Whitehorse, Yukon

Thursday, April 28, 1994 - 1:30 p.m.

Page Number 2337

Speaker:

I will now call the House to order. We will proceed at this time with silent Prayers.

Prayers

Workers' Day of Mourning

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

Today has been proclaimed as the National Day of Mourning for Workers killed or injured on the job. The Canadian Labour Congress, the Yukon Federation of Labour and the Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board held a remembrance ceremony today at the Elijah Smith building to honour those workers and to pay respects to their families.

On behalf of the Members of the Legislative Assembly, I would like to acknowledge this day of mourning and to remember all of those who have been injured or killed on the job, and the suffering of their loved ones.

Mr. Harding:

I would like to add to the comments of the Minister. I also feel that it is very, very important to remember workers who have been injured or killed on the job. It is good to have the constant reminder that they present to us that we do need to continue to work in areas of occupational health and safety, both territorially and across this nation as a whole.

It is sometimes easy to overlook health and safety, and unfortunately it usually strikes home when an accident or injury occurs. It then becomes an after-the-fact matter, which can be very disturbing.

I have experience working in an industrial setting for a number of years. During that time I saw death and dismemberment. It rings very true that there is a constant need to educate workers, the general public and employers about the merits of good occupational health and safety practices, both moral and economic. We must never accept injury as a given.

By way of a suggestion - and I am not sure if it is logistically possible, but if it could be worked out between the Minister's department, the Workers Compensation Board, the Canadian Labour Congress and the Yukon Federation of Labour - I would suggest holding a ceremony like the one held today at the site of the Pueblo cave-in, just outside of Whitehorse.

The Pueblo disaster was an awful disaster that happened in the Yukon on March 21, 1917. Nine miners were trapped in an underground mine. Rescue efforts went on for many, many days. Three men were rescued and finally the search was called off and six people have never been recovered from that mine site.

I think that paints a very clear picture and reminder to people about how devastating this type of accident can be businesses, the community and the families of the people involved.

I would like to say that I, too, recognize the National Day of Mourning and I hope that it benefits people in terms of our recognition of the need to improve health and safety.

Speaker:

We will proceed at this time with the Order Paper.

DAILY ROUTINE

Speaker:

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. Brewster:

I have a legislative return.

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: Occupational health and safety, review of regulations

Mr. Harding:

I have a question for the Minister responsible for occupational health and safety. On December 13 of last year the former Minister responsible for occupational health and safety agreed to do a full-scale review of occupational health and safety regulations if requested by the Workers' Compensation Board. That request from the board was made to the Minister shortly thereafter. I would like to ask the Minister this: why has this full-scale review of the occupational health and safety regulations not proceeded, even though the government promised to do so last year?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

My understanding is that the previous Minister said that he would consider a recommendation of the board with respect to expanding the review. The board has brought that to me, and I have told the board that we would give them an answer by the middle of May, with respect to the enlarging of the review that is underway at the present time.

Mr. Harding:

I want to read from Hansard, December 19, 1993. I asked the Minister, "Will the Minister listen to these concerns, and if the board suggests that the review be broadened, will he do that in this fiscal year?" The then Minister said, "I would have no problem with that. If the board recommends it, that is what will be done." There is no question about considering it; that is what he said in this House.

I would like to ask the Minister if he could give me something more concrete in terms of a full-scale review with a broad scope and some time lines.

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

My understanding is that it has to come before Cabinet before we can enlarge it. It will come before Cabinet within the next two weeks and a decision will be made.

My understanding about enlarging the review is essentially that the board that is undertaking the review wants to travel around the territory to hold public forums, in order to get more interest and input than they have received by asking for written submissions.

The decision not being made by Cabinet yet to enlarge the review has not hurt it at all. When I spoke to them, they were prepared to wait until the middle of May for the response to that.

Mr. Harding:

I should just point out to the Minister that it is not just a Cabinet decision. The decision by the Minister to reduce the scope of the review was made by a ministerial order. The same could be done to broaden it.

I would just like to get a commitment from the Minister that we are going to get a move on this. It has been four years since the original commitment was made. I would like to get a commitment today that the government is going to proceed in the very near future with a full-scale review. I would be satisfied with that.

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

I can assure the Member that this will come to Cabinet within the next two weeks. A decision will be made before the middle of May with respect to the expansion of the review. I can assure the Member that something will be done by the middle of May.

Question re: Faro, sale of mine

Mr. Harding:

I have a question for the Government Leader

Page Number 2338

regarding the Faro mine sale. At a public meeting in Faro, the Government Leader said to my constituents that there was really no hope of the Faro mine opening until 1996, due to metal prices. This puzzled a number of my constituents because they felt that a government should not be so quick to give up, given that potential buyers may have something to offer that had not been considered before in the context of starting up the mine. Could I ask the Government Leader this: why would the government appear to have given up on getting the mine reopened until that time?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I do not think it is a case of giving up on getting the mine reopened. It is a case of listening to what all the analysts are saying, and they do not see a recovery of zinc prices until the first quarter of 1996. We certainly have not given up on the Faro mine changing hands and a new operator coming in so that that mine can get back into production at some point in time. By the same token, I do not think it is right to create false hopes in the people of Faro by suggesting an unrealistic date much sooner than that, when every analyst throughout North America and the world is saying that it is going to be the first quarter of 1996 before zinc prices recover.

Mr. Harding:

I just recently had to endure a 25-page budget speech full of false hopes, talking about decades of prosperity that I really do not see any evidence of, so it would certainly be a departure for the government to speak in more reasonable terms about the economic prospects. What is the status of the mine sale, with court tomorrow? Will a buyer be announced?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

That question would be better directed to the interim receiver; I do not know whether a buyer will be announced tomorrow or not. From my understanding of the process, even if one potential offer is accepted over all the others, it would not be finalized tomorrow. These would just be confidential dealings with one interested group, rather than with all the interested groups. So, I still think it is some time down the road.

Mr. Harding:

The Government Leader has just said, if I heard him correctly, that the process tomorrow will probably reduce the number of potential buyers down to one, from the five that are interested now. He obviously has been having some contact with some of the buyers and the receiver to make that assumption. Can I ask him what role the government has been playing in facilitating negotiations with the receiver and potential buyers?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

We have been speaking with every potential buyer. I think we have talked with all who are interested. We have had meetings with them, and I want to say at this point that each one of those potential buyers also told me that they expected it would be the first quarter of 1996 before they would be producing concentrate at the mine.

Question re: Council on the Economy and the Environment, economic summit

Mr. Cable:

I have some follow-up questions for the Government Leader on questions yesterday on the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment.

Last fall, the Government Leader said he wanted to make the council more efficient. He indicated he wanted to give it a clear mandate, and there was a news release to that effect. There was a second news release on November 1, 1993, in which the Government Leader said he wanted the council to hold an economic summit. This was followed by an instructing letter on November 5, 1993, to Mr. Tim Preston, the chair of the council. It sets out the requests in a page of terms of reference for the council in relation to this economic summit.

Yesterday, the Government Leader said the conference is not going to happen. Instead, we are going to get an examination of diversification on a sector-by-sector basis. How were these instructions changed? Was there something in writing, or was it a whisper in the ear in a dark alley after midnight? Was it some sort of luncheon suggestion? How did it happen?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

For the Member's information, the council meetings are open to the general public. He is certainly welcome to sit in and listen to the deliberations.

Mr. Cable:

That certainly clears it up. Let me ask the question again so that we are perfectly clear.

How did the instructions get changed? Is there something in writing that the Minister can table? He originally gave the instructions in writing, as I think is contemplated by the act - clear instructions, following up on his clear mandate. Now they appear to have been changed. How, in fact, were they changed?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

The Member is right. The instructions were given and the response has come back from the Council on the Economy and the Environment. I am not certain whether it has been followed with a letter yet but I know I did have a meeting with the chair. He felt they could do more justice to the diversification of the economy and what direction the government should be spending its resources in to diversify the economy by addressing that issue on a sector by sector basis, rather than just having one economic summit meeting where there is a hodgepodge of ideas. It seems that, when a group of people get together in the Yukon, of whatever political stripe or whatever they do, that is how it ends up - in a hodgepodge of ideas. I believe the Official Opposition held such a meeting and numerous ideas came out of it but there was nothing that really came out of the meeting that was consistent - what a lot of people thought the government should be doing.

So, the Council feels they can do more justice to it by examining the economy of the Yukon in depth, on a sector by sector basis.

Mr. Cable:

The Minister for Renewable Resources, while acting as the Acting Government Leader, whose opinion I greatly respect, by the way, indicated on January 27 that the council is completely away from the political scene. In view of this supposed arm's-length relationship, would the Minister not agree that changes in instructions that had originally been given in writing should best be given in writing?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I said I would check. We have not changed our instructions, but they have come back to us with a suggestion that they can do a better job for us if it is structured differently. I believe that is why we have the Council on the Economy and the Environment - to give advice to Cabinet.

Question re: Faro Real Estate, loan write-off

Mr. Harding:

I have a question for the Minister responsible for the Yukon Housing Corporation. The Government of the Yukon Territory has already written off a loan to Faro Real Estate, even though Faro Real Estate was given until April 30 - that is two days from now - to restructure a loan. This had the effect of drawing down YTG's accumulated surplus. I would like the ask the Minister this: what is the status of the restructuring negotiations, because Faro Real Estate is still managing the housing, and Faroites including myself, are still paying rent to them.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

Right now there is a type of management agreement where the rents are put into a bank account that the Yukon Housing Corporation has some ability to deal with. Expenses are paid out of that bank account. In the Member's preamble, he mentioned the reserve for uncollected accounts. He should be aware that there have been no payments on the Faro Real Estate loan for over a year.

Mr. Harding:

YTG has a claim on about 336 units in Faro. The government is owed about $1.4 million by Faro Real Estate. This means that if all of those units were sold, YTG would need to get less than $5,000 per unit. That is nothing for the quality of the houses in Faro. Why does YTG think that this loan has to be

Page Number 2339

written off, when it is obvious that the loan could be recouped?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

As the Minister for the Yukon Housing Corporation has said, that loan is more than a year in arrears, so it has been written off on the books. That does not mean that we are going to quit trying to collect it. We will, but it may be years and years down the road before it is collected. In the meantime it has to written off on the books - provision has to be made for it.

Mr. Harding:

The Government Leader just answered that it was bookkeeping. We on this side have some concerns about this bookkeeping, because it has a major impact on the financial position of the government.

The Minister responsible for the Yukon Housing Corporation has said that the restructuring negotiations have basically opened up a bank account whereby Faro Real Estate is running the operation of the houses.

Is that where it ends? Is Faro Real Estate going to remain as the manager, in effect, as the gatekeepers for the houses? If that is the case, is YTG not concerned that there should be some sort of tendering process for the particular job of managing Faro Real Estate and the assets of the Yukon government?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

Yukon Housing Corporation has not foreclosed on Faro Real Estate. There is a management agreement, which was designed as an interim measure while Faro Real Estate attempted to restructure its loan portfolio.

April 30, 1994, a couple of days from now, is when that restructuring plan is to be submitted to Yukon Housing Corporation.

Question re: Government employee survey

Ms. Moorcroft:

This week, Yukoners have heard some of the results from a survey of government employees conducted by a public administration master's degree class here in the territory. This document is dated April 8, 1994, and I know that the new Minister in charge of the Public Service Commission has been hard at work, day and night, since his secondment into Cabinet.

Has the Minister had the opportunity to read the survey results in their entirety?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

I have had time to go through the report, but I have not had time to study the report in detail.

Ms. Moorcroft:

I note with interest that the survey says employees overwhelmingly stated that they liked their jobs and that a full 92 percent said that they find their fellow workers cooperative and supportive. Will the Minister agree that this overview demonstrates that Yukon residents and their government have reason to be proud of the commitment and cooperativeness of their public sector workers, including those in the teaching professions?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

Yes.

Ms. Moorcroft:

The survey was conducted well before the Minister announced that the government intended to claw back its employees' wages by two percent and freeze them for three years, and that they were prepared to do so by legislation, which the Minister must realize has seriously undermined morale among the government workforce. Will the Minister now remove the morale destroying threat of wage restraint legislation hanging over the public service?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

No.

Question re: Government employee survey

Ms. Moorcroft:

The report cites a number of findings that give a pretty clear and easily understood message: that people work better when they are treated decently, especially in a climate of restraint.

With the indulgence of the Speaker, I would like to quote briefly from the report's reference to a federal Treasury Board study, which "identified a clear need for empowerment of the workforce at a time when the fiscal restraint in the government, evidenced by cutbacks, downsizing and less resources, means that the government cannot afford to under utilize the knowledge, skills and creativity of employees."

Can the Minister tell the House what steps, if any, he anticipates taking to increase the empowerment of the workforce during this government's regime of restraint?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

Yes. We are undertaking a number of things through the Public Service Commission and each department. We have the report of the Auditor General on human resource management that suggests ways to improve the service and relationships within government. We now have the University of Alaska Southeast report, which is another good source document.

We have in place the bureau of management improvement and the service improvement program, which are working to figure out how we can deliver services better and how we can treat our employees better. We are also looking forward to hearing from the union with respect to their toll-free whistle-blowing line, to do away with government waste and be more efficient.

Ms. Moorcroft:

When employees were asked how they would describe the budget system used by the Yukon government, as it relates to their job, 46 percent of all respondents and 56 percent of all YTA members found the system inflexible and unable to respond to changing needs. Another 26 percent offered no opinion. Indeed, senior management respondents were even more critical.

What changes is the government prepared to make to reverse this alarming situation? When will those changes be introduced?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

Yes, the budgeting is a difficult one. That is the way the government operates, and I think that this government, moreso than previous governments, has said "what we want to do is let the managers manage". That is part of the service improvement program that the government has in place, and it is hoped it will empower the departments to manage, and that the goals and objectives will be clearer.

Ms. Moorcroft:

I guess we will see what the results of that exercise are. One of the report's findings that has been publicly reported is the fact that one of every five government employees feels there is too much political interference in the performance of their jobs. Will the Minister tell the House, specifically, what steps he intends to take to eliminate unwarranted political interference or at least to address the perception of political interference, held by such a large segment of the workforce?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

The largest percentage, 80 percent, were not concerned about political interference. We are concerned about the 20 percent who are, and what I am trying to do is determine what was meant by political interference when people answered the questionnaire.

The Member for Mount Lorne shakes her head as if she knows what it is. Let me tell her what was written on some of the responses with respect to political interference. It included comments about Opposition Members demanding all kinds of information that is really not used and takes the department hours and hours, and days, to compile, to be put in a file that the Opposition Member keeps. They feel that that is political interference. Political interference is also Ministers being involved at a level they should not be throughout the department, and that is a concern. We are politicians and we are the bosses; we as the Legislature run the government and there has to be some political involvement -

Speaker:

Order. Would the Member please conclude his answer.

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

The hope is it will become political involvement, not political interference.

Page Number 2340

Question re: Social assistance/Canada student loan

Ms. Commodore:

My question is for the Minister responsible for social services, concerning one of my constituents. People on social assistance often wish to return to school to enable them to receive the training and education that will, in the end, allow them to get off social assistance. Due to an operational procedure of the Department of Health and Social Services, social assistance recipients are often penalized for pursuing an education. The Minister's department requires social assistance recipients to apply for Canada student loans and when they receive their loans, the amount is deducted from their social assistance cheque. In essence, they will have to pay back a Canada student loan, plus interest, which has already been deducted for basic living expenses. Will the Minister explain why the Department of Health and Social Services penalizes clients for attempting to gain an education?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

That is the way the current regulations were set. We inherited those regulations when we came into office and we are going to be making changes to them to remove disincentives to people to work and obtain training. Part of the package I will be announcing within a month will be dealing with, among many other things, the issue the Member raises.

Ms. Commodore:

My constituent will be happy to hear that. However, the concern is now. When can we expect the Minister to make a decision in regard to changes to the policy regarding student loans and social assistance?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

The announcement with regard to new policy regarding all disincentives to people seeking training and employment will be part of the large package that will be announced, as I said, within a month.

Ms. Commodore:

My constituent appealed to the Social Assistance Appeal Board, and the board overturned the department's decision to deduct her student loan from her social assistance cheque. When she received the other half of her loan, she went through the same process of appeal, and the board upheld the department's decision to deduct this money. Could the Minister please explain to this House, and to my constituent, why two different decisions could be made by the board when the circumstances were the same?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

The appeal process is one that has been set in place. Again, it is something we inherited. Independent people sit on the boards and make these decisions. There are two levels to the appeal, as I am sure the Member knows. I am not sure from her question which level it went to.

Some Hon. Member:

(Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

The Member says that it was to the board, plus an appeal to a higher board, as well.

The issue about the jurisdiction of appeal boards and how they are made up is also going to be a subject in the announcement that is forthcoming. There will also be changes to that process, as well.

Question re: Intergovernmental agreement on internal trade

Mrs. Firth:

I have a policy question for the Government Leader regarding the intergovernmental agreement on internal trade, which is called IAIT. Federal and provincial and territorial governments are currently negotiating agreements on internal trade within Canada. The agreement will affect government contracts for goods and services.

I would like to ask the Government Leader if the Yukon is represented in these negotiations, and by whom?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

Yes, we are represented at them. We have not attended all the meetings because some of them get pretty complicated and involve interprovincial trade and movement of services and goods, but we have been kept updated on it. There is another meeting coming up shortly - I believe it is either in Winnipeg or Toronto - and the Deputy Minister of Economic Development will be attending.

Mrs. Firth:

If the Minister says they have not attended all the meetings, how many have they attended and who has represented the government at those meetings?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I will get a list of that for the Member. Some of the internal trade talks have taken place at the Premiers level as well as at the western premiers conference, and directions were given from there for the positions we took. The negotiations have been carried on by various levels of politicians, right up to the premiers and government leaders from across Canada.

Mrs. Firth:

I am, of course, suspicious by nature of the answers the Government Leader has given me. Because he cannot specifically say which meetings have been attended and who has been the representative, I wonder if any have been attended and whether the government does have a representative going to these negotiations. So I would like the Minister to be very specific when he comes back with an answer as to which meetings were attended and so on.

For my final supplementary, the Minister said that someone at some time somewhere had represented the government's position. Could the Minister stand up and tell us just what position the government took?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

We agree with the majority of the provinces, that the barriers should be removed and some time lines should be put in place. The premiers have set, I believe, a June 30 deadline to put in place a timetable for the removal of interprovincial trade barriers. Along with that, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon have taken a position that, especially in our rural communities, there have to be some exceptions made. That has been supported by the western premiers and I personally have attended three different meetings at the government leader and premier levels - one was in Halifax last winter, where Economic Development Ministers and Finance Ministers were meeting and we were talking about interprovincial trade, as well as the meeting the government leaders and premiers had with the Prime Minister in Montreal and as well as at the western premiers conference last November. Those are some of the interprovincial trade talk forums where I have represented the Yukon.

Question re: Intergovernmental agreement on internal trade

Mrs. Firth:

I would like to follow up with the same Minister with respect to the same issue: the government's policy or position regarding the agreements on internal trade within Canada. The Minister has said that their position is that they agree with the other provinces that the barriers should be removed, with some exceptions for the Yukon and Northwest Territories. Could I ask the government specifically what their position is regarding restricting competition to the advantage of Yukoners?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

We do not feel that that is necessary or that our contractors want that at this time. You have to remember that it is a two-edged sword; our contractors like to bid on jobs outside of the Yukon jurisdiction as well.

There is room in some areas where it is critical, such as in some of the outlying communities where they have to protect the small economic base that is starting up, and the Northwest Territories is far more vocal about this than even we are. We are taking the same position - that there are certain areas to which we have to give some preference. Overall, we believe that there should be a free movement of goods, that our contractors should be allowed to bid in other jurisdictions, and our suppliers should have the ability to supply goods to governments across Canada, if they can do so.

That is something that is coming with the electronic highway.

Page Number 2341

All governments will want to tie into that. Procurement is put out on the electronic highway, and is available to all businesses across Canada.

Mrs. Firth:

Can the Government Leader tell me the government's position with respect to bidding or payment preferences for Yukoners? Is this position in writing somewhere within government?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I am certain it is in writing. There is a program that does give some benefit to employers and contractors who employ Yukon people. We have some ways to deal with the issue without issuing preferential bidding procedures.

Mrs. Firth:

The Minister's answers today have made me want to ask him this: if these positions are all in writing and are well known, why in this document, Contract Regulations Review Discussion Paper, Second Draft, when it comes to the question specifically about trade barriers and about restricting competition and about bidding preferences, tell us that it will be necessary to get direction from Cabinet before proceeding further on any of these issues? It says that for every issue. Why does it say that in this document if the Government Leader is saying that they have positions in writing that everybody should be familiar with?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

That document consists of input with respect to the contract regulations review. There are suggestions by Yukon businesses that there be a bid preference. There are other contracts where there has not been a bid process. This problem is not new to this government or the new review.

If the Member for Riverdale South will recall, Mr. Kimmerly undertook an arduous and detailed process to try and solve those issues. There was no one process arrived at that satisfied everyone.

We are trying to tell people who are providing input that their suggestions may not be put into effect, because of internal trade agreements that are negotiated over which the government has no say.

Question re: Contract regulations, bid preferences

Mrs. Firth:

I have one further question, because if the government has made up its mind as to what its position is already, why are they discussing it with people?

This documents states, as a summary, that stakeholders made a number of suggestions about Yukon contents, some of which would have the effect of restricting competition. It also stated that it will be necessary to get direction from Cabinet before proceeding further. The Government Leader has told me that they have a position; it is in writing somewhere; it has been presented at the negotiating table already. I would like to know why we are discussing this if the government already has a position?

Would the Government Leader answer that question?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

Along with that, I said that there will be some exceptions, and we can address those exceptions with the issues that are being raised by the people who are putting these suggestions forward.

We are able to have some exceptions, so we want to look at those exceptions.

Mrs. Firth:

I am just trying to understand how this government goes about making decisions and presenting positions on behalf of Yukoners. How can this government be presenting a position at the table if it is still open for negotiations and subject to change? What are we doing, presenting an open position that might be changed depending upon input after this review process is finished?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

As I said, we are supporting the provinces that want to remove the internal trade barriers. That is the position we are taking. But there are provinces that are fighting that. It is not unanimous; there is no consensus across Canada yet. We believe, as do most provinces, that internal trade barriers should be removed; that is, there should be free movement of goods and services throughout Canada, but we also have the qualifier for the Northwest Territories and the Yukon that there could be some exceptions in areas that are critical, where economic development is very feeble and is just getting going. Those are issues that we are going to be addressing in the review, as well as in the negotiations.

Question re: Oil and gas exploration

Mr. Cable:

I have some questions for the Government Leader on oil and gas explorations in the south-east Yukon. Not long ago, the Government Leader travelled to Calgary to address the oil and gas producers. Upon his return, the Government Leader said the industry will be very interested in Yukon after land claims are settled. As a matter of fact, he was quoted as saying he "was overwhelmed by the interest from the companies". Why, in the Government Leader's view, would the land claims negotiations prevent oil and gas exploration in the south-east Yukon at the present time?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

Because of the expense of oil and gas exploration in the Yukon, companies want to have land certainty, they want to know who they have to deal with and they want to have long-term exploration leases, because it costs a lot of money. So, they want to see land certainty before they start investing those sums in the Yukon.

Mr. Cable:

I am told that exploration has taken place in the Northwest Territories while the land claim negotiations were underway. Assuming I am correct, that would mean that mechanisms were found to alleviate the concerns of the First Nation claimants, in order for this to take place. Why cannot similar mechanisms be put in place here? I am thinking of such things as partnerships with the First Nations.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

They certainly can. That is what I was encouraging the oil companies to do when I was there. There is a company operating in the south-east Yukon now that wants to expand. Their leases extend over the Northwest Territories and British Columbia boundaries. They want to expand westward and northward. We have encouraged them to talk to the Kaska people to get their cooperation so that can go ahead.

That can happen now, but it takes the agreement of all the parties. Some oil companies, I guess, would like to see this as a place to explore. There have been no real definitive finds in the Yukon. I believe there have only been 71 wells in total drilled throughout the Yukon. So, it is basically unexplored territory. But, it is possible to go ahead now.

Mr. Cable:

In view of the overwhelming interest, and in view of the fact that we are desperately looking for jobs and capital inflow, could the Government Leader indicate whether he or his officials have discussed gas exploration with the First Nations involved? If not, why not?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

Yes, there have been approaches made.

Speaker:

The time for Question Period has now elapsed.

We will proceed with Orders of the Day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GOVERNMENT BILLS

Bill No. 14: Third Reading

Clerk:

Third reading, Bill No. 14, standing in the name of the Hon. Mr. Ostashek.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I move that Bill No. 14, entitled Interim Supply Appropriation Act, 1994-95, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker:

It has been moved by the Hon. Government Leader

Page Number 2342

that Bill No. 14, entitled Interim Supply Appropriation Act, 1994-95, be now read a third time and do pass.

Motion for third reading of Bill No. 14 agreed to

Speaker:

I declare that Bill No. 14 has passed this House.

Bill No. 17: Third Reading

Clerk:

Third reading, Bill No. 17, standing in the name of the Hon. Mr. Ostashek.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I move that Bill No. 17, entitled Interim Supply Appropriation Act, 1994-95, (No.2), be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker:

It has been moved by the Hon. Government Leader that Bill No. 17, entitled Interim Supply Appropriation Act, 1994-95, (No. 2), be now read a third time and do pass.

Motion for third reading of Bill No. 17 agreed to

Speaker:

I declare that Bill No. 17 has passed this House.

Bill No. 40: Third Reading

Clerk:

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

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I move that Bill No. 40, entitled Subdivision Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker:

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

Motion for third reading of Bill No. 40 agreed to

Speaker:

I declare that Bill No. 40 has passed this House.

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 will now call Committee of the Whole to order.

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

Some Hon. Members:

Agreed.

Chair:

We will take a brief recess.

Recess

Chair:

I will now call Committee of the Whole to order. We are dealing with Bill No. 15.

Bill No. 15 - Second Appropriation Act, 1994-95 - continued

Chair:

Is there further general debate?

Mr. McDonald:

I was tempted to begin discussions by talking about multiplier effects but I think what we will do, at least on this side, is permit a bit of a cooling-off period until we get into Economic Development, and then raise the subject again.

I have a few questions remaining on the formula negotiations. They are short ones, but they are important. I have a basic question about the basic assumptions the government is making when it comes to seeking federal transfers from the federal government.

Will the government assume financial responsibility for any federal responsibility that is not yet transferred? Will the government spend money in areas where the responsibility is not transferred?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I am glad the Member asked that question, because that is something that has probably happened with this government. I am not trying to put blame anywhere but, over the years, we have spent money in areas that I really am not sure we should have been. Some of the areas are some of the native villages, where DIAND should be responsible for the expenditures. It has cost us, as Yukon taxpayers, a substantial amount of money.

To answer the Member's question straight on, no, I am not going to accept responsibility for federal responsibilities. I do not want to do that at all. I think it would be a bad mistake.

While I am on my feet, the Member opposite asked for some information yesterday. We have been able to pull some of it together for him. I would like to table it, but I would like to speak about it a little bit first.

One of the areas the Member opposite asked about was how much discretionary capital was in the gross capital budgets in previous years. We went back to 1985-86 and found that in 1985-86, 90 percent of the capital was discretionary capital - 90.6 percent. The next year it was 92.2 percent and in 1987-88 it was 78.2 percent; 1988-89 was 68.5 percent; 1989-90 was 66.8 percent; 1990-91 was 59.7 percent and 1991-92 was 67.4 percent; 1992-93 was 57.7 percent and in the last two years the discretionary capital has dropped dramatically - 1993-94, 34.5 percent and in 1994-95, 38.4 percent. So, our discretionary capital has dropped dramatically over the years.

Another question the Member opposite asked was the gross capital spending as a percent of the total budget, of both O&M and capital. Again, going back as far as 1979-80, where it was 28.5 percent, it grew up to 39.3 percent in 1987-88 and is now back down to 26 percent.

Overall, the percentage of the budgets that is being spent on capital is decreasing, and if we take a percentage of the discretionary spending of the total capital budget, it is also decreasing. I have those documents for tabling for the Members opposite.

Mr. McDonald:

That is interesting information that I will review. That information does run somewhat contrary to some of the claims that the Minister made yesterday about the emphasis that the NDP government put on capital works, because it appears that the high point in terms of spending capital dollars on capital works was in the middle of an NDP term.

The Minister has gone on to say that he would not provide funding for projects that were still a federal responsibility, or at least he would try to avoid that, given that there have been so many notable exceptions in the past. Clearly, it would not have been appropriate if we were to take that same position in 1985 or 1986. It would have been inappropriate for us to spend money on much of the infrastructure that the Minister is talking about now, because the responsibility for roads had not been transferred to the Yukon government.

I hope that the Minister will modify his rhetoric when he makes grand claims about what the NDP administration has accomplished.

There are some areas where the Yukon government is providing financial resources to what is, ostensibly, a federal jurisdiction. The Minister suggested Indian villages. I think there most certainly is some division of opinion here in the Legislature as to whether or not the citizens of those First Nation villages are also Yukon citizens, and whether or not they ought also to expect some level of service and return from the government as a result of being Yukon citizens.

There are some divisions of opinion on questions like that and perhaps on questions like the Alaska Highway. I remember the Yukon Party at one point did indicate that we should be re-building the Alaska Highway prior to the transfer.

There probably is no division in opinion on programs such as the economic development agreement where we are clearly cost

Page Number 2343

sharing activity that used to be done by DIAND.

Mr. McDonald:

Can I ask the Minister, as a general proposition, in those areas such as the economic development agreement - fully recognizing that the economic development agreement is probably going to wind up and we may not see a new one - would the Minister say that those will be areas that he will try to extract the Yukon government's activities from, and encourage the federal government to regain the field? Is that a sort of general policy intention?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I do not know if there is even a division of opinions as to what should be done in native villages, but the fact remains that we do not have any money in our base to do it. DIAND is supposed to be funding it, but that is not the issue. The economic development agreements are negotiated for the next two years - or there is under two years left on it - and I do not think that those agreements can be dealt with. I am not exactly sure what the Member is getting at. Is he asking if we are wanting to withdraw from the economic development agreement programs? Is that what he is asking?

Mr. McDonald:

No, I am just using the economic development agreement as an example, fully realizing that the economic development agreement is negotiated, even though there is some flexibility on the management committee to jointly make decisions about what will be funded out of that money. As it turns out, we do fund some very worthwhile activities that only a half dozen years ago were fully funded by the federal government, and for employees who were fully operational out of federal government facilities in Whitehorse, such as the geological mapping division. Consequently, we have allowed ourselves, for obviously good reasons - there was lots of support for it - to leak our way into federal responsibility. I am only asking this as a general proposition - I am not picking on the economic development agreement or the Economic Development Agreement Management committee or anything. Is it the government's intention to try to clarify and distinguish the federal responsibility and to encourage the federal government to take responsibility for funding their own share of the responsibilities in managing and providing services to the territory?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

That is certainly the position I would take. I can assure the Member opposite that it would be very difficult for them to convince me to take on any new responsibilities that are in their field. The geological mapping is also one, and I agree it is a very good service to the mining community and has shown some real benefits to the Yukon. As we progress to the geological maps, it is going to be one that would be very difficult for us to withdraw, considering the fact that we funded it for several years out of the economic development agreements. I certainly am not going to take on any more responsibilities, and I will be trying to get the federal government, as they come at us on transfer payments and everything else, to accept more responsibility for what they should be funding.

That is a very important statement of policy, and that is the kind of policy that should be well-communicated with the public, because as the federal ministers start getting serious about expenditure reductions and they start off-loading or abandoning the various fields, there will clearly be enormous pressure for the Yukon government, as has occurred on occasion in the past, to pick up responsibilities that they have abandoned. I am not saying that I know they are going to abandon anything in particular, but I have suspicions, based on past practice, that they might.

I just have one more quick question with respect to formula financing negotiations. Can the Minister tell us where we are right now in the negotiations, how close we are to final conclusion, what kind of working groups are operating right now and just a general sense of the work plan.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

We have a working group that has been working for some time on it. There is another meeting coming up next month, but we feel it will probably be some nine or 10 months before it is finalized and we know where we are at.

Mr. McDonald:

I do not have any more questions about that, but I do have other questions. Regarding the factor of dependency on the federal government, I noticed that the budget book has changed its format somewhat, in terms of recording the dependency factor, although the Minister did provide us with the "federal transfer payment as a percentage of budgetary income" document and provided a graph. When I was the Minister, there were Members, who are now Ministers, on this side of the House, who insisted upon knowing what the federal dependency ratio was, when one incorporated all federal transfers, including established program financing, the capital assistance program and recoveries. Can the Minister provide us with all that information so that we can get a sense of where the federal expenditures as a percentage of total budgetary income is taking us?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I have been putting that number out most of the winter. It is in excess of 80 cents out of every $1.00 that comes from the federal government, in one form or another.

Mr. McDonald:

To get a sense of the range, from 1985-86 or even 1988-89 - wherever he wants to start - could the Finance Minister give us a sense of progress? How are we doing?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

We can produce a chart on that. Just over 80 cents out of every dollar comes from the federal government, in one form or another.

Mr. McDonald:

I will wait for that graph.

I have a brief question about taxes. Can the Minister tell us how much the revenue increase in this budget, over last year, will be as a result of the tax increases that were applied in January?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

If the Member would like to continue his questioning, my assistant will look it up and get the exact figure we are forecasting.

Mr. McDonald:

I was interested in asking a couple of questions about banking service charges, but I will reserve those questions for the particular Finance estimates. However, I am having some difficulty understanding how the Department of Finance is judging the costs for this particular service.

The forecast for last year shows the cost was expected to be $600,000. However, in the Government Leader's newsletter to constituents, he indicates that the costs are estimated to be $300,000 in the same fiscal year. Can the Minister give us some explanation about how these figures are calculated? For our own information, which are more accurate: $600,000 or the $300,000?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

The figure of $600,000 was in the main estimates last year. The actual cost was just over $300,000. I think it was $330,000. Some of the difference resulted from an arrangement we had with the bank. If we had excess capital one month, they would carry it forward to another month in which we did not have as much capital. This was in order to try to level it out for us. It worked fairly well.

We were pleasantly surprised. I had lunch with the banker not too long ago. He also was pleasantly surprised that we were able to maintain the balances, and that there were not more charges.

We are still in the same situation. As we speak, our overdraft is $4.3 million. We will have that in the spring because of all the front-end payments that must be made. That will level out throughout the year. I hope we have compensating balances. I do not know how much is in this budget for that; we will get to the amounts that were set aside for overdraft charges this year when we get to the Finance budget.

Mr. McDonald:

It is $540,000 this year. The forecast for 1993-94 in the main estimates is listed at $600,000, as well, so obviously that figure has not been updated from the main estimates.

Page Number 2344

It would help to know precisely what last year's figure was so that we can get a sense of the reason why there might be a fairly sizable increase in the expenditure for the coming year. When we get the Finance estimates, if the government said it was $600,000 but was really $300,000, why is it going up to $540,000? I will ask that question in estimates when we get there.

The cash that is going to be tied up in land development - could the Minister give us a sense - or I can give him notice of the question now - of how much the land inventory is now and how much it will be by the end of the summer?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I will take note of that question and bring it back to the Member.

While I am on my feet - and we can get into this in more detail in Finance - one of the reasons for the $540,000 projection this year is that we have opened up several new agencies that are going to cost us more money for community banking services.

Mr. McDonald:

Perhaps the Minister can explain that in more detail so that we can have a better appreciation for what the government is paying for.

I have another question on a different subject, just for clarification purposes.

The government Minister sent me a letter saying that any public sector restraint legislation would not include anyone other than government employees. Can I ask the Minister whether he or anybody in government has sent out any message to any agency or organization that the government funds that they are being restrained and that that restraint should incorporate cuts to, or restraint of, public sector wages?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

To the best of my knowledge, I do not believe any of the ministers have. I know I certainly have not, at this point. The letter I wrote to the Member opposite is correct. We certainly hope that they would follow our example of restraint in some manner but we have not given any specific directions to do so.

Mr. McDonald:

I will take that as a commitment.

On the liquor store for Watson Lake, liquor revenues are expected to drop a bit. Could the Minister indicate what the liquor revenues would have been, had the liquor store not gone ahead in this budget year? If the Minister looks on page 10 of the budget book, he will see the liquor profit and he will see that it drops by 15 percent. Could the Minister tell us what the liquor profit would have been, had the liquor store not gone ahead?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

We will get the exact figure for the Member opposite, but it would have been roughly the same as last year. All the revenues and rate changes in the 1994-95 main estimates are based on volumes predicted by the federal government for personal income tax calculations of $3.8 million, corporate of $2,663,000, $1.8 million for fuel tax and $3,354,000 for tobacco tax, for a total of $11,617,000.

Mr. McDonald:

Was there a rate change in January? If there was, could the Minister break out precisely what the increase was as a result of the rate change in January, not the entire amount?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

Certainly, there was a rate change. That was in the budget last year, of two percent on one and three percent on the other, on income and corporate tax. We do not have that right now, but we will break it out for the Member.

Mr. McDonald:

Getting back to liquor profits, I was under the impression that there was approximately $900,000 to $1 million that was planned to be spent on the liquor store this year - of a $1.2 million project.

Would it be safe to say, judging by the numbers on page 10, that the liquor profits ought to have been in the neighbourhood of $4.5 million if the liquor store had not gone ahead?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I would not want to speculate on that. It would be better addressed to the Minister responsible when we get to that department.

Mr. McDonald:

That may be a little difficult and that is the reason I am bringing this up in general debate, because we will never get to the departments; they are not in the budget book. That is why I am asking the question here.

If the Minister could give us the information about the cost of the liquor store and what the liquor profit might be, if the liquor store had not gone ahead, I would appreciate that information at some point.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

We will provide that information for the Member.

Mr. Cable:

I would like to follow up on the line of questioning that the Member for McIntyre-Takhini started about cashflow.

I gather that the government issues large cheques during the month of April each year to various organizations, one of those organizations being Yukon College.

How many organizations, in total, receive their money up front in the month of April and what is the approximate amount of money received?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I would advise the Member opposite to look on the schedules in the interim supply bill. That schedule provides a list of the ones that have been paid out.

Mr. Cable:

Has the government considered whether the interest earned by these organizations, most notably Yukon College, is more than the interest charges paid by the government to the banks, plus the lost concessions that the banking arrangement would otherwise give to the government?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

There are two factors to be considered. One is that we do get a pretty good rate of interest from the bank. The second factor is the interest that we earn from the bank is then reflected in our formula financing being discounted at $1.56 for every dollar that we raise. Those monies are considered revenues that we are raising in the Yukon.

These factors impact negatively on the formula financing agreement.

Mr. Cable:

I was not asking about the formula financing agreement. While that may be one of the elements, has the government actually conducted a study on its cashflow to indicate whether it is profitable, in a global sense, to give this money out in one large sum at the beginning of the year, and expect the recipients to invest in an unknown investment climate with an indeterminate amount of interest earned on these funds?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

Yes. However, I want to correct my last statement. The interest is deducted dollar for dollar, not $1.56, but we lose that in the formula financing agreement with Ottawa.

The government has looked at profitability and for most years we have been going in the right direction. There may have been one year with low interest rates where it was not profitable but, for the most part, paying the lump sum payment in March is the most cost effective.

Mr. Cable:

I am looking at the list of schedule B grants that I believe the Minister was referring to. A very significant one is the Yukon College grant of over $10 million. Does the Minister know how much interest, approximately, is earned by Yukon College on its investments over the year?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

We do not have that figure, but what they earned for interest would be in their financial statements.

Mr. Cable:

The calculations that the Minister referred to a few moments ago about the interest earned by these recipients versus the interest in lost concessions paid by or forfeited by the government - is this in some encapsulated form that we could see to get ready for the Finance department debate?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

Yes, it is. I will get that for the Member opposite.

Mr. Cable:

During the Finance department debate, what I

Page Number 2345

would like to hear from the Minister, in the context of that debate, is whether it makes more sense to give money to the recipients on a yearly basis and have them have an indeterminate amount of funding, or whether to give them a fixed amount, slightly increased, and have it paid over the course of the year, so that they know exactly what their budget should be and should not have to rely on the vagaries of the market.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I have told the Member we have done that and we have it in an encapsulated form. We will give it to him. It shows that we are doing it in a most cost-effective manner. I believe that we would hear a lot of negativity from the municipalities and others if we changed horses in mid-stream. They sort of count on the interest they earn on that money.

Mr. Cable:

What I was suggesting is that they might get more money if we did not have to pay the banks the interest and lost concessions. Let me switch to a different line of questioning.

The Minister issued a press release at the time the wage and price action was brought in, in which it was indicated there would be mass layoffs if concessions were not granted and that there would be enormous harm to the Yukon economy if these concessions were not granted. I believe I have the verbiage correct. As I recollect, the Minister was going to indicate what the projected layoffs would be if the concessions were not achieved. Does the Minister have those numbers handy?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

It would not be too difficult to figure out. I do not have the number in front of me so that I can figure it out, but just take the average wage and divide it into the $3.1 million that we are going to save on payroll costs in the budget this year.

Mr. Cable:

I can do that mathematics. So, what we are saying is that the enormous layoffs then are $3.5 million divided by the average wage. Is that the number we are looking for?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

That would be roughly what we are looking at.

Mr. McDonald:

I have a brief question for the Minister respecting the job statistics. On a couple of occasions, the Minister indicated to us that, since 1992 when they came into office, we have seen 1,000 more jobs in the economy. I went to the Statistics Bureau's information sheet dated April 8, 1994, and it shows some interesting things. The annual figures for 1992-93 show that the number of employed has gone from 12,292 for 1992-93 up to 12,392. That is an increase of 100 jobs. It suggests that there was an eight-percent increase in the economy, but many of my constituents have not really seen much evidence of that on the streets, as I have mentioned before in my speeches.

It also says here that the number of unemployed has increased from 1,400 to 2,000. The annual averages are listed here as having gone from 1,400 to 1,908, and that is the reason for the unemployment rate of 10.8 percent going to 13.8 percent. The ratio of employment to population is an interesting figure. It is found in the Statistics Canada information, which shows that it has dropped from 66.8 percent to 64.9 percent. The annual averages from March 1992 to March 1994 have dropped from 70.9 percent to 67.6 percent. If one looks at the back of this sheet, one sees the private sector employment dropping and the public sector employment increasing steadily. I guess I am puzzled as to the Minister's rationale for the thousand more jobs. The Minister might ask the Statistics Bureau to provide some narrative for justifying the 1,000 more jobs. I think that most of us here would feel more comfortable every time the Minister uses that line. It would make it more believable. Unfortunately, all we have are the Statistics Bureau's own figures, and they do not seem to bear that out.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

In front of me is the one for the month of March. It is an executive summary, and the one that we have been using from month to month since we have been in office. It is the document we have been using. It shows the labour force in March 1994, at 14,400 people. It shows that the labour force in March 1993, was 13,800. There are 600 more people in the labour force today, according to this executive summary.

Along with that, it states that there were 12,400 employed in March 1994, compared to 11,700 in March 1993. That is an increase of 700 people.

We have been using these figures from month to month and from year to year. I do not know to which figures the Member is referring, but I will look into it and ask for Statistics Canada to add an editorial comment, in order that we may have a better understanding.

Mr. McDonald:

I would appreciate it. I have a document here that the Minister may recognize. It comes from the Bureau of Statistics. I am looking at the reverse side of the document, which talks about annual figures. They give annual figures largely because a fluctuating economy does not lend itself to drawing conclusions based on monthly figures. Presumably, that is why they give us the annual figures.

I also have a document here, entitled The Yukon Labour Force Survey Results. The source is Statistics Canada and it shows the employment population ratios for 1992, 1993 and 1994. This is a copy; I do not have the original document with me. It suggests that public and private sector employment, if anything, are pretty flat-lined from 1993 to 1994. On top of that, it suggests that private sector jobs are dropping and public sector jobs are increasing.

I would be more than interested in hearing whatever the Bureau of Statistics has to say on this point. If we can all come to a common understanding as to precisely what is happening, I think we would all be better off, rather than confusing the public with all these different figures about what is one of the true indicators of the state of our economy.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I certainly agree with the Member opposite. We should be able to analyze the numbers in the same manner. I will certainly get the Bureau of Statistics to draw up what they can so that we can somehow rationalize the information.

Can we take a short break so that I can get my books for the departments? I do not have the departmental books with me. I did not think the Members were going to clear general debate that quickly. They surprised me.

Chair:

We will take a brief recess at this time.

Recess

Chair:

I will now call Committee of the Whole to order. Is there any general debate on Yukon Legislative Assembly? Yukon Legislative Assembly

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

The operation and maintenance budget proposed for the Yukon Legislative Assembly for 1994-95 totals $2,931,000, which is a 1.3 percent decrease, or $37,000, from the 1993-94 forecast of $2,968,000.

Explanations of the changes in this budget on a program basis are as follows.

In legislative services there is a decrease of $50,000 from forecast to estimates. This is due to four main factors. Based on the past years' experience, MLA travel has been cut by $24,000. Caucus budgets have been reduced by $8,000, which represents a two-percent decrease. The budget for the legislative committees has been reduced by $4,000 and, finally, the amount allocated to CPA activities has been reduced by $15,000, which is largely due to the fact that there will not be a Canadian regional conference held this year.

In the Legislative Assembly Office, there has been a decrease of $10,000 from forecast estimates due to reduction in staff

Page Number 2346

salaries, office supplies, communications and travel.

In elections, there has been an increase of $39,000 from forecast estimates. This is due to two factors: a general election of school councils will be held in October of this year, resulting in an increased requirement of $26,000 under the Education Act activity identified for this program; as well, there is an increase of $13,000 in the chief electoral office activity, which is being provided to cover the costs of a training session for returning officers and assistant returning officers.

In retirement allowances and death benefits there has been a decrease of $16,000 from forecast to estimates in this program. This is due to the fact that the liabilities of the MLA pension plan will be covered from April 1, 1994. Last year, as Members will recall, a deficiency of $171,000 was identified in the funding of the plan. This deficiency was not covered until the end of the fiscal year-end and, as a result, the earnings that should have been expected on $171,000 during the 1993-94 fiscal year also had to be appropriated.

This year, the full amount of the liabilities is being covered at the beginning of the fiscal year. Those earnings will be accounted for within the Legislature Assembly retirement allowances fund and the Assembly will not be required to provide them by appropriation.

Chair:

Is there further general debate?

Is there any general debate on legislative services?

Are we prepared to go line by line?

On Legislative Services

On Activities

On Legislative Assembly

Legislative Assembly in the amount of $1,098,000 agreed to

On Caucus Support Services

Caucus Support Services in the amount of $452,000 agreed to

On Legislative Committees

Legislative Committees in the amount of $28,000 agreed to

On Commonwealth Parliamentary Association

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in the amount of $24,000 agreed to

Legislative Services in the amount of $1,602,000 agreed to

Chair:

Is there any general debate on Legislative Assembly Office?

Are we prepared to go line by line?

On Legislative Assembly Office

On Activity

On Clerk's Office

Clerk's Office in the amount of $451,000 agreed to

Legislative Assembly Office in the amount of $451,000 agreed to

On Elections

On Activities

On Chief Electoral Office

Chief Electoral Office in the amount of $110,000 agreed to

On Elections: Education Act

Elections:Education Act in the amount of $50,000 agreed to

On Elections Administration

Elections Administration in the amount of $1.00 agreed to

Elections in the amount of $160,000 agreed to

On Retirement Allowances and Death Benefits

On Activities

On Retirement Allowances

Retirement Allowances in the amount of $718,000 agreed to

On Death Benefits

Death Benefits in the amount of $1.00 agreed to

Retirement Allowances and Death Benefits in the amount of $718,000 agreed to

Yukon Legislative Assembly agreed to

Chair:

We will move on to the Excutive Council Office. Executive Council Office

Chair:

Is there any general debate on vote 2?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I am pleased to present the proposed operation and maintenance budget for the Executive Council Office. I want to take this opportunity to provide Members with some introductory comments before the House proceeds with detailed consideration of these estimates.

The budget for the Executive Council Office demonstrates our ongoing commitment to maintaining quality service, while holding down expenditures.

As hon. Members are aware, the department reduced its spending in the first full year of this government by about $1 million.

The proposed savings for the 1994-95 fiscal year are more modest by comparison, but the cost-savings approach established over the past year has still been maintained.

Overall, these estimates represent a reduction of $10,000 from last year's projected spending. Cost recoverable funds have increased this year and make up a larger portion of these estimates - in total, about one-third of the department's spending. Consequently, the net reduction in spending is $66,000.

As well, it is worth noting that the Executive Council Office reduced last year's spending projections in the first supplementary, for the 1993-94 fiscal year, by $120,000, largely as a result of vacant positions.

When last year's original estimates, which were based on a full staff complement, are compared with this year's estimates, there has been a net reduction in proposed spending of $186,000 for 1994-95.

While the Executive Council Office continues to respond to the challenge of reducing operating costs, essential services are not being compromised.

Resources for land claim negotiations and implementation remain paramount in this budget, reflecting the importance that this government attaches to the settlement of the land claims. The amount of $1.4 million has been allocated for negotiations and implementation activities this year. This includes $100,000 to meet the Yukon government's 10-year UFA commitment to contribute directly to funding implementation obligations once the federal land claims legislation is approved by Parliament.

The Bureau of Management Improvement is fully functional for the first time in three years.

Consequently, spending for this branch, which includes three full-time employees, has increased from previous years. It is playing a key role in our effort to improve operations and services to the Yukon public through its management of the service improvement program.

Spending in the policy and communications branch has also increased, largely as a result of a full year's salary being allocated for the director of the federal relations office in Ottawa. We anticipate staffing this position once a review of the office is completed. As I mentioned earlier, there has been an increase in the cost-recoverable funds for the department. These funds are for the Bureau of Statistics, which will be participating with Health Canada and Statistics Canada in two national studies on health care and youth. The bureau, as it has done in the past, will be contracting its expertise to the federal government to ensure that the Yukon is included in these national surveys.

Funds available for French and aboriginal programs have been reduced by five percent, as a result of the federal budget announced earlier this year.

This covers the main highlights of the Executive Council Office's budget. I expect additional questions about details of the

Page Number 2347

department's proposed spending during Committee study. In closing, I would again note the reductions that have been achieved in the costs of operation over the last two years. These cost savings have been realized through an realignment of staff, which took place over the last year, and through careful examination of spending. At the same time, the department has maintained effective services. It has also continued to support employment equity goals, with women making up 50 percent of the department's management staff, with aboriginal people filling most of the positions in aboriginal language services, making up 18 percent of departmental staff.

Ms. Commodore:

Yesterday we dealt with a motion to urge the government to proceed with land claims and self-government legislation. During that debate, Members on this side of the House talked about the ongoing land claims process. We spoke of the lack of further agreements being signed by some of the other First Nations groups - as the Member knows there are 10 left. We talked about the perception - or maybe not the perception, but the reality - of some decisions being made by this government, some discussions going on by the City of Whitehorse in regard to decisions or discussions about the use of land that might be in question either for Ta'an Kwach'an or for Kwanlin Dun.

The Minister responsible for land claims, the Government Leader, insists that there is nothing happening that is improper. Different First Nations groups who speak with us tell us that they feel that the government is not proceeding as they should be. They sometimes fear that decisions will be made, either by this government or by the city, that would further jeopardize any discussions or negotiations in land claims. In the last session, I asked the Government Leader questions about the announcement that he made that land would be set aside for the water sewage system, to which the Mayor had also agreed. I would like the Minister to give both this House and First Nations groups some assurances that there will not be any ongoing discussions unless they are involved in it. It appears, despite what the Minister says, that that is taking place.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

Land claims negotiations within the City of Whitehorse are very difficult. They are difficult anywhere, but they are more complicated within the boundaries of the city.

Although we have not signed or concluded another land claims agreement, I believe that we have made substantial progress, because we are dealing with two of the most difficult land claims: the Ta'an Kwach'an and the Kwanlin Dun. We are proceeding with that, and I believe that we are making tremendous progress. We have interim protected land for the Ta'an Kwach'an. We have progressed in the Kwanlin Dun negotiations. Progress is being made in the Selkirk, Carmacks, Little Salmon and Dawson negotiations.

I will not stand here and say that I am satisfied that everything has been going as well as possible. I did say in the House yesterday, and I have said before, that there are going to be some very difficult negotiations. There will be give and take on both sides. However, I believe that, as long as we can keep communicating, we will resolve land claims in the best interest of all Yukoners.

I want to speak a bit about the waterfront lands, in order to make what is happening there quite clear. There is a committee being put together to discuss the development of the waterfront. I also want to point out to the Member opposite that the waterfront lands were purchased by the previous administration, from the 20-20 land to the territorial government administration building, for public use. The waterfront planning that is going on for that section of the waterfront is in agreement with what that land was purchased for. We believe that the First Nations can participate in that, and they have been invited to participate.

Having said that, if the First Nations refuse to participate in the planning, I do not believe that we can stop all progress in the development of the waterfront much longer. We have anniversaries coming up in a few years that will be of great benefit to all Yukoners. I hope that both the Ta'an Kwach'an and the Kwanlin Dun will participate in the planning for the development of the waterfront.

Ms. Commodore:

The Minister has given information to this House that we, as the former government, were aware of the purchase of the land and the responsibilities. One of the concerns we have is that the Government Leader has indicated that he has invited Ta'an Kwach'an and Kwanlin Dun to participate in these discussions. One of the things he does not understand is that there is some fear out there by those individuals - not fear, but concern - that whatever they say or do is not taken seriously by this government. That was evidenced at a meeting in Teslin and was told to me by individuals who were down there. There was some question about the lack of First Nations people at the meeting or the Cabinet tour, whatever it was at that time. They were absent from the meeting and they were told that it was because they were at another meeting. I cannot remember whether it was the Government Leader or the Minister responsible for Justice who said that if they had been invited, they would not have come anyway.

If that is the attitude of Cabinet Ministers, then for sure they are going to distrust any further meetings they have with them.

The Member talks about the difficulty of coming to an agreement with regard to land claims in these two areas, because a lot of the land is in the city and a lot of the land is being used for other things. What he has to realize is that the land we are talking about has already been taken away. He talks about give and take - who is to give and who is to take? The majority of that land has already been taken away. That is very often forgotten. It is almost like the First Nations are negotiating for land and the governments are doing them a favour by giving them pieces here and there. That has been the attitude all along, and I continue to hear those kind of comments being made. They have to understand that they have every right to the land they ask for.

I know other things have happened since the Europeans invaded the territory that prevent a lot of agreements from being made because the land has been used by the city or by the Crown or by others, but this attitude of give and take - let us understand, most of the land has already been taken away from them and they are trying to get a lot of it back.

When you talk about give and take, let us remember that.

On the question of the waterfront, a lot of people do not understand the purchase of the 20-20 property. There are still parcels of land on the other side of that area that people still think they are entitled to. When you are talking about the development, it has to be very clear which part of the waterfront you are talking about. We do not want to have those individuals out there worried that some of the land might start being used without their involvement. We have to be a little bit more sincere about the presence of those individuals when they attend meetings. There is a lack of trust out there, and I do not blame them.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

First, I want to comment on the Member's comments on our meeting in Teslin. I can assure the Member opposite that it was not I who said that, and I do not believe it was the MLA for the area, either. I remember the comment was made at the meeting. I know I definitely did not make it, and I do not believe the MLA for the area did, either. The fact remains that there was another meeting scheduled that night.

On the waterfront lands, we have made it quite clear, even to the First Nations people, that they can still participate in the development of that land, and we are prepared to talk about exchanges of land so they could participate even in the lands between the 20-20 site and the territorial building.

Page Number 2348

We are saying we can no longer put off planning to develop that land, with the anniversaries that are coming up. It is important to our tourism industry, to First Nations people and to all Yukoners that we get on with the planning of that.

If I have not made it quite clear, I will in this Legislature today. We are only talking about the lands from the 20-20 site to the territorial buildings for development at this point in time.

Ms. Commodore:

Yesterday, during the debate on the motion that the Member for Vuntut Gwitchin introduced, there was a lot of discussion on things that were happening after land claims agreements were signed. One in particular, that the Leader of the Official Opposition mentioned, was the provision in the umbrella final agreement that there would be an annual economic conference to which one-quarter of the delegates would be First Nations. I wonder if the Minister might tell me whether or not he intends to proceed with the agreements that were made already and, if he is not, what does he intend to do?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I believe there may be two different interpretations of what is said in the UFA. I would not want to speculate here on which one is the right one. Our interpretation of it, by some of our people, is that, if an economic conference were held, the First Nations people would be full participants in it. I am not sure that it says that it must be held. I am just not sure of that wording, but I will check that again. It is not something that we are trying to avoid. It is not something that we have some different game plan for. We are not intentionally breaking the UFA and, while I know it is not a valid excuse of any kind, the fact is that the UFA still does not have the assent of the federal government.

Ms. Commodore:

I think that we are in a lot of trouble if we look at an agreement and find that there are different interpretations of it.

If we are going to be living under the provisions of those acts, then we have to be able to understand what they are saying.

For the Government Leader to stand up and say that there are two different interpretations of that section of the act - I do not know which one is the real section - that is pretty scary, and I would like some assurances from the Government Leader that, somehow or other, someone is going to be able to tell him exactly what a section of the act means if there are different interpretations, so that he can understand them, and so can the people who work in his department.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

The Member is quite right, but there have been many analyses done by some expert legal minds. These people have looked at the UFA and the self-government agreements and decided that it was a gold mine for lawyers and consultants. There are going to be different interpretations as we go along.

Along with that, I want to make another point. With the implementation, we will be discussing priorities for activities with CYI. This certainly has not been raised as a priority with them at this point.

Ms. Commodore:

I only ask questions because the concerns have been brought to me over the last few months.

The Government Leader has already indicated that there has been tremendous progress made in negotiations. I wonder if he would let us know whether or not we can look at another agreement in the near future. By the near future, I mean possibly within the next six months.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

We believe that goal is achievable and that we could have at least one other agreement signed within the next six months.

For the information of the Members opposite, and without revealing what is happening, because of the secrecy that surrounds land selections, we have been very successful with the Kwanlin Dun, and we believe that we are about two-thirds of the way through the land selections. We have made tremendous progress during the time that we have been working with them.

There have also been other agreements made with the Kwanlin Dun First Nation for development in the subdivision. Mr. Fisher has worked out some economic opportunity agreements with them. Along with that, as I have said, while we do not have a signed land claims agreement, we have helped to facilitate economic development agreements with different First Nations and mining companies.

We now have mining companies and First Nations talking to each other, instead of fighting each other. I think that these are all very positive signs for working together with First Nations in the future.

Ms. Commodore:

There has been some information that the federal government has cut, or will be cutting, the number of land claims negotiators. I believe there were five and now there are three.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

That is new information to us. We were not aware of that, but we will certainly check into it.

Ms. Commodore:

I would like to follow up on the issue of the devolution of different departments. When we were in government, although this did not always work, we had sort of a schedule for the devolution of different things. We had, for example, a schedule by which time we hoped to have done this and that. We were not able to keep that schedule. There has been a lot of talk about the devolution of forestry in the last session, then there was a decision made that the forestry transfer would not proceed until after the legislation was in the federal House. I am wondering if the Minister can tell me what comes after forestry. Are we looking at mining, the Crown attorney, or some other department?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

Yes, we felt we had a schedule. It has dropped behind; as the Member opposite says, it does not always work out. We felt that we would have forestry devolved to us on April 1. That did not happen. The Minister of DIAND said he wanted to see the legislation go through the House of Commons first and then he would be prepared to look at devolving forestry to us.

Along with that, we are working on the devolution of the Crown attorney's office from the federal government. The Member can question the Minister of Justice on that later. I believe the process is in progress now - or very close to it.

I believe the Member opposite has also heard us speak about a memorandum of understanding that is on the Minister of DIAND's desk, which I have already signed, regarding the devolution of land, water, minerals and mining to the Yukon, along with some time lines as to when this would take place. I cannot remember the exact dates, but they carry on into 1996 or somewhere down the road. However, that has not yet been signed by the new Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs. It was a memorandum of understanding that was requested by DIAND under the previous Conservative government in Ottawa. The election was called before it was signed.

There are some time lines being set out, but, at this point, DIAND officials, the Minister, CYI and everyone else are concentrating all their efforts on getting the land claims legislation through the House of Commons. I would expect that if we are fortunate and do get the legislation entered and passed in this spring sitting, those will be some of the issues we can address immediately, to allow us to proceed with devolution.

I truly believe that if we - both us and First Nations people - are going to have any ability to control economic development and diversification in the territory, we have to control the levers. We do not have many levers at this point in order to diverisfy the economy of the Yukon. We are very limited in what we can do.

The oil and gas legislation is supposed to go to the House of

Page Number 2349

Commons this fall, followed by our legislation in this Legislature next spring. We will then take full control of oil and gas and can have some of the economic levers that we so dearly require to help diversify our economy.

Ms. Commodore:

There has been some suggestion that the Council for Yukon Indians should sit in on all negotiations with regard to devolution. Certainly, it is something that CYI has wanted to be a part of. I know that discussions have been ongoing in regard to land claims; I know that discussions have been ongoing in regard to forestry, and we thought that we would have a transfer very shortly. There were discussions and, as the Government Leader mentioned, a memorandum of understanding signed in regard to lands, forestry and mining and whatever. But, if we are talking about further devolution, for instance, in the Crown attorney's department, I know that I did not have First Nations people in on any of those discussions and they were mainly discussions at ministerial conferences. One time, at a number of meetings I was at in Vancouver, I met with the Minister of Justice and that was an item on the agenda. The only time I was able to get real information was by talking to bureaucrats who would give me honest answers at that time, so I realize the difficulty of it.

The Minister of Justice indicates that discussions are much more serious now and that we are looking at, possibly, the devolution of the Crown attorney's office. I am just wondering if the Government Leader can tell me if he has had any representation made to him about the involvement of First Nations people in the negotiations of that transfer and if, in fact, we are looking at no devolution of anything until after the land claims legislation is signed. Are we going to be proceeding with negotiations for the devolution of the Crown attorney's functions with First Nations people taking part?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

When we get to the Department of Justice, the Member may be able to answer that a little better for me. Right now, my understanding is that we do not have First Nations involvement in the Crown attorney discussions. We have been in discussions with them on the resources. They are fully aware of where we are, and we are hoping to get the whole devolution issue solved once the land claims have passed the House of Commons. That is going to be a major roadblock until it is out of the way. As the Member opposite knows, it is a very volatile issue with First Nations people. It goes back many, many, many years - not just in this administration. It goes back a long time and it is a position the First Nations people have taken and one we have not been able to resolve yet, but we certainly hope we can. Once the land claims are passed, it may be easier to sit down and resolve those issues.

Ms. Commodore:

Discussions are going on right now and it appears - not from my discussions with the Minister or anyone else, but from what I have read in the paper - that discussions are getting quite serious. I applaud that. That is something that is very positive, but I still want to know whether or not there has been any discussion or decisions made with regard to having First Nations people at those discussions for the devolution of all those different programs or departments.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I am sure the First Nations will be involved. I want to assure the Member opposite that the discussions surrounding the devolution of the Crown attorney's office is in the very, very early stages at this point. There are no serious negotiations going on regarding it. It is probably at the same stage it was at when she was there.

Ms. Commodore:

Not according to the paper, because I was quite pleased with what I read; however, knowing how the federal government works, I was not sure whether or not I could believe it. I would like some assurances that First Nations people will at least be asked how they feel about sitting in on further meetings to discuss devolution.

The Minister has indicated, and I think agreed, that there will not be a forestry transfer until after the land claims and self-government legislation goes through. I would like to ask him how soon he thinks that might be. If the land claims legislation went through and the Prime Minister, or whoever, agreed to proceed with the transfer of forestry, will he be proceeding right away with the transfer of mines and minerals and roads and lands? I am not sure of the exact title of that legislation, but it is a very important part of the devolution as well.

I would like to ask the Government Leader whether or not he intends to proceed with that as soon as the forestry transfer has taken place.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

Yes, it certainly is our intention. As for giving the Member opposite a date as to when the forestry transfer is going to take place, I cannot do that right now. I an not sure that I am even prepared to accept the financial agreement that was agreed to previously. Now the federal government has reneged by cutting back on the agreement a couple of times. We were looking at it in two ways: first, to have the responsibility for forestry devolved to us for forestry, and we were also looking at $3.2 million dollars that was supposed to be paid up front - $2.3 million or $3.2 million - for renovations to forestry buildings in Watson Lake and Dawson City, and we were hoping we would have that to be able to proceed immediately to help put people to work. Depending on how long it drags out before the Minister is prepared to devolve it, we may have to go back and look at the whole financial package again.

We intend to start working on the memorandum of understanding on land and resources. It is going to be a long process because I do not believe that we can devolve land to the Yukon Territorial Government until the land claims in the area are settled. The Vuntut Gwitchin and the Na-Cho Ny'ak Dun have settled their land claims and their land allocations. We can start working from the northern Yukon down to transfer lands over to the territorial government as the land claims are finalized. That is the process that I see for the devolution of lands. I do not see the total devolution of lands to Yukon until the finalization of all the land claims in Yukon.

Ms. Commodore:

As the Government Leader knows, the transfer of health services and the hospital took a number of years. One of the holdbacks in all that time was that we did not want to make a commitment until we had a commitment from the federal government that they would pay for the hospital. The Government Leader knows that, but we were deeply criticized for not hurrying through with the transfer. I remembered that when the Government Leader talked about the problems that he has with the payment.

I understood that a month or two ago the Government Leader was prepared to accept a transfer of forestry. Was it the Government Leader's position at that time not to accept payment, but accept the transfer? I do not understand, because it appeared that the transfer was going to happen the April 1 and now the Government Leader is telling me that he was not feeling very positive about the amount of the payment that the government would receive when the transfer took place.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

As I suggested to the Member opposite, we started out with what we felt was a very lucrative package and finally got down to where we were still above the mandatory bottom line that we gave our negotiators, but any richness that was in the agreement had been removed by the federal government.

That agreement was based on certain assumptions. One of those assumptions was that there would be some immediate money coming to do some work. If this drags out for six months, the federal government may decide to cut back in some of those areas

Page Number 2350

and not transfer as rich a package to us. That is the biggest fear that I have with devolving the forestry responsibility to this government - we might find the federal government in a downsizing mode, downsizing the different areas of responsibility in resource areas such as forestry, to where we do not have the financial resources that should come with the transfers to allow us to do much with the transferred programs.

That is why I think it is important that we move ahead with devolution very quickly before the federal government downsizes any further. If the federal government downsizes they will give us the package that they downsize to, not the package that is now in place.

Ms. Commodore:

So the Government Leader is saying that we may proceed with the transfer of forestry, even though the amount that would be part of that transfer is not enough. Is he saying that he is not holding out for anything more? I thought that is what he said.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

No, not at all. I am concerned that when the federal government does come back, it may come back with a lower amount again, one that I would not be prepared to accept. That is why I say that, just because I signed off on it and sent it there, it does not mean that we are prepared to accept it - because it did not go through on the April 1 date. I have relayed that message to the Minister of DIAND, and I have not received a reply from him yet, as to his position on it.

Ms. Commodore:

There was some suggestion by the Minister of DIAND that First Nations people be a part of all the negotiations that take place. I am just wondering if the Government Leader can tell me whether or not the First Nations people are part of the ongoing negotiations regarding the transfer of forestry. Are they aware that the the Government Leader is dissatisfied with the payment and is afraid that if we do not accept something right now, we may get something less later on. Have they been a part of those discussions or negotiations?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

The Member opposite is quite aware that they have been invited to all of the discussions; we send them briefing notes on all of the discussions that have transpired; they are fully aware of what has happened and they have not yet come to the table. That has been the problem; we cannot get them to the table. We are trying to put a process in place We have offered the same sort of participation they had in the hospital transfer.

In fairness to the First Nations, they are very, very busy and preoccupied right now with trying to get their land claim through the House of Commons. I am saying, once that roadblock is out of the way, I think we will be able to progress more quickly on a lot of these outstanding issues.

Ms. Commodore:

So the Government Leader is saying that they are fully aware, but they will not come to the table. If the Government Leader is inviting First Nations people to take part in these negotiations, has he made it very clear that it is a part of the discussions in regard to the transfer and if they are not coming, why are they not? I mean, I do not know if he is getting official notice that they are not coming, or if he does not hear from them, they meet anyway. I fear that the whole process will take place with the attitude that, "Well, we invited them, they will not come". I mean, what is the Government Leader prepared to do, in the end?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

That is going to depend on what position the Minister of DIAND takes. My understanding is he is not prepared to give First Nations a de facto veto by them not coming to the table. That was the position that the former Minister of DIAND took. He said, "You cannot have a de facto veto by not participating in the discussions."

Mrs. Firth:

I want to follow up with the Minister on one of the aspects of devolution. The Minister had indicated they had signed agreements with respect to the rest of the land, water, and so on, the responsibility being turned over to YTG.

I want to ask the Minister about the surface rights legislation the federal government has currently under discussion, and what the government's position is on it. Has the Minister had government representatives at the discussions? Does he agree with the legislation?

Could he update us on this? Does the government have any concerns about it? Could he provide this information this afternoon?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

Yes, our officials have been involved and have had input into the surface rights legislation. It has been out for review this week, and it is going through the final drafting stage now. It has to be ready and go through the House of Commons with the land claims package and the self-government package. It is part of that. There are three pieces of legislation.

Mrs. Firth:

I am aware of that. I would like to get some kind of idea from the government. Are they satisfied with the legislation as it is? Do they have some concerns about it? There have been concerns expressed to me from the mining community and from individuals who have been involved in the discussions. I am curious to know what the government's position is with respect to the surface rights legislation.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

A few technical things have to be ironed out in it yet but, for the most part, it seems to address what is in the umbrella final agreement and follow the guidelines that were set out in that. It seems the mining companies have pretty well accepted it. We are taking into account their concerns and the issues that they have raised with us in the drafting of that surface rights legislation.

Mrs. Firth:

Could the Government Leader provide me with a written statement with respect to the surface rights legislation - the concerns they have, the things they are taking into account on behalf of the mining community, and so on - so I know exactly what the government's position is regarding this legislation?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I will have my officials draw up a briefing note. We will reveal whatever information we can to the Member opposite.

Mrs. Firth:

I am sure that the Government Leader can appreciate that I would like the information fairly soon, in light of the time line he mentioned.

Chair:

Are the Members prepared to have a brief recess?

Some Hon. Members:

Agreed.

Chair:

We will take a brief recess.

Recess

Chair:

I will now call Committee of the Whole to order.

Is there further general debate on the Executive Council Office?

Mr. Cable:

I will follow up on the questions the Member for Whitehorse Centre raised in relation to the City of Whitehorse waterfront development.

What sort of invitation was sent to the Ta'an Kwach'an and the Kwanlin Dun to participate in the waterfront development?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I believe I have said, if not in this House, then in public, that it is the city that is going to lead the charge in the development planning for the waterfront, not the territorial government. The city is inviting them to participate in the development.

Mr. Cable:

I understand that there is some suggestion among the parties, and this includes the territorial government, that there be a body set up with participation from the two First Nations, the territorial government and the City of Whitehorse. Is this the proposition that is on the table?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

Yes, that is correct.

Page Number 2351

Mr. Cable:

In the invitation that went to the two First Nations - I know the Government Leader is saying he is not driving the car on this one, but presumably he is aware of what is taking place - was there a suggestion to the two First Nations that whatever took place would be without prejudice to their land claims?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

That is the premise under which this government operates.

Mr. Cable:

That is the premise, but was the premise articulated to the two First Nations?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I just said that the city is going to be leading the charge on this one, not the territorial government. What we are talking about is lands on the waterfront that were purchased by this government for public use - from the 20-20 lands to the territorial building. We are not talking about any other lands along the waterfront.

Mr. Cable:

That is fine. It appears we are restricted to lands owned by the territorial Crown, and it also appears that the city is the main driving force behind this. In that the territorial government is one of the participants, is the Government Leader aware as to whether the approach that was made to the two First Nations involved a suggestion that any participation was on a without-prejudice basis?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I am aware that the city officials are having talks with the Kwanlin Dun and the Ta'an Kwach'an at this point. This is very preliminary; the committee is just getting up and running now. It started as of last week when the mayor was in to see me.

Mr. Cable:

I think that the Government Leader indicated that it would be useful for the Whitehorse business community to get this thing off the ground for the anniversary celebrations. What does the Government Leader see as some means of getting some involvement going here? There would appear to be no down side to the First Nations if they are confident they will not prejudice their claims.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

That is the exercise the planning committee will be working on. They will look at what they envision for the waterfront. The government owns the land and we are prepared to make the land available once we see what kind of development plan they present.

Mr. Cable:

I guess that I am not making the point. It would seem that First Nations' involvement would be paramount in view of the indeterminate stage of the land claims. It would also seem that First Nations, as active participants, would be more useful on the committee than sitting on the sidelines.

Is the government not prepared to take some initiative in this area to get the two First Nations to the table?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

We have been talking with the First Nations during the term of our government. We are taking the initiative to encourage them to be involved. We are doing everything within our power to have First Nations become involved. We cannot drag them to the table.

Mr. Cable:

There is no question about that; you cannot make people come to meetings.

I would like to confirm the Government Leader's perception as to why there is non-participation by the two First Nations.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

The Leader of the Liberal Party will have to ask the First Nations that question.

Mr. Cable:

I am not driving this show. I think that the two chiefs have telephones. Has anyone approached the two chiefs to find out why they and other members of the First Nations who want to be involved have not stepped forward?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I am not sure that the Member opposite is listening to me. I have said that this government has approached the First Nations for over a year now and the Member, I believe, has a telephone in his office that he can pick up to call the chiefs.

Mr. McDonald:

I would like to pursue this a little bit further, because the Minister seems to have suggested that because the City of Whitehorse is leading the charge, as I think he put it, YTG's role is more passive than some of us would expect it to be. We are talking about the Yukon government lands, which are, under most people's understanding, selectable under the land claims process. These lands could still be considered lands that the Kwanlin Dun, at least in part, might have an interest in.

First of all, the Minister shook his head. Are there classes of Yukon government open lands that are considered to be completely off bounds to First Nations?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

As the Member opposite is fully aware, First Nations can select lands anywhere in the Yukon. I want to draw the Member's attention to the fact that he was part of the government that purchased the land from private people for public use of the waterfront.

Mr. McDonald:

I know what the Government of Yukon's position is, or has been in the past - land should be made available for some sort of waterfront development. However, I was under the impression, as well, that that ultimately would have to be cleared through some land claims process, because these were open government lands; there was no building on them. Consequently, there would still have to be some respect for the negotiating process.

What puzzles me is that the Minister has accepted that these are Yukon government lands, and that whatever happens on the waterfront will be done without prejudice to the land claim. However, at the same time, we have two processes that seem to be proceeding without any necessary connection between them - one being the land selection process and the band final negotiations and the other being the land planning process, headed up by the City of Whitehorse. The Minister does not seem to mind that perhaps the City of Whitehorse may not include some provision for First Nations' participation that is satisfactory to those First Nations. One would think it would be desirable, under the circumstances, for the Yukon government, who is a negotiator at the table - unlike the City of Whitehorse - to ensure, as a precondition to turning over the process to the City of Whitehorse, that there was some mechanism to show respect for First Nations' interests in the planning process. Is that not how the Minister views the process?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

Yes, that is exactly how the Minister views it and that is exactly how we are proceeding. The fact remains that we are starting to bring negotiations to the floor of the Legislature. These issues are being dealt with at the land claims table at the same time as the planning for the waterfront is going on. We are not devolving any lands at this point. We are looking at what the plan will be for the waterfront. We want to see the Kwanlin Dun and Ta'an Kwach'an involved in that. We will also be involved. The land claims negotiations will be settled at the land claims table.

Mr. McDonald:

Is it not a risky venture to encourage the City of Whitehorse to plan - presuming the City of Whitehorse is going to be planning away and leading the discussions - without any certainty that it may not be unraveled because the land claims process will somehow overlap and supersede it at some point? Would it not make sense to ensure that there is some sort of agreement about the First Nations' participation at the beginning, so that this planning process the city is going to lead, as the Minister has noted, will not, in some way, be overruled by something that subsequently happens in the land claims process?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

It is the job of our negotiators at the table to see that this is balanced with the rest of the land claims negotiations within the city. That is the premise we are proceeding on.

Page Number 2352

Mr. McDonald:

The negotiators of the government are then ensuring that whatever process the city develops to undertake a development plan for the waterfront ensures the appropriate and acceptable participation by First Nations in the planning process - is that right?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

That is the premise on which we are proceeding. I also said in this House earlier that there could be a long planning process, and we have anniversaries coming up. I do not believe we can stop everything to wait for the final selections to be completed throughout the city before we start the planning process. There is nothing wrong with starting the planning process.

Mr. McDonald:

I think everybody is aware of the pressures under which we are operating, and that the longer we wait, the more severe the time crunch becomes. However, just to make it clear, the Government of the Yukon feels that it does have an obligation to ensure that whatever planning process the city might devise does include First Nations' participation so that, ultimately, when this plan is set, or comes to some sort of conclusion, there is no chance, because the First Nations have been involved, that the plan, or the whole process, will become unraveled at the last second, when we do not have time to react, because the land claim, which is being negotiated without prejudice, supersedes the whole process. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I believe the Member is quite right. That is the challenge: to make sure that does not happen. As this committee gets up, we will have more to report in the Legislature before this session is over, I am sure.

Mr. McDonald:

Can the Minister tell us, right now, what role he believes First Nations have to play in this planning process? Does he have any idea at this point, or is that a blank slate as far as he is aware?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I believe that is what the committee will be deciding. I believe that First Nations have a major role to play in it. I believe they have to play a major role in it, if it is going to be successful.

Mr. Harding:

I would like to go back to one area: general policy. I understand we have bounced this around before in the Legislature and I know that the forestry devolution has been put on hold. At one point, it was announced to have been quite imminent. New developments happened: the federal election and putting the forestry devolution on hold.

My question to the Government Leader is in a general policy context. To me, it seemed that in our efforts to devolve forestry, we have a fairly, at least on the surface, glaring gap or void in policy development. I think it showed itself to be most apparent in the discussions about raw log exports. Without getting too specific, because he would probably want to defer to the Minister to general debate in that area, what is the Government Leader's view regarding policy development, to be clear that Yukoners know what we are actually receiving, upon receiving what has been devolved from the federal government?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

The Member opposite has to be aware that what we are receiving is the forestry resource. Along with that forestry resource come monies for developing policy, legislation and regulations so, when the transfer takes place, we will have the resources to develop the policy, the legislation and regulations to complete the transfer of the forestry.

Mr. Harding:

I understand that, with the transfer, monies would be forthcoming to the territory to work out some of the details, but I am talking more in a broad policy framework. Does the Minister feel that, until we get absolutes in terms of funding from the federal government, we should not work on broad policy in certain areas in forestry, or is he saying that the broad policy is defined within their government, and that it would be fine tuned, once the monies were received on the devolution?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

We do not have the resources to develop policies, regulations or legislation until such time as we get the transfer from the federal government.

Mr. Harding:

The area of concern, then, is what happens in the meantime from the time we receive the forestry devolution agreement to the time when policies are in place in the territory. Would the government carry on as a general policy the policies that were in place before the transfer?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

That is correct.

Mr. Harding:

What about issues that are of consequence right now to Yukoners? Would the Minister see his government carrying on, even though there are public calls right now for some statement by the Government of the Yukon regarding policy areas, or would they just defer to a future policy process, from which would stem implementation of Yukon government policies specifically?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

We have already stated our policy on raw log exports.

Mr. Harding:

What is that?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

None.

Mr. Harding:

That is a little more definitive than what I received from the Minister of Renewable Resources. The policy statement I received from the Minister of Renewable Resources said that they were opposed in principle, but that in certain circumstances they would be prepared to look at timber harvest agreements and support timber harvest agreements if they had some broad socio-economic impact. Am I to determine from the Government Leader's comments today that there has been a major shift in policy regarding raw log exports?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I do not know where the Member opposite is coming from. There has been no change in policy. We wrote a letter to the Minister of DIAND stating that we are against raw log exports until such time as forestry is devolved to the Yukon and we have a chance to go to the people and develop the policy regulations and legislation to put in place. That is the position we have had, and that is the position we continue to have.

Mr. Harding:

I am getting a little tired of the approach by the Government Leader whenever I ask a question in Committee. I know where the hell I am coming from. I received a policy - I will have to go and get it - from the Minister of Renewable Resources that says something a lot different than "none" in the area of raw log exports. It was not just a one-word statement - none - on the legislative return that I received in the last session.

I am not trying to do anything devious or deceitful here. I am just trying to be clear about the government's direction in regard to devolution, transfer, and policy development. I do not think that is a crime. I do not think that is something I should not be doing. The Government Leader today tells me that there had been no change in the policy. Well, there is a big difference between "none" and the policy statement I received from the territorial government during the last session of this Legislature. I guess I will have to go and get that later.

Is the Government Leader aware of that legislative return and that policy statement that was made by the Minister of Renewable Resources at the time? Does he concede that there could be two interpretations - one that he shares that means "none" and one that I share, that in certain circumstances they would allow raw log exports?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

The fact remains that we do not have the ability to allow raw logs exports. It is not in our domain; it is in the federal government domain. I have just stated to the Member opposite the position that we have taken with the public now, with the extension of the raw log export agreement with the Kaska First Nation. We have said no to log exports.

Page Number 2353

Mr. Harding:

Okay, now I see where we differed. The Minister was talking in the context of the specific proposal that Kaska Forest Products has made now - is that correct? The Minister is talking about the specific timber harvest proposal that was just put forward by Kaska as opposed to what I was referring to in terms of their policy that was stated last session.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

The policy that we are applying to Kaska would apply to anyone who requested raw log exports at this time.

Mr. Harding:

No matter what the socio-economic benefits would be? Would the government recommend to the federal government that the licence or timber harvest agreement not be extended?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

That is a hypothetical question.

Mr. Harding:

Then I have to look at this in the broader context of policy. I do not think that it is a hypothetical question, because there is obviously people in the territory who are watching what is happening. There is a big difference between saying no to a proposal for the amount of raw log exports Kaska has requested for their timber harvest agreement and making a broad statement that no matter what the socio-economic benefit to some proponent of some raw log export - and no matter what the amount - the territorial recommendation to the federal government would be no.

There is quite a large crevice or gap there. I do not think that it is a hypothetical question. I am asking the Government Leader this in a policy context. Is it a blanket policy or is it specifically a policy relating to the timber harvest agreement proposal recently put forward by Kaska Forest Products?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

We do not have responsibility for forestry. I want to make that very clear to the Member opposite. When we get responsibility, we will develop policy. We will go to the people and see what they have to say about raw log exports. At this point, we are saying no. If they have asked us for our recommendation, we have said no.

Mr. Harding:

The Government Leader should realize that I realize that they do not have responsibility. However, I will point this out that one would think that, since the Minister announced a few months ago that the forestry transfer was imminent, the position taken regarding a proposal by YTG would have some impact on the federal decision. Is that not a fair statement?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I do not know.

Mr. Harding:

Can the Minister use this opportunity to correct me if I am wrong? Is it not a fair statement to say that the Yukon government position would have some considerable clout?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

The Member will have to ask the federal government that question; I do not know that it would.

Mr. Harding:

I will just read, for the record, the raw log export policy that was tabled in the House on January 17, 1994. It states, "This return relates to a matter outstanding from discussion related: to raw log export policy on January 17, 1994 at Hansard page 1968.

"The answer is as follows: the Yukon government should continue to oppose log exports in principle, but allow for exceptions in special circumstances on timber harvest agreements only. Exports from commercial timber permits would not be supported in any circumstances.

"Special circumstances in which exports would be supported on timber harvest agreements are when the logs are surplus to long-term as well as short-term domestic needs and: (a) where the logs cannot be manufactured or processed economically in the Yukon; (b) the exports are of a short-term and limited nature only; (c) they are tied to specific commitments to proper forest management, silviculture and establishing value-added milling operations, which maximize job opportunities, (these conditions are not enforceable through a CTP under DIAND legislation) and (d) the logs would otherwise be lost to disease, over maturity or fire."

This is signed on January 18 by the Minister of Renewable Resources, the Hon. Bill Brewster.

Obviously, the government should see why I ask these questions. That certainly is different from none. It does not say "none". I think it is legitimate to ask if there has been some change in policy. I have read the policy statements and positions of the government through the media and I have read the position of the Member for Watson Lake. I have heard his comments at public meetings and I have read his letter to the federal government.

I am trying to ascertain from the government if there has been a change of government policy since this letter was tabled on January 18. I am trying to find out whether it pertains to the timber harvest agreement as proposed now by Kaska Forest Products or if it is a blanket policy. Could the Minister clarify that for me?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

At the time that policy was given to the Member in the House, there was an effective timber harvesting agreement with the Kaska that ran to April 30. What we are talking about now is what happens from April 30 on. We never took over forestry; we were supposed to take over forestry on April 1. We did not. The federal government said no. Cabinet made the decision not to support the Kaskas in the extension of raw log exports. The policy we set at that time was no more raw log exports until such time as we have time to develop our own policy in the Yukon.

Mr. Harding:

The Minister now sees, obviously, where my question was coming from. Can I ask the Government to table its new policy on raw log exports as of April 30, so I can have some definitive statement from the government regarding this - and I understand they have no responsibility, but they did not have it on January 18 when they tabled their last policy.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

He will have to get that when he gets to the right department.

Ms. Moorcroft:

I would like to enquire about a different issue. Last year, in looking at the budget, we had some questions about decentralization. The Minister indicated that policy work was done in Executive Council Office on decentralization, but that that was on hold for now. He also said the departments were taking on more responsibilities, but that decentralization would still be coordinated through ECO. Is decentralization still on hold?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

Yes, it is.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Have there been any positions decentralized to the communities, then, or will there be in the coming year?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

There have been some jobs created in some of the communities, I believe, in Health and Social Services. I do not know of any transfers, outside of the staffing of the Teslin jail, which I do not believe were direct transfers from Whitehorse.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Is the Minister recentralizing any positions to Whitehorse?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

Yes, we are.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Does the Minister have a policy on that, and how is that being done?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

As the Member opposite knows - and I think the Minister of Community and Transportation Services has said it time and again - some of the positions in the communities do not make sense. They are not cost effective. The people who have been decentralized to communities are brought back to Whitehorse on an ongoing basis, put up in hotel rooms costing $100 a day and more and doing most of their work in the offices here. Most of the work they have to do has to be done with other people in the offices here, so there are two positions I believe the the Minister of Community and Transportation Services is going to recentralize. That question would be better put to that Minister when we get to his department.

Page Number 2354

Ms. Moorcroft:

Is the Executive Council Office still coordinating the responsibility for decentralization, as the Minister indicated they were doing last year?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

We are not doing any decentralizing.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Let me rephrase that question and ask about the policy on recentralization. Is the Executive Council Office responsible for that, and is there a policy guiding those decisions?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

Each department is looking at them. If they decide that the position fits better in Whitehorse, that is where the position will be.

Ms. Moorcroft:

So, then, there is no more decentralization branch?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

There is no one working on decentralization at this time.

Mr. McDonald:

The trouble that I have with that particular comment, and the government's initiative, was that we endured literally dozens of hours of abuse, while we were in government, about not caring enough about decentralization, and not liking our plan. The Opposition was always saying that they would inflict a better plan on the Yukon.

The impression that was left in many rural communities was that something really significant would be done. It was not that there would be less done, but that there would be a lot more done, and they were going to do it a lot better, wiser, cheaper, and fairer, you name it.

No matter what we said we wanted to do and what policy objective we wanted to apply, what the Yukon Party government was going to do was to carry out each one of those things better.

The problem that we are facing here is that the government is indicating that, if it costs anything extra to decentralize to a community, it will not be done, that if decentralization creates any upset or complication in the management of a department, it will not be done.

All that we have are reasons why the government will not do anything. There are literally hundreds of comments in Hansard that talk about how the Yukon Party is going to do more. The Minister was sitting in the gallery while much of this was taking place.

What is it that the government is going to do? In order to satisfy the rural people who feel that they should have a fair share of services, as well as the payroll dollars that are associated with government spending - the Minister knows that government spending is part of decentralization - what is the Minister going to do to satisfy those concerns, or do we simply close the chapter on decentralization and say, whatever we heard from the Yukon Party before the election, they are not prepared to carry out now?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

That is not exactly the case. We are going to be decentralizing where it makes sense and where it is cost effective. Jobs are being created in communities now through Health and Social Services, community-based justice and other areas like that. These are jobs being created in the communities, not by trying to force somebody to move from Whitehorse to the community, or leaving them here and creating another position in the community. When the forestry transfer happens, there is going to be decentralization, especially to Dawson and Watson Lake. I believe one or two biologists have been moved - one to Watson Lake, I know of for sure - and we are going to be moving in that direction.

The Member opposite knows that decentralization costs extra dollars, which we just do not have available to us now to be able to embark on a big decentralization program. We are assessing every position or new position that comes to government. If it fits better in Dawson City, that is where it will be. If it fits better in one of the other communities, that is where it will be. We do not have the luxury of the resources to go on a large decentralization experiment, where it is going to mean excessive costs to government, such as people we have stationed in Dawson now - municipal planners - who have to do their work in Whitehorse. We have to put them up in hotels, because we decentralized those positions to Dawson City. Similarly, there is the one in Teslin, and that one has been moved back to Whitehorse now.

We have to look at controlling the cost to government, and that is one of the areas where there has been some excessive expense.

Mr. McDonald:

We will certainly deal with the Minister of Community and Transportation Services when we get to him, when it comes to his reasons for recentralizing the various positions. We have every intention of doing that.

The Minister indicated that the costs associated with this are simply not affordable now. Even the cost of our decentralization program could have been handled easily through the cost of one liquor store that the government wants to build in Watson Lake. That information was tabled before this Legislature.

We heard a long lecture, and I remember the lecture. It is not ringing in my ears, because it was not that articulate, but I heard a long lecture from the Opposition benches, telling us that decentralization was different from a deconcentration of power, it was different from creating new jobs in the communities. Decentralization was the transfer of positions in Whitehorse to the communities. That was the definition of decentralization. If that was not done, it was not decentralization. It was taking the core of activity in Whitehorse and leaking some of it into the communities. That is what it was all about - not creating new jobs. I heard that many times from many different Members.

Whenever there was an attempt to add jobs to rural communities it was pooh- poohed as not being part of a decentralization program, but being a part of growth in government - I think it was termed at that time. I am puzzled as to where the Yukon Party is coming from on the question of decentralization. They are now talking about decentralization in the context of creating brand-new services in communities, not necessarily moving any particular public servant from Whitehorse to any place else, that it has to be cheaper than what exists currently and it cannot cause any operational upset.

I think there will have to come a time - whether it is this session or some other session - when the government is going to have to be accountable for its critique while in Opposition. We will expect - whether it is today, or whether it is next fall - some policy on decentralization to demonstrate that what the Yukon Party said it was going to do while it was in Opposition, which as I recall was echoed by a number of mayors who all felt that if they voted Yukon Party they would see major changes to this policy - it would not only be rational but there would be more people out in the communities - and reconciling those statements with what is happening now. It appears that decentralization, for all intents and purposes, is dead as a doornail. Is there going to be a policy on decentralization, and are we ever actually going to see movement of employees from Whitehorse to outside Whitehorse?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I have already addressed that, saying we are dealing with forestry and we are taking over new programs. We are certainly going to look at putting them out in the communities. What we are not going to do is decentralize positions, as the previous administration did, when we have people commuting to Carcross to do his job and coming home every night to Whitehorse. We already have decentralized the Anniversaries Commission. We put it in Dawson City, not in Whitehorse.

Mr. Chair, I move that you report progress on Bill No. 15 at this time.

Motion agreed to

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

I move that the Speaker do now resume

Page Number 2355

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. 15, entitled Second Appropriation Act, 1994-95, and directed me to report progress on it.

Speaker:

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

Some Hon. Member:

Agreed.

Speaker:

I declare the report carried.

We are now prepared to receive the Administrator to grant assent to the bills that have passed this House.

Administrator enters the Chamber, announced by the Sergeant-at-Arms

ASSENT TO BILLS

Administrator:

Please be seated.

Speaker:

Madam Administrator, the Assembly has, at its present session, passed certain bills to which, in the name and on behalf of the Assembly, I respectfully request your assent.

Clerk:

Interim Supply Appropriation Act, 1994-95; Interim Supply Appropriation Act, 1994-95 (No. 2); Subdivision Act.

Administrator:

I hereby assent to the bills as enumerated by the Clerk.

I must remind you all that you are expected at the Trade Show this weekend.

Administrator leaves the Chamber

Speaker:

I will now call the House to order.

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

I move that the House do now adjourn.

Speaker:

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

Motion agreed to

Speaker:

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

The House adjourned at 5:18 p.m.

The following Legislative Returns were tabled April 28, 1994:

94-1-345

Utility Companies: no shares currently held by any Cabinet or caucus Members; two "token" gifts received by the Hon. Mr. Phelps (Ostashek)

Written Question No. 29, dated November 22, 1993, by Mr. Penikett

Written Question No. 32, dated November 22, 1993, by Mr. Penikett

94-1-346

Yukon Wolf Conservation and Management Plan: 1992-93 expenditures and 1993-94 cost estimates (Brewster)

Oral, Hansard, p. 2250