one's home - to risk losing one's home, selling one's home. What a funny thing to say from someone who is actually talking about selling the Development Corporation - the home of all that cash.
Some people would call that a contradiction. There is a mention of land claims. We have a motion tomorrow on them. What an incredible thing. More and more people out there on the street are beginning to ask, why, after a year and a half in government we have not reached a single, final agreement with any First Nations since the government changed. Not one. No self-government agreement; no final agreements. People are getting increasingly frustrated that nothing has happened and they are increasingly inclined to blame the attitude of the Members opposite.
The Member for Watson Lake recently got quite upset with me because I suggested that it was in fact a conscious policy of this government to drive down wages in the territory and suggested that I was somehow fantasizing. Well, look at this budget. Look at the fact they have already deducted the two-percent cut, which they propose to impose on the employees. We have their friend, the president of the chamber of commerce, saying that is their policy: to push down wages. It will make businesses more competitive.
Well, they seem to have forgotten, as I have mentioned here before, that people who have now taken a hard look at the results of the last depression, the one in the 1930s, realize now that one of the reasons we had that depression was because working people had lost their purchasing power. The logic of mass production is - Henry Ford knew this; he knew he had to pay his workers enough money to be able to buy cars - that one has to have wages enough to give ordinary people the purchasing power to keep the economy going.
We have had lots of suggestions from this side about the difficulty of the economy, about bringing people together, as the law requires in the land claims agreement, in the Environment Act, the Economic Development Act. The Government Leader - I do not know what legal advice he took, probably from the Minister of Justice - says "well, I do not agree with that law, I do not have to follow it". It does not matter that everybody in the Legislature voted for it; it does not matter that it was unanimously passed. He does not come back and amend the law; he just says "I am not going to obey it. I do not want to consult with working people, I do not want to consult with rural people, I only want to consult with the chambers of commerce and good old boys who support me - people who agree with me, that is important, I have to have people who agree with me, otherwise I cannot make up my mind."
I am astonished that Members opposite would be so critical of the other side sometimes, when I think of how little they have achieved in the last year and a half. Of course, if one has so little to brag about, to go to the people and talk about with satisfaction and with pride, it makes sense that one just complains about the previous people. This government is clearly, as I have shown today, of two minds. Sooner or later, it is going to have to make up its mind. It is going to have to make up its mind whether it is deficits and cuts, or cuts and surpluses, or slush and deficit. It cannot have it both ways.
Psychologists would call this evident disparity between the right-brain view of the world and the left-brain perspective a serious psychological disorder or at least an example of cognitive dissonance. Not so long ago, we had the Government Leader going around saying to us that the sky was falling and that the end was near. Things were so terrible, we had to take calamitous measures.
Everyone then thought it was a ridiculous, preposterous statement. Now he tells us that we are entering a decade of prosperity, a statement that has produced equal hilarity on the streets of Whitehorse. However, it is not a statement that people are smugly laughing about or with glee. They laugh bitterly and with disappointment. The reality of life for most people in this territory is that their situation has not improved in the year and a half since this government has been in office. In fact, it has become worse.
The Minister of Renewable Resources - the Deputy Government Leader and gentleman for whom we all feel a lot of affection, no matter how antique his notions - said today, and I quote, "I doubt that anyone places a dollar value on wildlife." Yet, he sits next to a gentleman who brags about the fact that he pioneered a pay-for-kill approach in big game hunting - the ultimate dollar value for wildlife.
The new Member of the government worried about us living beyond our means. It is interesting that we always have professionals and prosperous people worrying about people living beyond their means. They always seem to be people who have never suffered the trials and tribulations of many of the least fortunate people, and there are a lot of people out there right now who are suffering real hard times.
The Member opposite also quoted an old Chinese proverb. Let me suggest that there was an American philosopher who said
Page Number 2295
something equally as apt. I quote Yogi Berra, who said, "If you do not know where you are going, you may end up someplace else". That is the situation of this government, because I do not think they have a clue as to where they are going.
I get the horrible feeling that if Winston Churchill were alive today and came to visit the territory, he would probably say something like, "If the Yukon Party should live for a thousand years, people shall say that this budget was not their finest hour."
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
It has been quite an amazing two days. I have a couple of comments about the statement made by the Leader of the Official Opposition. I find it interesting that a man who went on such a tirade about our Education budget this year does not even believe that going to school is useful. I have a quote from his interview yesterday morning in which he says, "No, I am not actually considering leaving the territory, but if, after the next election, I was not an MLA, if there was a chance for example to go back to school, or do something useful..." I guess he does not figure that going to school is useful.
Some Hon. Member:
(Inaudible)
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
He is the one who said it - he said it. When I said that building grandiose schools was decoration that did not do anything for education, he said that I felt that education was decoration. This is very similar to the statement that he made - he does not believe in schools. He does not believe that going to school is useful.
Some Hon. Member:
(Inaudible)
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
The Leader of the Official Opposition says that I am talking nonsense. He says this after the 30 minutes of oratory he gave from that side.
The Leader of the Official Opposition talks about half-truths. He makes much to do about the numbers we quote in the employment statistics. He says that they are not full-time jobs and that they are all part-time jobs. He did not read the statistics. He only read what he wanted to read. First of all, I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the labour force in the Yukon has grown considerably from where it was last March.
There are 600 more people in the workforce, and there are 700 more working than there were in the month of March last year, and 1,000 more than in 1992. If the Member opposite had turned the sheet over, he would have found out that, of those working, the total number who are full-time employees are 10,900.
The Member opposite made much of reserves in our main and supplementary estimates, yet he used them himself on several occasions when they were putting budgets together. Now, it is just not a proper thing to do.
For the House's information, our bank account this morning was overdrawn by $350,000.
I want to go back to the debate, starting with the Member for McIntyre-Takhini, the Finance critic. After listening to the Members opposite, I think it is important that I get one of those socialist calculators. They can have a deficit, have a surplus, can do this and that. We have heard nothing but political rhetoric from the opposite benches, especially from the Official Opposition.
I want to go back one year to when, in this very Legislature, we went through this same type of debate on a budget, and it was wrong. We had inflated the figures, we had cooked the books, we had Consulting and Audit Canada in our pockets, and there would only be one figure they would believe - time and time again, they said it: the Auditor General's figure .
When we want to talk about the credibility of budgets, ours stood up to the scrutiny of the Auditor General. He reinforced the numbers we put out within a month of coming into office, after we took over the sorry financial mess that was left by the Members opposite.
They want to talk about credibility. When the Auditor General audits our budget for the last fiscal year this fall, he will again prove that it is based on credible numbers.
I heard the Member for McIntyre-Takhini say that this government is not interested in putting people to work. I beg to differ with him. The Member also said that our priorities were different than their's. I certainly hope that our priorities are different from their's. Their priorities were to employ some of their union supporters, who financed their campaigns every year, by constructing buildings in the Yukon with money that was supposed to be spent on infrastructure. They did not give a damn about the construction worker, the highway worker and the poor person out there who did not belong to a union. The previous government did not care if those people worked. We are finding a balance. We are putting people to work in all areas of the Yukon.
The Members on the side opposite do not believe in free enterprise. We do, and that is why our priorities are different than their's.
We also believe that the way to put the Yukon on the road to self-sufficiency is by infrastructure development. We do not call fabulous buildings infrastructure development.
The Members opposite do not believe in infrastructure development. They do not believe in building roads, they do not believe in running power lines, and they do not believe in our four-year plan. Yet, what do we have here? "The plan" by their colleagues in British Columbia.
These are their socialist brothers and sisters in British Columbia, whose vision for the 21st century is defined as a long-term, forward-looking strategy that is pivotal on building a prosperous and diversified economy by investing in people and infrastructure.
They do not believe in infrastructure.
I want to go back a little bit, to the Member for McIntyre-Takhini's comments in the House yesterday as Finance critic that he had held that portfolio when he was on the government side for however many years it was. I want to talk a little bit about why we have a perversity factor today. Many Members in this Legislature will recall that, back in, I believe, 1983-84, when the Hon. Erik Nielsen was the MP for the Yukon, between himself and the Conservative government that was in power - and I believe that the Member for Riverdale South was part of that government - they negotiated a very, very lucrative formula financing agreement with the federal government.
Some Hon. Member:
(Inaudible)
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
It was a long time ago, but I have to set the stage for this, if the Member opposite will bear with me.
I believe all Yukoners were told at that time that that was extraordinary funding that was negotiated to put in place infrastructure in the Yukon so that the Yukon would not be so dependent on Ottawa in the future.
Sadly, that government was defeated in 1985 and the NDP fell into a huge pot of money. They were very irresponsible about how they spent that money - so irresponsible that in 1989 the federal government brought in the perversity factor because they were tired of supporting them.
I want to refer to a newspaper article from Friday, December 22: "Money deal is a sleazy outrage. Sleazy and perverted is how the Yukon finance minister, Piers McDonald describes the new financing arrangement. He was terribly incensed." And I do not blame him.
But I think he brought it on himself and he brought it on all Yukoners. He goes on to talk about what McDonald, termed as a surprise announcement; he was totally unaware it was coming down. He took an hour and 15 minutes to explain the deal and spent an hour of that throwing personal attacks on the integrity of the federal finance minister. McDonald said his government was
Page Number 2296
predicting a $9 million dollar reduction in light of the tight federal financial restraints, but with this announcement they could now expect a $9 million reduction. He said there was no relief in sight, but, on the other hand, the assistant deputy minister for the federal government northern program said the announcement should come as no surprise - no surprise whatsoever. He did not expect the territories to like the deal, but he thought it was a good deal for the territories. He goes on to say - Mr. Van Loon, the assistant deputy minister for the federal department - that the territorial and federal governments have been talking about this deal since 1987 - two years prior to them bringing it in. And from the outset, the federal government conveyed the message that it was worried about the territory's dependency on the federal government. That early in that government's mandate, the federal government could see they were not spending the money in the manner that was negotiated, to put infrastructure in place so that Yukoners could be more self-sufficient and less reliant on Ottawa.
He went on to say that the territorial government was kept in the picture at all times. This is the interesting part. This is in 1987. He went on to say that every other jurisdiction in Canada has increased its tax effort since 1985, but the Yukon has not. Mr. Van Loon went on to say that that was quite all right, but the federal government was no longer going to subsidize the Yukon for taking that position. We have a perversity factor today, which came in at, I believe, $1.36 and is now $1.56, and we can thank the former NDP government for it. All Yukoners can thank them for it. Had they been more responsible, we may not have had a perversity factor today.
There were some other interesting comments made shortly after that in January, in this Legislature, by that same Minister of Finance - now the Member for McIntyre-Takhini. I find this very interesting, because he says in a ministerial statement on January 22, 1990, referring to the formula financing agreement that had just been signed, "Mr. Speaker, in addition to this, we must, as all Canadians must, reduce our expectations for continuing increases in government spending". Can you imagine that? He said that back in 1990. Suddenly, in 1993-94, he wants to know what we are concerned about.
He goes on to say, "The new financial reality we are facing will require a more realistic appraisal of the true importance of new expenditure proposals if we are to avoid an increase in tax rates and the already high tax burden borne by Yukon people". He then goes on to say, "As harsh as the new financial regimes being imposed are, we can live within our means..." and blah, blah, blah, blah.
I believe that the former Minister of Finance was very sincere when he made that ministerial statement in this House. I believe he truly thought it was time to get government expenditures under control. This was in 1990, when they were just starting to get out of control. I believe he was sincere in that request. Either he was sincere, or he was just espousing political rhetoric.
I do not believe that for one minute. I believe he was sincere, but I also believe that, even though he had the Finance portfolio, he did not have the political clout in Cabinet to control his colleagues and their spending. That must have been what happened, because government spending went totally out of control.
I want to point out a few other things that took place during the past administration. In 1985, when the formula financing agreement came in, the Yukon government was raising about 20 percent of its revenue from their own sources. By 1992-93, that had dropped to less than 15 percent. Yet, the NDP government felt that southern Canadians should be subsidizing us in the north because we had it so hard up here.
The Member for McIntyre-Takhini went off on a tirade yesterday on the leave liability account, as if it were unnecessary and news to him. The NDP are the ones who originally set up this liability account. If it was good enough for them, why is it not good enough for this current government? There may be some validity to capping that fund, at some point, but I can assure you that the minute we bring in a budget that caps that leave liability account, we will be criticized severely by the Member for McIntyre-Takhini and his colleagues.
I want to go on to some of the other comments that were made in the debate yesterday by the Member for Faro. He talked about the $64 million phantom deficit. The way he related the figures in the Legislature yesterday, I believe that the degree he holds in commerce must be a phantom degree. The Member for Faro, the Member for McIntyre-Takhini and the Leader of the Official Opposition are all trying to say that there are tax increases in this budget. They cannot have it both ways. Were the tax increases in the last budget, or were they in this budget?
Some Hon. Member:
(Inaudible)
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
Were they? I do not believe that the public will buy that for one minute. The fact remains that they say that this is the biggest budget in the history of the Yukon, and they point to page 2 or page 3 - whichever one you want to point to. Again, they cannot have it both ways. Either last year's budget was the biggest budget, or this year's budget is the biggest budget, because the figures on my sheets just do not add up. Our budget this year is quite a bit less than the budget that was tabled last year. We have said time and time again that we have some one-time capital projects going on in the Yukon today that are not going to be here every year, year after year, to create jobs in the private sector to keep those private sector workers employed. They are not going to be here, and we have to control the O&M costs of government if we are going to have money for capital projects to put people to work.
There is another comment that the Member for Faro made - he must have again been using that socialist calculator, because he refers, according to the Blues, that the government has increased revenues. "When we went to the lockup budget briefing, the Deputy Minister of Finance told us that the federal government has stated that this year's transfer will be $311 million, but the transfer payment from Canada is stated in the budget as $275 million ..." I do not believe that is what the Deputy Minister of Finance said in the lockup, but that is what the Member for Faro said in the House. "That is fine, but let us call a spade a spade ..." I agree with the Member for Faro. Let us call a spade a spade.
"What we have here is a listing of expenditures that will exceed last year's record budget ..."
We can run the numbers in whatever way the Member for Faro and his colleagues want. Let us accept that the $311 million is a valid figure, as the Members opposite are saying, and that we have understated our revenues for this year. I could accept that, if the Members opposite would accept that if we are going to accept the $311 million that the federal government has stated, then we also have to accept that we overstated the amount in last year's supplementaries. Last year, the federal document showed $261 million. Yet, our supplementaries for 1993-94 say it is $280 million.
You cannot have it both ways. If you are going to accept one of the federal government's figures, then you have to accept the other one of the figures, or you do not accept either one of them.
That is what I talk about when the Members opposite put out half-truths.
They talk about our reserve fund, the $4.5 million that was removed from the Alaska Highway capital budget. We have said that that money will be spent. Right now, we have an infrastructure program, about which I read a ministerial statement in the House, to which we are going to have to contribute about $2 million this year to implement. That is where some of that money is going to
Page Number 2297
go, right off the start. The money will be spent in the budget. There is no doubt about it; it will be spent in this fiscal year.
I would like to turn now to the comments by the Member for Riverdale South. I thought she was very civil in her reply to the budget yesterday - somewhat surprisingly. She wanted some questions answered and I believe the Members opposite deserve to have questions answered.
I do have a little bit of a problem with her comments on the windfall of the tax rate increase. The Member for Riverdale South was in the lockup. These numbers were clearly explained to her in the lockup. Either she did not understand them or she brought them back in the House so that they could be on record, I do not know which. There was not a 45-percent increase. The total overall increase was 26.8 percent. That is what it was.
The Member opposite attributes all of this to tax rate increases, but that is not correct either. If we look at the tax rate increases in a number of points where they were raised last year, one does not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that that will not give one a 26-percent increase in the overall tax rate. Last year, the personal tax went from 45 to 48 points. That is a 6.7-percent increase. The corporate tax went from 10 to 13 percent. That is a 30-percent increase. The rate for small business tax went from five percent to six percent, which is very minimal. Since only about 11 percent of all our income tax revenues were at the 30-percent rate, it would be virtually impossible for that total to make up the 26.8 percent. What does happen, for the information of the Members opposite, is that we are always behind on the taxes and the federal government catches up; that is the way the formula works. For her information, of the $9,312,000 increase, $4,748,000 was due to updates from 1991 and 1992 income tax receipts that we received from the federal government. The tax rate increases did not even apply to those years - almost $5 million of the $9 million.
The bulk of the remainder of the increase, the $4,500,000 is a result of a volume increase, not a rate increase.
The original main estimates, as modified by the amendments we brought in from the phasing-in of the tax rates - income tax rate increases were shown as an increase of $1,850,000; the actual yield was $2,312,000, assuming that the new volume projections the federal government has put out now are correct. There could be adjustments in the future. The projections for the corporate rate increase yield was $1,017,000 and the actual yield was $1,009,000. So overall, when the projection of the fuel oil and tobacco tax rate increases are added, our estimates of the yield from rate increases on the income tax projections was $9,000 less than the actual yield, as it is known today. Those will change again in September as the federal government updates.
As much as I would like to give a tax rebate to Yukoners, I do not believe it is possible out of this budget.
I know my time is running short and I have some important things I have to lay out here so I am going to try to hurry.
First of all, I have stated time and time again that we have received clear signals from the federal government with regard to the new formula financing agreement. Today, I want to table a paragraph from a letter I received from Mr. Martin. I will not table the whole letter - federal ministers do not like their letters tabled, but I have his permission to table an excerpt from that letter. That excerpt from this letter from the Hon. Paul Martin, Minister of Finance, dated April 12, 1994, regarding the renewal of the territorial financing agreement on April 1, 1995 - that is when it takes effect - reads: "With respect to the fiscal parameters of renewal discussions, given the federal fiscal situation, renewal simply cannot result in the enrichment of formula financing."
I have instructed my officials to ensure that the renewal discussions proceed from a premise that the new formula will either cost less or, at most, cost the same as the current formula. I will table that excerpt for the Members' information. That is the premise on which we are going into negotiations.
Mr. McDonald:
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Point of Order
Speaker:
Point of order to the Member for McIntyre-Takhini.
Mr. McDonald:
I am sure the Minister is aware of the traditions of this House and the rules of this House, which state that if a letter is quoted from, the entire letter is delivered to the Speaker and, ultimately, to all the Members. Whether the Minister wants to deliver the entire letter or not is irrelevant. The Minister is obligated by the rules of this House to table the entire correspondence.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
On the point of order, I did not quote from the letter. I read an excerpt into the record.
Mr. Penikett:
On the same point of order, the Government Leader cannot claim that he did not quote from the letter when he read an excerpt from it. That is identical, in meaning, to quoting from the letter. The rules of this parliament and, as far as I know, all parliaments in the English-speaking world, require that if one quotes from a document, one must table the whole document. It is completely inappropriate to do otherwise. There may be other content in the letter, the context of which changes the meaning or import of what has been quoted. It would be entirely wrong to quote selectively from a document and then refuse to table the whole document, so that Members may see it.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I did not quote from the document. I quoted from the excerpt that I tabled.
Mr. Penikett:
The Government Leader is not only splitting hairs. His position is nonsense. If he quotes from an excerpt from a document, unless he has fabricated the excerpt and it has no relation to the original, then it is, in fact, a quote from the document and the document itself must be tabled.
Mr. Cable:
We have not yet heard why the Government Leader does not want to table the document. There does not seem to be much rationale introduced by the Government Leader on this.
If your ruling, Mr. Speaker, is in favour of tabling the document, then we will see whether or not the rationale produced holds any water.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I contacted the Minister's office. His staff felt it was quite appropriate to table an excerpt from the letter but not the letter itself. I am doing this at the wish of the Minister of Finance.
Speaker:
I will take a moment to confer with the Clerk and read Beauchesne.
Mr. Penikett:
On the point that has been made by the Government Leader, the validity of the quote is entirely dependent on it being an excerpt from the letter. There is only one recent precedent that I recall that is similar. The Minister of Finance, Michael Wilson, wrote to my colleague, the present Member for McIntyre-Takhini, in his capacity as the Minister of Finance, to compliment him on the excellent management of the finances of the Yukon government by the NDP. I believe that my colleague, the then Minister of Finance, tabled the letter. He did not table a portion of the letter on the approval of the Minister of Finance; he tabled the whole letter.
It does not matter whether or not the Minister of Finance has given his approval. The federal Minister cannot dictate the rules of this House. The federal Minister ought to know the rules of the House of Commons. The Minister opposite has quoted from the document and he is under obligation, I believe, to table it.
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
If I were to write a letter to the Honourable Leader expressing concern over some of the contents of a letter received by this government from Minister of Finance Martin, and
Page Number 2298
in my letter I stated that I was concerned about the letter that had been written because it says and introduces, as a quote, the excerpt that is being filed in this House, is it really the proposition of the side opposite that my letter would not be sufficient, and that the original letter from which I quoted an extract would have to be tabled as well? That is really where the logic takes us.
Mr. McDonald:
The Minister laid out what he termed an extract from a letter that he had received from the federal Minister. He identified the letter as being part of a larger piece of correspondence. He made the choice to quote from that document - he made the choice.
The Minister also indicated that because it is directly from, and a part of, a letter that the federal Minister sent to us, its validity depends upon it being part of that letter.
The reason there is an expectation for the whole document to be tabled is so that all Members can understand the context in which the excerpt is delivered. That is the reason the entire letter must be tabled now, so that all Members can verify for themselves whether or not the claim that the statement is inherently valid can be verified by all Members. It is a choice that the Minister makes when the Minister or any Member quotes from a document.
They have to understand and know that when they do that they are obligated to table the entire document. It is a choice they make and if they break an agreement with the author of that letter that is a choice that they make.
Speaker's Ruling
Speaker:
Under annotation 495(1) in Beauchesne, it clearly indicates that a Minister is not at liberty to read or quote from a dispatch or other state paper not before the House without being prepared to lay it on the table. Therefore, understanding that the Minister probably does not have the letter on hand at this time, I will suggest that he is required to table the letter at a specific time and date.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I will accept the ruling of the Chair, and I will table the letter.
Based on that letter, and knowing that we are not going to get any large windfall increases from the federal government, I had Finance draw up two different scenarios, one of standstill revenues, based on what we expect from the formula financing agreement over the next three years. If we were to take one on a standstill, with no increases and no inflation factors - nothing at all - starting from the premise of a 1993-94, $13.2 million deficit, by March 31, 1997, we would end up with an accumulated deficit of about $10.5 million because, while we have no inflation factor built in for revenues, because we do not expect we will get it in the formula financing, we will have inflation on our expenditure side. We will also have a small volume increase.
Then, if we took another scenario, and took the premise for the same three-year calculations, starting from our $3 million deficit, and building some inflation numbers into each of the fiscal years, as well as a one-percent increase from the federal government, as of March 31, 1996-97, we would end up with our budget about balanced.
I am trying to point out to the Members opposite the situation regarding the cash projections that we have - which are very rough but I think they clearly indicate the trend, based on the revenues we have and what we can expect to get within the next three years. Clearly, we have to further cut the costs of O&M somewhere as we move along, as we repriorize programs, as the Minister of Health and Social Services is doing now. Then we will have money freed up for capital projects. For the Members opposite to try to throw the red herring out that we are trying to build this huge surplus for an election year just does not wash. I wish we were in a position where we could build a surplus but that certainly is not possible.
I just want to speak about economic development now and some of the things we are doing. The Members opposite say we are not doing anything on the economic front. I believe we are doing a lot and we are making some remarkable gains.
They say that mines going through permitting do not create jobs. They do not create many jobs while they are going through permitting, but if we do not have mines going through permitting, we are not going to have any mines producing in the Yukon and we are not going to have any jobs.
We have created a climate of comfort for the mining companies in the Yukon. In fact, last year, the Casino exploration project was the largest single exploration project in Canada, and the miners feel comfortable.
Speaker:
Order please. The Member has three minutes in which to close his remarks.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
They say we are not doing anything on land claims, but we are working toward finalizing some agreements. What is key, and what is different in the Yukon today, which never happened under their administration, is that we have mining companies and First Nations drawing up economic development agreements and working hand in hand for the benefit of both First Nations people and the mining community and all Yukoners. They worked for years and the IRC took a passive role. They had a representative who did not do anything, but just sat there.
We took over and we took a pro-active role on the Implementation Review Committee. We came up with some regulations that the placer miners feel quite comfortable with and will be able to operate under for many years in the Yukon. Our placer mining industry is once again the backbone of the Yukon economy and many, many workers in the Dawson area have been working for months. The Members opposite overlooked placer mining. As I said, they took a very passive role on the IRC. They gave all kinds of nice speeches that they supported mining, but they did not do anything to help them. We put a mining facilitator in place to help these people with permitting mines. We have taken a pro-active attitude toward mining and it is going to pay benefits to the Yukon for years to come. We have an exploration program in the Yukon this year that is between $20 million and $25 million. Of the mines that are going through permitting, we expect one or two of them to be operating this year.
Even in the old riding of the Member for McIntyre-Takhini, which he abandoned, we have a mine doing a few million dollars worth of exploration work and trying to get that mine back into production.
We, through the budgets we have tabled since we have been in power, have gotten our fiscal house in order. We have curtailed overspending by government; government spending is now under control. We can continue to reduce the O&M of government as we move along, so we can free more money to build more schools, to build things that Yukoners need, and we will continue to build highways; we will continue to put infrastructure in place so that the private sector feels comfortable and can make a living in the Yukon and can put many, many Yukoners to work. Thank you.
Division
Speaker:
Division has been called.
Mr. Clerk, would you kindly poll the House.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
Agree.
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
Agree.
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
Agree.
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
Agree.
Page Number 2299
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
Agree.
Hon. Mr. Nordling:
Agree.
Mr. Abel:
Agree.
Mr. Millar:
Agree.
Mr. Penikett:
Disagree.
Mr. McDonald:
Disagree.
Ms. Commodore:
Disagree.
Mr. Joe:
Disagree.
Ms. Moorcroft:
Disagree.
Mr. Harding:
Disagree.
Mr. Cable:
Disagree.
Mrs. Firth:
Disagree.
Speaker's casting vote
Clerk:
Mr. Speaker, the results are eight yea, eight nay.
Speaker:
Hon. Members, our Standing Order 4(2) states that, in the case of an equality of votes, the Speaker shall give a casting vote. In general, the principle applied to motions and bills is that the Chair should always vote for further discussion. Voting for a bill at second reading provides the House with another opportunity to decide the question. I, therefore, vote for the motion and declare the motion for second reading of this bill carried.
Motion for second reading of Bill No. 15 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 Hon. 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 now call Committee of the Whole to order.
Is it the wishes of the Members to take a break at this time?
Some Hon. Members:
Agreed.
Chair:
We will take a brief recess.
Recess
Chair:
I will now call Committee of the Whole to order.
We will begin with Bill No. 14, Interim Supply Appropriation Act, 1994-95. Is there any general debate?
Bill No. 14 - Interim Supply Appropriation Act, 1994-95
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
Every Member will be familiar with the need for this particular piece of legislation. The operation and maintenance budgets will not be law by the end of the current month. We therefore require legislative approval for April's operation and maintenance expenditures, and this bill reflects our request for such approval.
The sum we are asking for amounts to approximately $63.7 million - well above the one-twelfth of the operation and maintenance expenditures we are showing in the 1994-95 estimates.
Members will know that all, or a disproportionate share, of many of the grant payments are made at the beginning of the year. Payments made to colleges and municipalities are major examples of this, but it also applies to many smaller grants and contributions. For this reason, April's expenditures are not typical of monthly expenditures throughout the year. As mentioned in my remarks at second reading, a special warrant covering the expenditures was approved by the Commissioner prior to year end. This approval will legitimize expenditures being made in the month to date.
If Members have any questions regarding this bill, I will be pleased to answer them.
Mr. McDonald:
I have a few questions. I would like to know a few terms of the authority under which we are operating now. Obviously payments are being made. Presumably, a Commissioner's warrant was sought and received. Can the Minister indicate to us how much the Commissioner's warrant was for and when was the Commissioner's warrant sought?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
The amount of the warrant is exactly the same as what is being requested in the interim supply bill. It is dated March 22, 1994.
Mr. McDonald:
I have a few questions about the policies with respect to payment of grants and contributions up front. I remember last year we discussed the payment of grants, and there were some suggestions from some organizations that the grants were later than usual. Have the grants to Yukon College and the municipalities and the Yukon Arts Centre, for example, been paid already?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I know for sure that Yukon College was paid yesterday, so they have been paid. I am sure that there are some other ones that have also been paid at this point. We do not have a complete list of the ones paid and which ones are still outstanding.
Mr. McDonald:
Perhaps the Minister could come back and provide us with some very specific information at some point. It is not urgent, but I would like to know about the grants that are normally paid or are expected to be paid at the beginning of the fiscal year and whether or not those grants have in fact been paid. If they were not paid at the beginning of the fiscal year, how long after the beginning of the fiscal year were they paid?
Can the Minister provide us with that information?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
Certainly, there will be no problem in providing that information. I will try to get that information back to the Member tomorrow.
Mr. McDonald:
I am going to do something slightly unorthodox, because I need it for comparison purposes. We have one interim supply bill in front of us now for April and, in about 90 seconds, we will be dealing with one for May. In the section on Yukon College, there is a grant under the operation and maintenance votes, schedule B, which lists Yukon College in April as receiving a grant of $10,414,000.
I understand that, while it may be listed in the interim supply for May, the grant was not delivered for April. As I understand it, this interim supply has a finite life to it and that the spending authority ceases at the end of the month.
The grant that is listed for May is different from that listed for April. They are two different amounts.
Can the Minister explain that seeming anomaly to me?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
If the Member is asking why there are differences in the amounts for April and May, it is because a lot of the grants are paid out in the month of April, and we would not have those expenses occurring again in May. As the Member opposite can see, April is for $63.73 million and the one for May is $39,401,000. This is substantially lower than the April interim supply funds.
Mr. McDonald:
I can understand that and I can appreciate the reasons for that. If the intention was to pay it in April and it was not paid in April, then you would pay it in May. So, I understand why the government is proposing to do that, but the grant that is listed for Yukon College in the interim supply bill that we are dealing with here for April seems to be higher than that listed in the college budget main estimates. It is also higher than the amount that is listed in the interim supply for May.
It is slated in the interim supply for May at $10,099,000. In the main estimates the grant is listed as $10,099,000 and in the April
Page Number 2300
interim supply it is listed at $10,414,000. That is a small amount for us, but it would probably be an important amount for the college.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I will bring a written response back to the Member on that, but I believe it is because the capital is included in that - it has already been voted in the capital budget that we already passed through this Legislature. I believe there was around $300,000 in capital, as well as the O&M grant.
Mr. McDonald:
I have the capital budget here. This is the operation and maintenance vote. Perhaps the Minister could just give us some explanation for that, and that would be satisfactory.
Chair:
Is there any further general debate?
On Schedule A
Schedule A agreed to
On Schedule B
Schedule B agreed to
On Clause 1
Clause 1 agreed to
On Clause 2
Clause 2 agreed to
On Title
Title agreed to
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
Mr. Chair, I move you report Bill No. 14, entitled Interim Supply Appropriation Act, 1994-95, out of Committee without amendment.
Motion agreed to
Bill No. 17 - Interim Supply Appropriation Act, 1994-95, No. 2
Chair:
Is there any general debate?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
We have just gone through the other one, so I do not think this one needs much explanation. The amount of this one is significantly less. The spending authority for the month of May that is being requested is $39,401,000. I believe I have already explained some of the reasons for that.
If there are any other questions, I will try to answer them for the Members opposite.
Chair:
Is there any further general debate?
On Schedule A
Schedule A agreed to
On Schedule B
Schedule B agreed to
On Clause 1
Clause 1 agreed to
On Clause 2
Clause 2 agreed to
On Title
Title agreed to
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
Mr. Chair, I move that you report Bill No. 17, entitled Interim Supply Appropriation Act, 1994-95, No. 2, out of Committee without amendment.
Motion agreed to
Bill No. 40: Subdivision Act - continued
Chair:
We are dealing with clause 26(2), on page 12, which was stood aside, and the amendment.
On Clause 26(2) - formerly stood over
Ms. Moorcroft:
I know the Minister felt he got a rough ride on the Subdivision Act and that he was not expecting that. I want to thank the Minister for having his officials provide a briefing. I found that helpful. I raised some concerns at that time. Even when a critic is provided with a briefing, the Minister should understand and be able to defend the language and the law that he brings forward.
The Subdivision Act is one that people are interested in. After I mailed copies of the proposed act out to concerned constituents, I received some concerns, which I raised in the House. If the Minister has any doubts about the interest people have in subdivisions and planning issues, I am sure they will be dispelled at his meeting tonight at the Hidden Valley School with the Ibex Valley residents.
When Yukoners find the laws obscure, they do not like the language, the law or being left out. Unclear writing is one of the oldest causes of popular complaint about legal writing. My recommendation to the Minister is to give direction to the legal writers to stick to ordinary words of the English language.
Regarding clause 26(2), I appreciate the Minister bringing forward an amendment to address my concerns. I would like the Minister to confirm that where a planning scheme is in effect, the planning scheme will prevail or take precedence.
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
Yes. The Member is correct.
Ms. Moorcroft:
If a planning scheme is under development, will subdivision occur prior to a planning scheme being completed? If the Minister is aware of planning schemes being undertaken, will they approve a subdivision application when they know that is coming forward?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
I think it would depend on the circumstances, because a planning scheme is defined at the front of the act, and it includes a regional plan, a sub-regional plan, a district plan, a community plan, and a local area plan for land use policies and regulations. I believe that in section 3(1)(c), it says if the proposed subdivision conforms to any existing or proposed planning scheme that affects or will affect the land or adjacent land, or is in conformity with a logical extension of the planning scheme. I am sorry, that last part, "or is in conformity with a logical extension", has been struck. The rest were for a proposed planning scheme, so I think that it would depend on the circumstances. There could be a subdivision where there is some sort of a planning scheme happening, but I would expect that, if it conformed, there would probably not be any trouble. If it did not conform, there would have to be some other mechanism to deal with the subdivision.
Ms. Moorcroft:
Unnecessary words increase the opportunities for us and the readers of the legislation to go wrong. I think there may be some extra words in here that may give a chance to goof. It reads, "Unless the contrary is expressly declared in a planning scheme, the subdivision regulations operate subject to the planning scheme." If that were to read, "The subdivision regulations operate subject to the planning scheme", you would not need to talk about whether or not there is a contrary. If the planning scheme says something to the contrary, it is in the planning scheme, and the planning scheme takes precedence. I do not want to amend the language further, and stand here and make things up. I will just express those concerns, and reiterate that I would like the Minister, and all Ministers, to give direction to the legal writers to stick with ordinary words, make the language as brief as possible, and to write it clearly.
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
I thank the Member opposite for her observations. I, too, prefer simple language in legislation - something that I can understand and which I do not necessarily have to get legal opinions on. I certainly will pass those observations on to staff and to our justice people when we are drafting legislation.
Chair:
Is there further debate on the amendment?
Does the amendment carry?
Amendment agreed to
Clause 26 agreed to as amended
On Title
Title agreed to
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
I move that Bill No. 40, entitled Subdivision Act, be moved out of Committee with amendment.
Motion agreed to
Page Number 2301
Bill No. 15 - Second Appropriation Act, 1994-95
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
The government is seeking operation and maintenance spending authority of $352,260,000 for the 1994-95 fiscal year.
The sum just mentioned includes loan interest, loan principal and loan capital, and the sum being requested for departmental O&M spending is $346,210,000, of which some $42.8 million is recoverable.
We are predicting a surplus for the year of $5.6 million after allowing for a transfer from capital to O&M, capital supplementary for $4.5 million, which will be forthcoming, and a contingency of $2 million for unexpected expenditures.
This should still leave us with an accumulated deficit, although I believe the lapses from the 1993-94 year will see that accumulated deficit at a little less than the $6.2 million we are formally projecting in these estimates.
Members will note that our overall revenue inflow has increased by some $6.5 million. This is due entirely to an increase in capital recoveries over those projected in 1993-94 estimates. Most notably there were recoveries for work on the Alaska Highway, land development and the new Whitehorse Hospital.
Territorial revenues are up about $1 million. This is comprised of a variety of changes of which an increase in income tax revenues is the most significant. As Members know, these figures are supplied by the federal government, which is predicting an increase of $1.5 million in 1994-95 on top of the rather large increase projected by them in 1993-94.
Our established program financing monies are also projected to increase by $1.7 million, based on data currently available from the federal government.
The bulk of these increased revenues do not flow to our benefit, but instead go toward reducing the transfer payment from Canada.
For this reason, the transfer payment is shown as decreasing from that forecast in 1993-94.
Operation and maintenance expenditures for the year will be down some $12 million from the forecast in the 1993-94 estimates. This is a decrease of three percent and finally reverses a trend of ever-increasing operation expenditures by this government.
Part of this decrease is accounted for by the wage restraint initiative that we have previously announced. The savings from this initiative total some $3.1 million for the 1993-94 fiscal year.
Despite the savings, Members will note that a proportion of the personnel costs in this budget will have increased to 42.6 percent from the 41.7 percent shown in the 1993-94 operation and maintenance budget.
My budget speech of last week mentioned a number departmental highlights and I will be brief in my comments now.
Despite the overall decrease in operation and maintenance spending, several departments showed increases that reflect our priority of economic development and economic diversification of the territory.
Spending in the Department of Economic Development will increase by two percent and in Tourism by three percent. The hiring of a mining facilitator and establishing an oil and gas unit will both serve the territory's economic future well. In the Department of Tourism, Members will note increases in both tourism development and marketing programs - programs that will help develop the Yukon as a destination for tourists from all over the world.
The Yukon Housing Corporation budget has also increased by four percent. This increase is due to expenditures for the Thomson Centre, the Gateway housing project and the Granger social housing project. Without these new expenditures, over and above what we had in last year's budget, the corporation would actually be spending roughly five percent less in 1994-95.
Among departments showing reduced expenditures for the year, it should be noted that the Department of Education incurred a one-time expenditure of $2.4 million in 1993-94, when it contributed funds to the land claims training trust. This one-time expenditure exaggerates the apparent decrease in spending by that department. Ministers will, of course, be speaking to their departments in some detail during Committee debate and Members will have ample opportunity at the time to ask departmental specific questions. In the meantime, if Members have any questions of a more general nature, I will be pleased to answer them. Thank you.
Mr. McDonald:
I have quite a bit of ground I would like to cover in the next little while, but I will do a brief survey of a number of issues that have arisen, both in general debate and outside the Legislature.
I would like to begin by asking the Minister to talk a little bit about the numbers on page 3 of the budget book. I would like to get the Minister's firm position on what he is anticipating will happen over the course of the coming year.
He has alluded to some of these numbers in his second reading speech, or in his reply to speeches made by Members in the House, and I would like to clarify a few things for my own purposes.
I am particularly interested in the items entitled "adjustments in future supplementary estimates". The plans the government has for these funds are not quite clear to me. I would like the Minister to explain the three figures there and what they plan to do with that money. Do they plan to spend it, or do they plan to save it? Which direction are they going in the coming year? I am referring particularly to the $897,000 figure, the $4.5 million figure, and the $2 million figure.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
The first change is that the $897,000 is going to be taken out of capital and put into operation and maintenance, so that will disappear - it will come with the supplementary. The $4.5 million, which was an issue of great debate in this Legislature during the capital funding, will be spent in this fiscal year. We know that we will require money for the infrastructure program. We do not have any money set aside for that. In order to capitalize on the federal money, they want to see the yearly allotment spent by March 31. They do have some flexibility on that but, in order to capitalize on that, we need to use some of that money. I would expect that a couple of million dollars of that will go into the infrastructure program.
The Minister of Education and the Minister responsible for highways are in discussion on some things the Minister of Education would like to do to some of the schools, so some of the money will be directed there.
I believe that, as we get further into department-by-department debate and the Ministers come forward with the supplementaries, we will see that the money will all be spent. It is our intention, at this point, to spend all of that $4.5 million.
The $2 million contingency expected for supplementary requirements is based on the $5 million supplementaries we brought in last fall. We know there are going to be supplementaries. We know they are short of money in some programs. There are always supplementary estimates, so we have allowed for that in order to try and budget accurately and not inflate figures one way or another. I believe that is called prudent fiscal management. In this way, we can account for that money.
Mr. McDonald:
Going back to the $897,000, the first line item, the Minister said it was transferred from capital to O&M. Is the $897,000 factored into the operations budget listed here? Is it part of the $468 million?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
Yes, I believe it is already factored in. I may have a little more detail. On the bottom of the page it says that Government Services capital main estimates will be reduced by $737,000 to offset the 1994-95 funding requirements. The
Page Number 2302
Yukon Housing 1994-95 capital main estimates will be reduced by $160,000 to reflect the transfer of three positions from capital to O&M. They are factored into the O&M budget.
Mr. McDonald:
If that is a transfer between capital and operations, there ought to be no net change to the total government spending - is that not the case?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
Yes, the Minister is correct. As a result of those two I just gave him, yes.
Mr. McDonald:
I realize that in the bigger scheme of things these do not amount to much money, but the reason I asked the question is that it appears that, when one adds the $897,000 to the $468 million, along with the $4.5 million, the $2 million and the $5.6 million - going down that list of items on the page - it adds up exactly to the total income expected for next year, $479,798,000. I am not certain whether or not the $897,000 is part of the calculation that achieves a surplus deficit for the year, the $5.6 million, or not. If there is no net change, how can the Minister explain this column of figures?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
If the Member opposite would refer to page 3, where it says less expenditures of $468,584,000, that is the total of capital and operation and maintenance. When we remove the $897,000 from capital, it moves over into the operation and maintenance side, and that figure remains the same. That is the total spending, which has already been voted in capital.
Mr. McDonald:
I understand that, but because the $468 million is a combination of both capital and operations, and because the Minister has indicated that this $897,000 has already been factored into the operations budget, then presumably it would be part of the $468 million. Why is it not part of that figure?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
The deputy tells me that it appears to be in there twice; it will have to be factored out.
Mr. McDonald:
I am pleased to hear that explanation, because I worked these numbers through, over and over again, and tried to understand the explanation at the bottom. Somehow, it did not work for me. I understand that explanation.
With respect to the $4.5 million, the next line item, the Minister said that $2 million, or the government's one-third of the infrastructure program, will be taken from that amount of money, and the balance will be spent on schools or whatever they find in the supplementary estimates. We will find out in due course what the government is intending to do. I am certain that other Members will be asking questions of the departmental Ministers as to whether or not the Legislature's decision from before will be respected. I will not discuss that issue now.
I would like to ask about the infrastructure program, and this is a preliminary question. The Minister indicated that the funding would have to go to projects that were not currently underway, but he indicated in his ministerial statement that the projects funded would go ahead this summer.
What is the likelihood, under the circumstances, of the funding actually being spent this summer, if there is virtually no planning time that we know of, because the projects could not have been identified, or existing ones could not be underway? What kinds of infrastructure, specifically, is the Minister anticipating would be built?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
I thought that I would get involved in this a bit because I have some information. It is my understanding from the Management committee that worked with the federal government on this that the federal government did not want to fund any projects that were included in the capital plan. We said that was a little ridiculous. Apparently, what they were able to accomplish was agreement that projects that are identified in the 1994 year for a municipality, for instance, would not be eligible projects; projects that were identified in future years, beyond 1994, would be eligible for the infrastructure funding.
Mr. McDonald:
My interest is not so much in what precisely are the government's priorities when it comes to projects. What I am trying to determine is whether or not it is realistic to expect the money will be spent as the government would want it to be spent. Given that most projects require some planning time before they can be undertaken, what kinds of projects can the Minister of Community and Transportation Services indicate are the kinds of projects that the government would proceed with, for which there has not been any sort of final over-the-winter planning that virtually every other project is subject to. Can he give us some examples?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
Actually, several of the municipalities have written to us already in anticipation of this program. They have, in fact, been planning all winter.
The decisions will be made, and I am not exactly sure of the date, but I believe it is some time in May that they will be accepting the applications from the various communities and municipalities. Decisions will then be based on that.
Some examples that I do know of are some sewer work down in Watson Lake and some work on an arena in Teslin. Those are the types of things that are coming in.
Mr. McDonald:
I am sure we will get more deeply into the actual kinds of projects at some point, whenever the money is actually intentionally voted for this purpose. I cannot help but feel, though, some skepticism about the ability of the government to meet what seem to be fairly difficult objectives. One is to undertake no projects that were in the capital plan, or anybody's capital plan, for the summer, and yet deliver those projects this summer. We will have more time to deal with that, presumably when the government brings in a supplementary and identifies precisely how much of this money they want to spend for that purpose.
Probably the same is true when it comes to the school projects that the Minister identified that the Minister of Education is interested in. Perhaps when we get to Education, the Minister of Education would be good enough to enlighten us as to what his priorities are.
We have a situation where there is every intention, at least, of spending the $6.5 million that we are talking about, and the balance is shown as the operating surplus for that year. Am I clear on that point?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
Yes, that is correct. We fully intend to spend that $6.5 million. I can tell the Member opposite that there are a couple of other things coming up here for which we do not have money identified in the budget. They should be finalized shortly. One of them is the ditch road for the Loki project, if we get a clearance that project is going ahead. We are not prepared to begin upgrading the road, or making any kinds of commitments on it, until we know there is going to be a mine there.
Another one is in the Member for Faro's area: the Grew Creek project. There will have to be some extra road work done there if that project goes ahead. We will have to find some money for that, which we do not have voted for at this time.
I can assure the Member opposite that there will be no difficulty in finding projects for that $4.5 million and the $2 million contingency for other supplementaries. I am sure that there will be lots of demand for that money.
Mr. McDonald:
Yes, I do not doubt that. I will state the obvious: at one point, at least, there was a majority of Members in the Legislature who felt that they had some ideas for the $4.5 million. There is no shortage of ideas. There is certainly a division of opinion with respect to the priorities. I am more interested, at this point, in determining for ourselves how realistic it is to expect the money will actually being spent.
I should ask one follow-up question. The Minister indicated that there might be some possibility of spending money on roads
Page Number 2303
for mining properties. Would that funding be allocated under the principles found in the industrial support policy?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
That is a very legitimate question, but one that I cannot answer very clearly right now. When we look at the ditch road, we are torn: should that go in with Loki entirely? The ditch road is used by many other people besides Loki. That is possibly one that we would make a contribution toward to upgrade outside of the industrial support policy.
I cannot answer that question in great detail now, because we have not begun discussions. I believe they are coming in to see us this week.
Mr. McDonald:
Will this funding ultimately be allocated under economic development or will it be allocated under Community and Transportation Services - so that we know that when we get to the department area?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
That depends on whether we feel it should be part of a highways project. If they are going to take responsibility for the ditch road, then it would be under the highways budget. If it is not, it would be under the economic development budget.
Mr. McDonald:
We will probably deal with it in whatever budget it comes along in, whenever the subject matter opens up.
I looked down to the bottom of page 3 and see the accumulated deficit at March 31, 1993, listed at $13,299,000. I see a forecast annual surplus, March 31, 1994, of $1.4 million, and then the estimated accumulated deficit at March 31, 1995 of $6,217,000.
The forecast annual surplus for March 31, 1994 - I know the Minister has tabled a supplementary but what does the Minister think, in terms of ball-park figures, that this annual surplus in fact will be, as of the end of last month?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
Based on very, very preliminary information, because we are just about three weeks past the last year-end, with the lapsed funds that will be coming through, the surplus could conceivably be increased to $6 million. We expect to have about $5 million of lapsed funds that we will be able to apply against the deficit.
Mr. McDonald:
If that forecasted annual surplus reaches the $6 million range, by that calculation at least, it would have the accumulated deficit reduced to around $1.5 million. Would that be a ball-park guess?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
Yes, the Member is correct in that assumption. If we are fortunate and have the lapsed funds that we are expecting, we could end the fiscal year with a $1 million deficit rather than a $6 million deficit.
I have some documents that have been requested and I may as well table them at this time.
Mr. McDonald:
I would be interested in reading that information.
I would like to talk about the question of formula financing and negotiations, but begin by getting a clearer picture about the justification for the reduction in the transfer payments from Canada.
The Minister was good enough to provide us with some historical perspectives on the estimated grant and the actuals, as shown by audited public accounts. It appears that while they are seldom right on the money, 75 percent of the time the grant is larger at the end of the year than that stated in the main estimates.
Could the Minister again run down the reasons for a reduction in the transfer payment and provide us with some comments about my earlier question on formula financing grant comparisons?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I believe the Minister is referring to my rebuttal in the second reading speech about the $311 million and the $275 million. Are those the figures the Member opposite is talking about - the federal government accounts for $311,156,000?
Mr. McDonald:
That is a subset of the questions. I was going to get to that in a few moments, depending on what the Minister gave as an explanation for the $275 million figure. From the information that the Minister handed out, it appears that three-quarters of the time we are somewhat pessimistic in our estimates - in some cases quite a bit more pessimistic in our estimates - of the grant at the beginning of the year than we are when the public accounts are finally brought in. I want some statement from the Minister about what he understands the reasons to be for the decline in the transfer payment, and, if he would like, comment on the historical trends in this area.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I can get into this in a few words if the Minister would like. Basically, we believe that the Statistics Canada population figures for 1993-94 are wrong, and we are adjusting them accordingly. We feel that by September, they will be adjusted. That is the reason for the $275,557,000.
Mr. McDonald:
Does he mean that the Statistics Canada figures overestimated the population in the territory? If he does believe that, how do they relate to the census that was done in 1991? What is the trend here?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
This does not really relate to the census. This just relates to increases. I am sure the Member opposite would concur with me that 1993 was the year we had our major mine shutdown. Yet, the population increase we are given is some six percent. It just does not make sense. I believe our own figures are 1.3 percent. We believe that ours are far more accurate than those the federal government is using. So, we have adjusted accordingly.
Mr. McDonald:
I will just put one question on the record and then, perhaps, we can wrap it up for the day. I was under the impression that the impact on the transfer payment was actually some years behind the times, that we did not do an assessment immediately of what we thought the population was last year and, consequently, the very next year, we adjusted the grant to reflect a change.
Ultimately, that would have to be accommodated over a period of time. Perhaps, tomorrow, if acceptable, we could pursue the matter a little bit further, so that we get a better appreciation for this change. Would that be all right?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
Very quickly, it is a three-year moving average, and it has been calculated on that basis, but we still have to take into consideration what they said was a six-percent increase in 1993, so it is a moving target. If the Members opposite would like a briefing from the deputy on that, I would certainly be agreeable to making the deputy available for that.
Mr. Chair, I move you report progress at this time on Bill No. 15.
Motion agreed to
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I move that the Speaker do now resume the Chair.
Motion agreed to
Speaker resumes the Chair
Speaker:
I will now call the House to order.
May the House have a report from the Chair of Committee of the Whole?
Mr. Abel:
The Committee of the Whole has considered Bill No. 14, entitled Interim Supply Appropriation Act, 1994-95, and Bill No. 17, entitled Interim Supply Appropriation Act, 1994-95, (No. 2), and directed me to report them without amendment.
Further, the Committee has considered Bill No. 40, entitled Subdivision Act, and directed me to report it with amendment.
Further, the Committee has considered Bill No. 15, entitled Second Appropriation Act, 1994-95, and directed me to report
Page Number 2304
progress on it.
Speaker:
You have heard the report from the Chair of Committee of the Whole. Are you agreed?
Some Hon. Members:
Agreed.
Speaker:
I declare the report carried.
Unanimous consent to deal with motion on same subject matter
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
On a point of order, I wish to inform the House that it may be out of order to proceed with debate on Motion No. 64 tomorrow in that the House debated and passed Motion No. 15 earlier this session. Motion No. 15 contained almost the same content as that found in Motion No. 64. I conferred with Opposition House Leaders and other Opposition Members and there is agreement that the House would still like to proceed with debate on Motion No. 64. I am therefore requesting the unanimous consent of the House to proceed with debate on Motion No. 64 tomorrow.
Speaker:
Is there unanimous consent?
All Hon. Members:
Agreed.
Speaker:
Unanimous consent has been granted. I direct the Clerk to include Motion No. 64 on the Order Paper for Wednesday, April 27. In accordance with the wishes of this House, debate on Motion No. 64 will be permitted.
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I move the House do now adjourn.
Speaker:
It has been moved by the Government House Leader that the House do now adjourn.
Motion agreed to
Speaker:
This House now stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.
The House adjourned at 5:28 p.m.
The following Sessional Paper was tabled April 26, 1994:
94-1-119
Department of Education Annual Report, 1992-93 (Phillips)
The following Legislative Returns were tabled April 26, 1994:
94-1-341
Contract with Terry Boylan and terms of reference re examination of options for ownership restructuring of the Yukon Energy Corporation (Ostashek)
Written Question No. 49, dated April 25, 1994, by Mrs. Firth
Oral, Hansard, p. 2203 and 2252
94-1-342
Construction contracts over $2 million from 1990 to March 31, 1994: contract number, project, estimate, award date, award value, completion date, completed cost (Nordling)
Written Question No. 46, dated January 26, 1994, by Mr. Harding
94-1-343
Fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS/FAE) children: social service programs available (Phelps)
Oral, Hansard, p. 1879
The following document was filed April 26, 1994:
94-1-39
Revenue details, 1992-93 to 1994-95 (Ostashek)