Whitehorse, Yukon
Monday, May 2, 1994 - 1:30 p.m.
Page Number 2357
Speaker:
I will now call the House to order. We will proceed at this time with silent Prayers.
Prayers
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
Speaker:
I have for tabling the report of the Chief Electoral Officer of the Yukon of contributions to political parties during 1993.
Are there any further Returns or Documents for tabling?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I have two legislative returns for tabling.
Speaker:
Are there any Reports of Committees?
Petitions.
Are there any Introduction of Bills?
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
Bill No. 33: Introduction and First Reading
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I move that Bill No. 33, entitled An Act to Amend the Yukon Advisory Council on Women's Issues Act, be now introduced and read a first time.
Speaker:
It has been moved by the Hon. Minister responsible for the Women's Directorate that Bill No. 33, entitled An Act to Amend the Yukon Advisory Council on Women's Issues Act, be now introduced and read a first time.
Motion for introduction and first reading of Bill No. 33 agreed to
Bill No. 50: Introduction and First Reading
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
I move that Bill No. 50, entitled An Act to Amend the Municipal Act (No. 2), be now introduced and read a first time.
Speaker:
It has been moved by the Minister of Community and Transportation Services that Bill No. 50, entitled An Act to Amend the Municipal Act (No. 2), be now introduced and read a first time.
Motion for introduction and first reading of Bill No. 50 agreed to
Speaker:
Are there any Notices of Motion for the Production of Papers?
Notices of Motion?
NOTICES OF MOTION
Ms. Commodore:
I give notice of the following motion:
THAT it is the opinion of this House that all children in care are entitled to an environment that is safe, supportive and appropriate to their needs;
THAT all children in care are entitled to care by competent and qualified care givers;
THAT any complaints regarding treatment of children in care are best dealt with by an independent investigator; and
THAT government should instruct the Minister responsible for social services to create an independent commission, which will have the authority to investigate complaints regarding children in care and to make recommendations to resolve these complaints in the best interests of the children involved.
Ms. Moorcroft:
I give notice of the following motion:
THAT it is the opinion of this House that the government should remove the threat of legislative rollbacks and wage cuts from the collective bargaining which is currently underway between the teachers, government employees and the government.
Speaker:
Are there any Statements by Ministers?
This then brings us to the Question Period.
QUESTION PERIOD
Question re: Disclosure statements, John Ostashek
Mr. McDonald:
I have a very serious issue to present to the Government Leader. I would like to ask a few direct questions to see if we can clear matters up. Can the Government Leader, or the Minister, tell us whether or not he has acted for any private business while he was a Minister of the territorial Crown. In particular, has he acted on behalf of any business for which he was once a director or officer?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I would like to ask the Member opposite this: in what capacity?
Mr. McDonald:
Did the Minister sell a plane, a 1983 Maule aircraft, to a territorial resident while he was a Minister of the Crown?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
The company that I was involved in sold an airplane to a territorial resident.
Mr. McDonald:
Was this plane owned by Shakwak Air Limited.?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
That is correct.
Question re: Disclosure statements, John Ostashek
Mr. McDonald:
Can the Minister tell us whether or not he signed the bill of sale on behalf of Shakwak Air on the sale of this particular plane to this resident of the territory?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
Yes, I believe I did.
Mr. McDonald:
Was the Minister authorized to sell this plane on behalf of Shakwak Air Limited?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I do hold one share in Shakwak Air. I am not a director of the company. I believe it was a valid bill of sale.
Mr. McDonald:
Can the Minister tell us whether or not the purchase price of this aircraft was $46,000?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I cannot recall at this point what the exact purchase price was.
Question re: Disclosure statements, John Ostashek
Mr. McDonald:
We will get back to that in a moment.
The Minister did file a note on his personal disclosure statement to the Legislature stating that he had resigned from Shakwak Air Limited on December 31, 1992. Can the Minister tell us how he could act for a company from which he had resigned?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
As I said, I believed I signed the bill of sale because my name was on the documents to begin with - it had not been removed from the documents. My wife is a director of that company.
Mr. McDonald:
I understand that, but clearly there is only one signature on the bill of sale, to my knowledge, and it is signed above the company name, Shakwak Air Limited. Can the Minister tell us, given that he had filed a statement to the Legislature saying that he had resigned as president and director of Shakwak Air Limited, how he might be signing a bill of sale on behalf of Shakwak Air Limited to sell an aircraft owned by Shakwak Air
Page Number 2358
Limited to a citizen?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I do not know; that is a good question.
Mr. McDonald:
The Minister did file a personal disclosure statement in the Legislature. Can the Minister tell us - he filed it fairly recently, I believe last week - whether or not that disclosure statement was complete?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
To the best of my ability, I believe it is.
Question re: Disclosure statements, John Ostashek
Mr. McDonald:
In that disclosure statement, he mentions that he received income only from the YTG payroll. Can the Minister tell us why he failed to disclose a $10,000 cheque, payable to the Minister last summer, that was apparently part of the transaction in the sale of the plane?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I am not certain of the facts of that sale but I will bring back whatever information the Member requires.
Mr. McDonald:
I am advised that the transaction in the sale of the plane involved two cheques - one payable to Shakwak Air Limited for $36,000 and one payable to the Minister for $10,000, personally. Can the Minister tell us whether or not that is true?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I would have to check my records. I cannot recall at this time.
Mr. McDonald:
Can the Minister tell us what the reason would be for splitting the payment of this particular plane into two parts - one payable to the company that owned it and one payable to the Minister who is no longer part of the company?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I do not know, unless there was a deposit paid on the aircraft.
Question re: Disclosure statements, John Ostashek
Mr. McDonald:
Can the Minister tell us whether any income made from this plane was made known to Revenue Canada?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I believe all revenue has been reported.
Mr. McDonald:
Can the Minister indicate whether or not, or why, he failed to disclose the income for the $10,000 payment on his disclosure form? He has listed only the YTG payroll as his sole source of income.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I will check to see if the cheque was made payable to me. If it was, I overlooked it.
Mr. McDonald:
I have a photocopy of the cheque and I will table it for the Minister so that he may be reminded.
Can the Minister tell us whether or not he carried on any of the business of Shakwak Air Limited, in particular in the sale of this plane or the transfer of the radio licence, from government offices? Did he use fax machines or government employees to undertake any part of this business?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
Not that I am aware.
Question re: Disclosure statements, John Ostashek
Mr. McDonald:
Does the Minister believe that Ministers should be engaged in private business activities while carrying out their public duties?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
What we are doing is just selling some assets.
Mr. McDonald:
They are not just any assets; they are the assets of a privately held company with which the Minister has no relationship.
I would like to ask the Minister a question about the Public Government Act in the context of the same matter. The Public Government Act, section 20, expressly forbids any kind of business activity by a Minister of the Crown. Can the Minister tell us if the need to carry on private business activities is the reason the government has chosen not to proclaim the Public Government Act?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
The Member opposite is fully aware that is not the case at all. The act is being broken down into three different acts, and we will be bringing them back to the Legislature in that form.
Mr. McDonald:
Unfortunately, we have a situation here where the Minister, as gatekeeper of ethical conduct within the government, has to be the one to delineate between private interests and public interests, distinguishing when public interests become private and vice versa.
A disclosure statement has been made to the Legislature that was apparently incorrect. A Minister has undertaken business activity clearly on behalf of a business of which he is no longer an officer. In so doing, that Minister is creating some concern among a number of members of the public and certainly among many Members in the Legislature. There is concern that the ethical practices of the government have been called into question. Can the Minister indicate to us when he is going to be proclaiming sections of the Public Government Act, or when the Government Leader is going to be addressing the issue of conflict of interest and the ethical practices of his government through legislation?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
That legislation is going through the process now, and we hope to introduce that legislation to the Legislature this fall.
Question re: Government Services, Deputy Minister appointment
Mr. Cable:
I have some questions for the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission and the Department of Government Services.
Last Friday, there was an announcement that a Mr. Michael Brandt had been appointed as deputy minister.
Could the Minister indicate how many persons applied for the job of deputy minister and how many people were interviewed?
Hon. Mr. Nordling:
No, I will not give specific numbers. There were a number of Yukoners who applied for the position and more than one person was interviewed.
Mr. Cable:
Could the Minister indicate what the secret is as to why he cannot tell the public and this House how many people applied for the job?
Hon. Mr. Nordling:
I do not think that is relevant. I do not know that anything turns on that; I do not know what the Member for Riverside wants to do with that. If there is some reason for that information, I would be pleased to talk to him about it, but in the hiring of deputy ministers, it is not a normal process that we would stand up and talk about details of the hiring.
Mr. Cable:
I am somewhat surprised that it is a secret. Could the Minister indicate why the pay range that was set out in the ad that was placed in the paper on March 16 was from $77,715 to $119,624 - a spread of 64 percent, using the lower part of the range as a base. Was it anticipated that this position would be filled on what is called an underfill basis?
Hon. Mr. Nordling:
That is not the case at all. There were several different categories of deputy ministers in the past and I am surprised the Member was not aware of that. What the government has done is to make one single range for all deputy ministers so they can move within that range. That is the range for every deputy minister in this government - approximately $78,000 to $119,000 a year.
Question re: Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment, minutes
Mrs. Firth:
I have a question for the Government Leader about the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment. It relates to openness of government in providing information to the public; it looks as if we are batting zero on that today.
I wrote a letter to the chair of the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment to ask why I was not being sent
Page Number 2359
copies of the minutes of the meetings, which had been the practice of the previous government. I received a response saying that it was the council's view that the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment meetings are not matters of public record, and therefore will not be distributed. I was told that a quarterly report would be provided to interested members of the general public and the chair had taken the liberty of placing my name on that list - bless his heart.
Last week in the House, the Minister responsible for this council stood up in response to a question from the Member for Riverside and said, and I will quote from Hansard: "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." I would like to ask the Minister responsible for this council why people can sit in on the meetings, but we cannot, as Members of this Legislature, or the chambers of commerce or mines have copies of the minutes of the meetings?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I will tell the Member opposite that I was just as surprised as she was when I saw that briefing note. I will check on it and find out. My understanding was that the council meetings were public meetings. I know that some Members have sat in on some of the meetings. There is a possibility that some of them are not public, but I will check on that for the Member opposite. If they are public meetings, the minutes should be available.
Mrs. Firth:
Could the Minister tell us what his position is? The debate that arose in this House from questions that were raised by the Member for Riverside were with respect to who was setting the terms of reference, and who was taking the lead role with this council. I understand that the Minister set the terms of reference. He stood up in the House and said that the meetings were public. Are they public or not?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I know that some of the meetings are public. It may be that the council meetings that serve as caucus meetings are not public. Maybe those are the ones for which they do not want to release the minutes. I will check for the Member and get the information back to her.
Mrs. Firth:
Can the Minister tell us if he thinks that the minutes should be public? Will he ask council to make the minutes of the meetings public, as they were before?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
If it is a public meeting that people can sit in on, there is no reason that the minutes should not be public. If they are having caucus meetings that they want to keep confidential for some reason, they will have to explain that to me. I will get a full briefing for the Member opposite.
Question re: Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment, minutes
Mrs. Firth:
I want to follow up with the same Minister regarding the same subject. The previous government was criticized by the Members opposite for not being forthcoming with information. I have a letter from the Minister from the previous government saying this: "Regarding requests for minutes from the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment, I am informed through the secretary that all MLAs are on the mailing list for minutes and reports." Apparently they went to the chambers of commerce and mines and so on. I would like to ask the Minister whether he changed the policy when he gave direction to the council to say that minutes would not be sent to the MLAs, or if the council is doing that on their own. If they are, why is the Minister not aware of it, after he sat down and had this little chat with the chairman of the council?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I certainly did not issue a change of instructions about how the minutes should be handled; I want to make that very clear for the Member opposite.
The chair of the council has not discussed this with me. I was just as surprised as she was when I saw the reply that came back. I will check into it and get her a full briefing on the matter.
Mrs. Firth:
I do not want a briefing. I want a commitment from the Minister that we can have the minutes. He is the one who sets the guidelines.
If the Minister has stood up and said that he has not discussed that, and he was under the impression that we were still getting the minutes, why can he not just give us a commitment this afternoon that he will tell the chair of the council to continue to provide MLAs with the minutes, as has happened in the past?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
In fairness to the council, I should at least hear what they have to say. In my opinion, the minutes should be public information. If the meetings are public information, they have to have some valid reason for not distributing them. I want to know that reason.
Mrs. Firth:
The Minister has stood up in this House and said he has had a chat with the chair of this council. This afternoon, he has told us that they did not talk about the minutes, but he said he was just as surprised as I was and saw no reason why MLAs should not receive the minutes. Now he is standing up and saying that perhaps he should talk to them, in order to find out why they do not want to give them to us. What does the Minister think?
Does the Minister want us to have the minutes or not? He is the one setting the terms of reference for the council; the council chair is not telling him what to do. Perhaps things have changed. Perhaps he is not the Leader any more.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
Perhaps the Member is not the Member for Riverdale any more either.
I think it is only fair to let the council give me the explanation for that letter. At that point, if they have a valid reason, I will bring it back to the House and we can debate it. I am prepared to make the minutes available to the public.
Question re: Stevens subdivision
Ms. Moorcroft:
Last week, I tabled a petition on behalf of 67 Ibex Valley residents, asking the Minister of Community and Transportation Services not to proceed with the proposed Stevens subdivision until the petitioners' concerns had been satisfactorily addressed. I realize that the Minister has a few days left before he is obliged to respond to that petition in this House. However, I would like to ask, now that the Minister has met with the hamlet residents, could he give us some indication of his present intentions with respect to the Stevens subdivision?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
The Stevens subdivision will be proceeding on schedule. The number of lots will be somewhat fewer than initially intended; there will be 32 lots instead of 47. There have been some buffer zones created and the lots have been enlarged somewhat, out of respect for the nearby residents' wishes.
Ms. Moorcroft:
I have a letter from an Ibex Valley resident, which I am prepared to table at this time, that explains how this side got involved in this issue in view of the failure of the Members opposite to respond to their concerns.
I expect the Member is well aware that the hamlet chair is on the executive of another political party and not affiliated with the NDP. The letter from the hamlet resident says that at the March 9 hamlet meeting Mr. Brewster was asked to sign the petition and declined.
The hamlet chair has worked very hard to have the concerns heard by the Yukon government through meetings and correspondence.
Could the Minister give an undertaking at this time that he will be more attentive and responsive in future dealings with community members and local governments, such as the Ibex Valley hamlet?
Page Number 2360
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
I think the Member opposite summed it up quite well, when she said the chair of the hamlet council is affiliated with another political party. There has been a lot of politics involved in this particular issue. I believe this has been one of the best consultation processes I have seen in government. There were some issues that could have been handled better by the Yukon government, and there are many issues that could be handled better by the Ibex Valley hamlet council; however, I believe all the concerns have been addressed.
Ms. Moorcroft:
The hamlet council chair was acting in the interests of the hamlet council residents. A few days ago, the Mayor of the City of Whitehorse indicated to the media that he felt the territorial government had already paid too much attention to the Ibex Valley concerns. I can assure him the residents do not agree.
Will the Minister assure the House that he will not respond to the political pressure from the Mayor of Whitehorse until he has met the conditions of the petitioners not to proceed?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
I will take into consideration the concerns of both the Mayor of the City of Whitehorse and the City of Whitehorse residents, as well as the concerns of the adjacent Hamlet of Ibex Valley.
Question re: McLean Lake gravel quarry
Ms. Moorcroft:
The residents of Ibex Valley are not the only ones who have been having trouble getting answers to concerns about gravel quarries. At last week's meeting at Ibex Valley, the Minister told residents of McLean Lake that he had been down their road and understood their concerns about the commercial gravel quarry in the area.
Will the Minister tell us exactly what his department is doing to allay the fears of McLean Lake residents about noise, dust, road conditions, unsafe traffic conditions and environmental hazards associated with this quarry?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
I indicated to one of the residents who was at the Ibex meeting that Community and Transportation Services would look at trying to do something about the dust problem at McLean Lake. I would like to remind the Member opposite that this is within the City of Whitehorse and is a City of Whitehorse responsibility. However, I do feel that, when the quarry was created at McLean Lake, probably the Yukon government should have addressed those concerns about dust at the time. I do not believe they did, so in that respect I am willing to work with the city and with those residents to try and alleviate the situation.
Ms. Moorcroft:
I am pleased to hear that the Minister wants to work with the residents. They have been writing letters to him for months now. The Yukon government did develop this quarry and leased it to the City of Whitehorse. Now the Minister and the city seem to be playing pass the buck on a number of serious and legitimate concerns.
What conditions did the government attach to the lease agreement with the city to meet the safety and environmental concerns of the McLean Lake residents?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
The residents of McLean Lake have not been writing to me. I have one letter that was delivered on Friday from one of the residents at McLean Lake. The issue is with the City of Whitehorse; it is totally within the jurisdiction of the City of Whitehorse.
Ms. Moorcroft:
Perhaps he should talk with his departmental officials, then. They have certainly been receiving a number of letters over the months and this issue has been raised previously in the House - in the last session. I should remind the Minister of a comment made at the Ibex Valley meeting, where a McLean Lake resident said, "You have lost sight of the role of government to provide service." I might also remind the Minister that he said very clearly during the recent debate over the Subdivision Act that if quarries are within a community, the hours of operation should be limited.
Will the Minister now undertake to meet one of the concerns of the McLean Lake residents by limiting the quarry's hours of operation or by attaching a condition to that effect to the city's lease or any other related leases?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
I am not going to make any commitments on the floor of this House until I have looked at the whole situation - the whole problem. I do not know whether we have the ability to limit the hours at the quarry. I believe we do if we start up a new quarry but I am not sure that we have for this one, so I am certainly not going to make commitments that I would not necessarily be able to act on.
Question re: Standing committee appointments
Mr. Cable:
I have some questions for the Government Leader on the proposed standing committee on appointments. As the Government Leader will recollect, there were some questions last week and I would like to follow up on them.
The government brought the motion forward - the one on the Order Paper - to set up this committee two months after the last election, but has not proceeded with it, and reasons were advanced in this House about why they did not want to proceed.
The motion deals with appointments to nine major boards and councils, and other advisory bodies, where it is necessary to have a perception of an arm's-length relationship. An example is the college board of governors and the Yukon Electrical Public Utilities Board. The Government Leader has iterated in this House that he thought it desirable that there not be a perception of favouritism or patronage.
Why is the Government Leader reluctant to have the standing committee - the committee itself as opposed to the government - make recommendations to these very important boards and other bodies?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I believe that we debated the motion and our reasons are on record. We believe that as the government we should have the ability to put names forward. We canvass for names from various bodies, groups and individuals. I feel that it would be prudent for the House to vet those names. I do not see anything wrong with doing that, nor do I see anything wrong with our putting the names forward and a committee of the House reviewing the names, in camera, to ensure that the appointment is not viewed as a political, patronage appointment - that the people chosen are qualified to fill the positions for which they are being nominated.
Mr. Cable:
In framing the motion, the government drew a distinction between those nine arm's-length boards and other boards and councils.
The Yukon Party in the past has been critical of the appointment process. The Yukon Party has been in power for 18 months. How has the process been changed?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I believe that our record speaks for itself. We only have to look at the appointments that we have made. While the Members opposite may not agree with the appointments, they certainly were not political, patronage appointments.
Mr. Cable:
It appears that the side opposite is grappling with a process that is perceptionally free of any hint of favouritism and patronage. There was an ex-Prime Minister of this country who said that he was above patronage appointments. That Minister went on to say that non-Tories would receive appointments as soon as there was not a living, breathing Tory around.
This gentleman has gone into oblivion so we do not need to pay much attention to his views.
Page Number 2361
Would the Government Leader assure this House that membership in a political party is in no case a determining factor in any appointment that has been made by this government to any board or commission?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
We not only have a past Prime Minister, we have a Prime Minister now who made the same comments about patronage appointments and then acted in the opposite manner. We certainly do not look at which party they belong to before we appoint them to a board. While I am on my feet, I will give a solution to the Member opposite. If one wants to vet them, we are prepared to discuss the motion that is on the books. We are prepared to discuss it at any point.
Question re: Legal aid
Ms. Commodore:
My question is for the Minister of Justice, regarding legal aid. On Friday, April 15, the Yukon News reported that the Yukon Law Society voted to remove its three members from the board of the Legal Services Society to demonstrate its concern over the massive cuts to legal aid. In a news release, the Law Society explained that it was removing its members because of a lack of confidence in the ability of the Legal Services Society to continue to provide adequate public legal services, due to insufficient funding. I would like to ask the Minister if he has had any indications from, or discussions with, the Law Society about whether or not it will be renominating members to the board.
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
No.
Ms. Commodore:
On the same day, the Minister was quoted as saying that his department would be providing the Legal Services society with a policy person, to help them develop some alternatives and options. Can the Minister tell the House whether this policy person is in place, and what alternatives and options have been developed so far.
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I understand that there is a policy person being made available. The issue really has to do with examining options in the event that all the contracts for legal aid, the various circuits, are not bid on.
Ms. Commodore:
I understand that the board of Legal Services Society has entered into a $60,000 contract with three Whitehorse lawyers for the provision of legal aid services in Whitehorse and that this contract expires at the end of this month. Can the Minister tell the House how legal aid services will continue to be provided to the Yukon after this contract expires?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I thought the Member was aware that the Legal Services Society is going to be tendering out the various circuits for legal aid. That is supposed to be a process that is completed by the end of May.
Question re: Destruction Bay road maintenance camp
Ms. Moorcroft:
According to the Whitehorse Star of July 28, 1980, the current Government Leader was one of the Progressive Conservatives picked to fight his own government's decision to shut down the road maintenance camp at Destruction Bay that year. "John Ostashek was chosen to spearhead a campaign to keep a road maintenance crew stationed in Destruction Bay." History seems to be repeating itself. Today's Minister of Community and Transportation Services has announced - not in this House, which would have been appropriate - that he plans to close down the Destruction Bay highway maintenance camp. The residents are just as concerned today as they were 14 years ago about the fact that five permanent positions will be lost, to the detriment of their community. Given that highways supervisors and workers will now have to be transported and housed, and school facilities will have to be provided for students from Burwash Landing, how does the Minister expect this closure to save taxpayers money?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
That was a very interesting article that they pulled out of the archives. It was not that they were going to close the camp, it was the process.
Some Hon. Member:
(Inaudible)
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
It is not sick. I do not know whether or not the Member opposite was part of the government at that time. The fact remains that the government came along around the first of August and said that they were going to close the camp on the first of September.
Ms. Moorcroft:
The problems with the process are exactly the same problems that we have today. The Ministers met in Destruction Bay and reversed the decision, because they had not adequately consulted with residents prior to doing it. All they are doing here now is moving costs around; they are not saving any money. What is the rationale for keeping a heated garage in Destruction Bay, and transferring the mechanic position to Haines Junction?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
I think that there is quite a difference in the process. We are saying that it will probably be two to three years before the Destruction Bay camp is closed. It will be after the Shakwak project is completed. There will be some major cost savings. We want to make absolutely certain that what we are doing is right, so for the first year we wanted to keep the garage in operation by keeping it heated and keeping the lights turned on, and if, in fact, we are unable to maintain the road from Haines Junction and Beaver Creek, we may very well have to put some more people in Destruction Bay.
Ms. Moorcroft:
I think that they have the lights out over there already. There are eight creeks in that area that threaten washouts on the highway. Local knowledge of weather and road conditions cannot be replaced with maintenance from Haines Junction and Beaver Creek. Have they done any maintenance to prevent this kind of flooding?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
There is approximately $110 million Canadian being spent on the road, which will alleviate most of the glaciation that she is talking about.
Question re: Game farming
Mr. Harding:
I have a question for the Minister of Renewable Resources. It is one that I have asked before.
I have told the Minister before, and he is well aware, that a number of groups have raised concerns about his government's actions concerning game farming, including CYI, the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment, the Yukon Fish and Wildlife Management Board and the Yukon Fish and Game Association. The Minister has heard these concerns. Is he going to listen to people or is he just going to forge ahead with this policy, as he has said in the past that he would do?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
The game farming regulations will be released within the next week. There is a 60-day review.
Mr. Harding:
These groups, organizations and people are all aware that the regulations are being put out for 60 days. That is not the problem. They are not happy with the basis of the regulations and where they come from. Is the Minister prepared to listen to these people, their concerns and questions about the industry in general, or is he just going to push ahead with these regulations as proposed?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
I met with some of these people Friday. I believe they went from there over to the Member for Faro. Yes, I listened; however, a number of arguments they presented are completely covered in the game regulations.
Mr. Harding:
I was in Faro on Friday. I never saw any of these people. I do not know who the Minister went with, but that is a very interesting point he just made. I am getting used to that from the Minister; he likes to show off for the cameras.
I would like to ask the Minister of Renewable Resources if he
Page Number 2362
is prepared to refer the whole issue of game farming to the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment. If they came to him with the representation that they would like to review the entire industry, proposals and regulations, would he agree to that?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
The Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment has met with the previous government. They have written, asking us for the information. They would like to see it and review it. Yes.
Speaker:
The time for Question Period has now elapsed.
We will now proceed with Orders of the Day.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
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. Are we prepared to take a break at this time?
Some Hon. Members:
Agreed.
Chair:
We will take a brief recess.
Recess
Chair:
I will now call Committee of the Whole to order. We will be continuing with Bill No. 15.
Bill No. 15 - Second Appropriation Act, 1994-95 - continued
Executive Council Office - continued
Chair:
Is there further general debate on the Executive Council Office?
Mr. Harding:
The Yukon Party made much of their policy of wanting to involve employees in the election campaign. There was also the infamous article in The Sluice Box, by Mr. Merv Miller, which made specific reference to, as part and parcel of this, the fact that they were going to develop a suggestion box and utilize it to get suggestions from employees on how to eliminate waste in government and perform a better service to the public.
Last session, we discussed the suggestion box at some length. We found that the government had not gotten around to it, that a committee had been established, and there was a political point man from Cabinet in the group implementing the suggestion box. We had some information that there were a couple of prototypes developed for the suggestion box, but they had not quite gotten around to coming up with a firm plan for its implementation.
We are very interested in finding out how the suggestion box is coming along. Can the Government Leader tell me how the suggestion is moving along, some 18 months into their mandate?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
The suggestion box is in place. It is working very well, I believe. It went into effect March 1. To date, we have received 53 suggestions from employees and eight suggestions from members of the general public. At present, there are 58 suggestions under active consideration. One has been referred to another source, because it falls outside the scope of the program, and two have been declined, because they do not fall within the terms of reference of the plan.
Mr. Harding:
From listening to the government, there was significant person power committed to this project for the development of the suggestion box. Can the Minister tell me how many people worked on this particular box and how much time was spent developing the suggestion box?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I cannot tell the Member exactly how much time was spent, but to date there has been $1,600 spent on the advertising program, and $1,550 has been spent on brochures and posters.
The administration of the program has been done through the Bureau of Management Improvement and internal staff time provided by other departments.
Mr. Harding:
It seemed to me from the last session that there were considerable person hours put toward this project. There was a statement made, I believe, that one of the political people was given the task of being the point man for Cabinet in seeing this project come to fruition.
Maybe I will start there. Is it correct that there was a political person put on the group that was developing this project?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I do not really think that was the case. Largely, it was the Good Government Committee that was responsible for setting this up.
Mr. Harding:
Was Mr. Grant Livingston on that committee?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I believe the person mentioned is liaison between the political people and the committee.
Mr. Harding:
Can the Minister provide me with an estimate of how much time and person hours have been spent in the development of this suggestion box, and could he also tell me how many hours are committed to the administration, so that we get some estimate about the cost to government for this?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I do not have that information at my fingertips. I will see what I can bring back for the Member.
Mr. Harding:
When suggestions are turned down, how is that communicated to the people who originally made them?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I understand it is by written reply.
Mr. Harding:
What are the criteria or terms of reference for determining whether or not a suggestion will be implemented, and who is making the decisions in this area?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
The Bureau of Management Improvement makes the decisions. I will see what I can get for the Member about the criteria.
Mr. Harding:
Who is in the Bureau of Management Improvement - it is not the same as the Good Government Committee, I assume?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
The Bureau of Management Improvement is a branch within the Executive Council Office and it is headed up by Don Trochim.
Mr. Harding:
I assume they have been provided with some terms of reference. The Government Leader has told me today he cannot tell me what they are now, but I would assume he would have some knowledge as to where the terms and references were decided. Did they come from Cabinet?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
If the Member opposite would be good enough to review the mounds and mounds of information that were tabled in the last session - he has all that information.
Mr. Harding:
I do not really have time right now. I am in the middle of questioning the Government Leader, who has headed up the suggestion box. When I ask the Government Leader a question, maybe rather than give me a smart answer, he could just tell me. If he knows this was tabled last session, obviously he knows the answers. Maybe he could tell me, if he has thought about it a minute, what the terms and references are, and where they came from.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
Obviously, if the Member opposite was reading the information he got, he would not have to ask the question again.
Page Number 2363
Mr. Harding:
Well, if the Government Leader would give me the answer, I would not have to ask the question again either. This is ridiculous; there is no need to have to be going back and forth like this, I am just asking a simple question of the Government Leader. Can he give me some broad definition of the terms of reference, and can he also tell me if there is a suggestion box in each department? Is it in Education? Is it in Economic Development? Is it throughout the government?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
There is a government-wide program, and some departments have their own little suggestion boxes as well.
Mr. Harding:
He did not answer the first part. What are the broad terms of reference of the suggestion box?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I suggest the Member read the return that was tabled.
Mr. Harding:
One of the things that I find with this government is that very, very often terms of reference change, policies change from sentence to sentence with this government, terms of reference change from question to question in Question Period. I have reviewed the terms of reference that were tabled in the last session - but what I am wondering is, since the prototype has been completed and now implemented, have there been any changes to the terms of reference, and if there have been no changes, can he tell me why there have been no changes?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
Yes, perhaps he should do that. To my knowledge, there has been no change.
Mr. Harding:
Is that because the suggestion box has been working so well, in the Government Leader's opinion?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
It was implemented March 1. It seems like it is working fairly well.
Mr. Harding:
Let ustry a little acid test then. Of the suggestions that have been made, which ones have saved money?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
As I said, this is very new. I am not sure how many have been implemented yet. I can prepare a list of what has happened to them for the Member, and where they are in the program. If there is any further information, I will get back to the Member with it.
Mr. Harding:
This is a critical question. This idea was highly promoted by the government as being an eliminator of unnecessary government action, duplication and bureaucracy - all those good buzz words were there that would appeal to certain people.
Could the Minister tell me if he has any idea if any of the suggestions have saved any money at all? Can he give us some broad statement about where this thing is going? He has made the claim that it is working very well. It has been over two months now. Surely there must be some indication of how they are doing. There must be some that are easy to carry out.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I will get back to the Member on that.
Mr. Harding:
I do not want to be buried under an avalanche of paper, as the Member tried to do last year. I would expect that if the claim is made in the Legislature that the suggestion box is working - and there was considerable political mileage made on this by the government in terms of how they were making government better - I would prefer that the Government Leader did not continually stand up and say he will get back to me. I would appreciate it if he could engage in some dialogue with me on this issue. If he cannot tell me what the terms of reference are or if they have saved any money, how can he make the claim that it is working well?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
The Member already has the terms of reference. The suggestions are coming in, so it has been accepted by the membership. Also, 13 out of 16 departments have a lower O&M this year.
Mr. Harding:
The fact is not that 13 out of 16 departments have a lower O&M. We have already established in general debate that the government is actually going to spend more money than it did last year in the budget for this fiscal year. To say that there have been reductions in O&M is interesting. I think that what there has been is a switching of priorities rather than a lowering of O&M costs. We have also determined through budget debate that what has happened is that the O&M for last year's budget was increased to such a degree that there has been a shaving back this year. What we have seen is really nothing but a bit of creative accounting. We are going to get a chance in further debates on Finance and Economic Development to look at this in more detail. We are very much looking forward to that, and we hope that answers will be forthcoming from the government in that area.
Is the Government Leader telling me that he is going to provide me with a return detailing the amount of money that has been saved, the status of the suggestions - the reconfirmation of the terms of reference of the suggestion box program?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I said I would look into it, and I will get the Member whatever information is available.
Mrs. Firth:
I understand that we are still on general debate in the Executive Council Office. I want to begin by asking the Minister responsible some policy questions about contracting within the Executive Council Office. Can the Minister tell me approximately what percentage and dollar value of the ECO budget has been allocated specifically for contracts?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
If the Member opposite would continue her line of questioning, my assistant will look up that exact number for her.
Mrs. Firth:
Of course I am interested in seeing what contracts have been issued. I understand that the government has traditionally tabled a list of contracts at the end of the fiscal year. I know that other Members of the Opposition have requested the list of contracts. I am interested in it as well. Perhaps the Minister could answer the general question about when we will be getting the overall list of contracts, and could he indicate to me which contracts have been issued from this specific department for which he is responsible?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
As for the contract lists, they will be tabled the same time they generally are in the spring. I believe that is about the middle of May. As soon as they are all finalized, they will be tabled. We could probably look back to when they were tabled last year, and they will be tabled about the same time this year.
On the departmental use of contracts, the department has reduced its budget for contract services to $486,800 from $569,700. Contracts are used to acquire specialized short-term resources, and the contract budget breaks down as follows: Cabinet and management support, $23,000; land claims, $146,000; policy and communications, $43,000; French language, $252,000; aboriginal languages, $47,000; management improvement, $16,000; Bureau of Statistics is increased by $43,000 for technical assistance and design services for publications. That is the breakdown of the contract monies.
Mrs. Firth:
I made a quick list of that. When we get into the line-by-line debate, I will have more specific questions with respect to all of those amounts.
In the Executive Council Office, how do they determine who is going to be the most suitable contractor? How do they decide who gets what contract?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
It is my understanding that it is a combination of public tendering and sole-sourcing. When you get into aboriginal languages and French language, I believe those are sometimes sole-sourced because there are not enough people around to bid on them. We do use a combination of public tendering and sole-sourcing.
Mrs. Firth:
Can the Minister indicate to us what safety
Page Number 2364
mechanisms are in place, or what checks and balances they have in place, so that the maximum allowable for sole-sourced contracts is $10,000? There was some criticism from the Auditor General that the $10,000 could be expanded into $20,000 or $30,000, and I think one of the examples they used was up as high as $90,000.
What checks and balances are in place in this department to see that that does not happen with sole-sourced contracts?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
All sole-sourced contracts have to be approved by the Management Board. That is the check and balance.
Mrs. Firth:
With all due respect, that does not give me a lot of comfort. I sometimes think Management Board is not able to check and balance, in light of some of the issues that have been raised in the House lately.
I would feel more comfortable if the Minister could give me a more definitive answer about how they are going to address the concern the Auditor General raised in his report with respect to sole-sourcing to ensure there was no contract that ended up costing more than $10,000. Every one of these is over the $10,000 limit for sole-sourcing. What procedures or processes are in place to see that the sole-sourced contract ability does not end up going to $43,000 in statistics, $23,000 in Cabinet support, or $146,000 in land claims? What is the process in place to see that the abuse does not continue, as was pointed out?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
First of all, the numbers I read out are for a variety of contracts. They are not for one specific contract in each one of those categories. That is what is set aside for the whole year.
I would welcome suggestions. I do question it when I see a repetitive sole-sourced contract coming in to go to Management Board. They come to my desk before they go to Management Board. I check on them there to find out the reason the contract is sole-sourced because I know, as does the Member opposite, that it does not look right for government to just keep renewing sole-sourced contracts. I am cognizant of that, but if the Member has some other suggestions she would like to enlighten me with, I would be happy to hear them.
Mrs. Firth:
What the Minister is really saying, then, is that they have not addressed the issue or the concern that the Auditor General raised and that there is nothing in place to see that there is a check and balance on the sole sourcing, because he is looking for me to make some suggestions as to how to deal with it. Obviously, I have to draw the conclusion that they are not dealing with it yet and that there is no check-and-balance system in place to see that it is not being abused.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I told the Member the checks and balances we have in place. She does not believe in those checks and balances, so I am asking her for some constructive suggestions if she feels there is some other way we should be doing it. We have recognized the problem and are trying to address it. I do not know if the Member has any examples from the last year or so that she wants to point out to me - maybe I can give her an explanation for them, maybe I cannot. I do not know, but I am open to suggestions.
Mrs. Firth:
I am not trying to be confrontational here, but the Government Leader has to have an appreciation of the information we have been given as Opposition Members, just recently, and I will lay it out for the Minister so that he can see where I am coming from.
The Auditor General pointed out that sole-sourcing was a concern. I asked the Minister just last week about the suggestion to increase the limits on sole-sourcing. The Government Leader told me that, personally, he was not in favour of increasing it but they were going to talk to someone - some engineers or somebody had some problems with it - and that he was subject to some abuse about not consulting so he wanted to wait and get some input about it. That is the kind of thing I would have expected the Minister to give me today as an example of a method to avoid abuse - that he was prepared to make some specific decisions with respect to the limits and the amounts. Because the Auditor General has criticized the $10,000 limit, I would not think the government would even be considering raising it to $25,000, let alone $50,000. I would not think that would even be in the program, no matter what consulting was being done.
I made a recommendation last week that they not raise the sole-sourcing limit. The business about Management Board being the check and balance does not give me a lot of comfort in light of the issue we have just been through with the contract for Mr. Boylan. We were told that the contract was a small amount, a small contract, but we find out that it was two sole-sourced contracts for the maximum limit.
I am not just being obnoxious here; I have some good reasons for asking these questions. I would feel more comfortable, and I think a lot of my constituents and other Yukoners would, in knowing that the public purse was not only being protected but in some way being respected if the government was looking at putting some specific processes in place to address the concern that was raised by the Auditor General.
I am just asking the Minister if he could tell me if there have been any specific steps taken, or any specific initiatives put in place, to see that those abuses do not keep recurring. Has he even given any verbal guidelines to his managers? I am just looking for some hope that someone there is addressing the concerns that were raised and that we are getting a handle on the abuses that have taken place in the past.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I appreciate the Member's concern. I would hesitate to call them all abuses. Because a sole-sourced contract is renewed with another sole-sourced contract does not really mean it is an abuse.
In the case of the person the Member just mentioned, there were some very valid and legitimate reasons for the contract to be renewed. There was no intention of renewing the contract until one of the parties decided to change their mind and continue to pursue the contract. The time limit had passed so we had to renew the contract.
In reply to the Member's question, the Member is right, I do believe that the $10,000 is high enough. This government is not entertaining raising that amount at this point. I did say to the Member opposite that, in the contract review, this is one of the recommendations that has come from the private sector for certain types of contracts. This is not to say that this is going to happen.
As far as giving verbal instructions, I question departments all of the time. If, during my review, I see repetitive contracts, which this government tries to avoid - whether they are $10,000, $5,000 or $3,000 - there have to be legitimate reasons for putting out another contract without going through the tendering process for the whole contract. We are trying to address the issue in that respect.
Mrs. Firth:
I guess we will have to let some more time pass to see how the processes work and what happens with the government's track record. So far, it is questionable, and I am being most generous in saying that.
I will follow up with the Minister regarding the specific contracts when we come to the specific line items.
I want to ask the Minister another question in general discussion about advertising.
I understand that the advertising negotiations with the newspaper and media outlets used to take place predominantly through Government Services. That is not happening now that this function is taking place through the Executive Council Office.
Page Number 2365
I understand that the Executive Council Office was sitting in on the negotiations regarding advertising rates.
Could the Minister tell me why the government made that change?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
One of the reasons for the change is that advertising is part of the communications branch of the Executive Council Office, so the advertising is now let between the communications branch and Government Services.
Mrs. Firth:
So, it is because it is part of communications. Does that even include negotiating the prices with the radio, newspapers and TV - something that was formerly done in the Department of Government Services?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
Yes, that is part of the mandate of the communications branch.
Mrs. Firth:
Can the Government Leader provide me with a copy of the new, expanded mandate of the communications part of the Executive Council Office?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
What I have here in the budget book is: "The policy and communications branch is responsible for developing government communications policies and procedures, overseeing corporate communications, and proposing and providing leadership in gaining understanding and public acceptance of government directions and priorities. The branch also provides communications services to departments that do not have designated communications personnel, on a negotiated basis.
Mrs. Firth:
I would like something a little more specific than that from the Minister, because this has been a major shift of responsibility, a major change in policy direction. I would like the Minister to provide me with all the new policies, with respect to communications and advertising, and I would like him to provide me with all the changes that have been made with respect to why advertising is negotiated in the ECO - why it is considered to be part of the communications responsibility now - and I would like to ask him when the decision was made, and could he also, when he brings that information back, tell us who is predominately responsible for running that communications function.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I will get the information for the Member. The director of policy and communications, Kimberley Bain, is the one who heads that department.
Mrs. Firth:
Could the Minister tell me what the estimated advertising budget is for the Executive Council Office in this budget year?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
If I look at the budget sheet, the total policy and communications O&M budget is $1,145,000.
Mrs. Firth:
I am interested in just the part for advertising.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
That number is $15,000.
Mrs. Firth:
So, $15,000 is for the whole government - the whole ECO?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
Not for the whole government, just for ECO.
Mrs. Firth:
May I take it then that the $1,145,000 is the advertising budget for the overall government?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
No, that would be the O&M of the policy and communications branch. It must be more than that. The total budget is not that big for ECO.
Well, that is what it says here. It is for the whole branch - personnel and everything else.
Mrs. Firth:
In order to help the Minister out, I want to get some idea of how the government decides what advertising campaign they are anticipating, where they get the money and so on. An example is this service improvement program - the brochure that went out to the public. I would consider that part of an advertising campaign. There are always brochures and flyers coming out for the public's information. I want to know how much money we will spend this year on this kind of production of what some people might call propaganda. I would like to know the budget for those kinds of documents for the department for this coming year.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
We will find out the size of the budget, but that would be part of the advertising budget. I do not have the breakdown in this book, but that $513,000 would be part of communications.
Mrs. Firth:
Just so I can outline fairly specifically for the Minister and his officials what information I want regarding the advertising, I want to make sure the information that is brought back includes some comment on how the determination is made on when to advertise positions or programs, how the Executive Council Office determines the most appropriate method for advertising, what their current policy is regarding advertising, and what the government's current policy is concerning the procedures the Executive Council Office, or other departments, must follow when they design and place their ads. That is ads for all the media: radio, newspaper, TV, or other types of circulars, like the one I held up this afternoon. That is in conjunction with the question about when the policy change to move it from Government Services over to the Executive Council Office took place.
I would appreciate having that information so I can ask further questions when we get into the line-by-line debate.
I want to ask some general questions about the Bureau of Management Improvement. From my understanding, there have been over 60 suggestions submitted to this program, whether by suggestion boxes or other means. The 60 suggestions are supposedly now under active consideration.
What does that mean? Could the Minister tell us what it means when he says they are under active consideration?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I would presume that they are under discussion internally in the Bureau of Management Improvement and are being discussed with the people who offered the suggestions, as well as with the various departments the suggestions apply to, to see how much merit there is in incorporating them.
Mrs. Firth:
In this piece of literature that was sent out, it was stated that people would receive a letter with respect to their suggestions. Can the Minister tell us whether or not all 60 of these suggestions have been responded to? Did all these people receive a letter thanking them for their submission, with a report to them that it was under active consideration, rejected, or whatever?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I would presume they have been responded to, but I will check for the Member opposite and find out the status of those suggestions and see if they have been replied to.
Mrs. Firth:
There was also a comment made with respect to them not telling us what was in the suggestions, that they had just been referred to government departments for consideration. Is this going to be the policy? Is the government going to keep what the suggestions consist of quiet, and whether they will use them or not? How are we, as MLAs, supposed to determine how this service improvement program is working, and whether or not they are accepting relevant suggestions? Perhaps there are some good ones being rejected. Is that information going to be provided to us, as Members of the Legislature, when suggestions come forward?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I believe there will be reports provided, such as the report I provided today saying that two had been refused and some were being acted on. As that progresses, I believe the reports will be coming forward saying how many suggestions have been acted on. There will be updates for the Legislature about how the program is going.
Mrs. Firth:
Some people say I am kind of fussy, but I like to make my own determinations and evaluations of how a program is going. In order to do that, I may from time to time ask the Minister if they are going to be prepared to share the suggestions
Page Number 2366
that are coming forward with Members of the Legislature so that we can determine and evaluate whether the Delivering Good Government Committee is being utilized to its fullest capacity. Perhaps we may agree that some suggestions should be pursued that the committee has not pursued. I think that if the public is being invited to make these suggestions, they are not top secret or anything. I would hope that the Minister would be prepared to at least entertain the idea of providing us with them. I would like to ask if he would provide them to us.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I do not mind sharing what information I can with the Member, but the program has a provision for some suggestions to be made in confidentiality. I am not sure whether or not that would be stipulated at the time of the suggestion, but I will get that information for the Member.
Mrs. Firth:
I would appreciate that. First of all, could the Minister tell us if there are any suggestions that are under active consideration - in other words, suggestions that the government is putting into place?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
It is difficult to figure out in my head. I believe there are 58 that are going through the process right now. Two have been refused outright.
Mrs. Firth:
According to this brochure, if a suggestion is implemented, an acknowledgement will be sent from the committee and the suggestion will be monitored for three to six months to verify that it actually works. Is the Minister saying that there are 58 suggestions that are being actively monitored for three to six months?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
No, I did not mean to mislead the Member opposite. There are 58 that are under active review to determine whether or not they will be implemented.
Mrs. Firth:
None of them have moved to the next stage of being monitored for three to six months - is that correct? I see the Minister indicating that is correct. Could the Minister tell us where this office is physically located?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
If the Member is asking where it is physically located, it is located here in the main administration building, Executive Council Office.
Mrs. Firth:
So it is in the back area? The concern I have is whether or not it is accessible to the public or not. If someone wanted to make suggestions at this office, how would they know where to go? Would anyone know where the office is?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I believe the advertising instructs people about how to make suggestions.
Mrs. Firth:
It does say what are acceptable and unacceptable suggestions. It states who can participate and that a person can mail in the suggestion. Does that mean that people can only mail in their suggestion and that people are not allowed to go to the department to submit suggestions?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
Certainly people can come in to make a suggestion. The information desk will direct people where to go to make suggestions.
Mrs. Firth:
I get the impression that this office is not that accessible to the public and that the government would prefer, as indicated by the brochure, that people mail in their suggestions as opposed to coming in.
The reason I raise this issue is because eight of the 58 active suggestions now under consideration by the government have come from the general public. The remainder of the suggestions have come from government employees.
Perhaps if the program were more accessible, more people from the general public would feel like coming in to make suggestions.
I have another question about the Bureau of Management Improvement and the budget allocation for that office.
How is the government going to determine the effectiveness of this program and evaluate it within the department? How long will the government give the program and what criteria will the government use to evaluate the expenditure of funds just for this bureau?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
The Member opposite will recall that there were vacant positions in the audit branch of the Executive Council Office for years that could not be filled, because the office was looking for a high-quality accountant. We feel that the way we have set up the Bureau of Management Improvement will allow the bureau to look after all of these things. If they need to hire auditors they can do so. The bureau will not have to carry this out themselves.
The program continues to play a crucial role in government in looking for improvements and accountability for public funds, including efficiency and cost-effectiveness.
The internal audit function carries out an active management role by undertaking comprehensive internal audits and value-for-money audits. The program has been downsized from 12 positions to three positions. There are now positions for a director, auditor and research assistant.
We believe that this is a function of the Executive Council Office that was not being carried out. We intend to conduct audits of different branches and in that way we will have better accountability with regard to public funds.
Mrs. Firth:
Can the Minister tell us whether or not they have an audit plan?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
My understanding is that one is being developed right now.
Mrs. Firth:
But the people have been hired; is that correct? Did the people get hired to develop the plan? Obviously they did. Which is the chicken and which is the egg?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
The audit plan is being done by the bureau itself.
Mrs. Firth:
So there is no audit plan in place and it is not completed yet. When does the Minister anticipate it will be completed?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I do not have the date right at my fingertips but I will find out for the Member opposite. I would expect it is going to be shortly.
Mrs. Firth:
I do not want to get fussy again, but I have heard that promise before - the "shortly" promise - and 18 months later I am still waiting for initiatives that were supposed to be here shortly. I wonder if the Minister could be more specific and if he will indicate to the Members of the House that he would be prepared to provide us with a copy of the audit plan once it is done?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
We will follow up on that and check to see when they expect to have it ready.
Mrs. Firth:
I just have one more line of questioning in general questions. I do not want to take up all the other Members' time. I want to ask some questions about the personnel allotments, in a general sense.
The ECO has an allotment of almost $6.5 million just for personnel, which is an increase by our calculations of eight percent from the estimated costs for 1993-94, despite the wage rollback for government employees. Could the Minister explain why that has happened and could he indicate how many employees are included in that $6.5 million payroll?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
As the Member opposite is aware, we had some positions that were not filled last year; the audit department is one place. Those were sitting vacant for a long time and I believe there has been an increase in the French language positions. I do not have the total number of employees right at my fingertips. I may come across it when we get to department by department debate. I do not have the total number of employees right at my fingertips.
Page Number 2367
Mrs. Firth:
It would be helpful if the Minister could provide that information for us. Can the Minister tell us, of the employees who are in the the Executive Council Office, how many are political appointees, as opposed to Public Service Commission appointees?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I believe there are 16.5 political appointees.
Mrs. Firth:
Can the Minister tell us if there are any new positions in Executive Council Office besides the French language positions and the auditor positions that have been filled? Are there any other new ones?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
In the Bureau of Management Improvement, a half-time position went to a full-time position, and there has been one more position added in land claims.
Mrs. Firth:
Is there another position called the director of research in the Executive Council Office?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
Yes, there is.
Mrs. Firth:
Perhaps the Minister could tell us what that position is all about.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
The director of research is the head of the caucus research.
Mrs. Firth:
Is that a new political appointment?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
Yes.
Mrs. Firth:
Is the Minister prepared to share the job description for that position with Members of the Legislature?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I do not see why it would be a secret. It would be similar to what the Member has. It depends on what the job is called, I guess. It is just caucus research.
Mrs. Firth:
I will follow up with that later.
What is the salary level attached to that position? I do not need to know the specific salary, but just the range or the classification for the position.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I understand that it is an MG5.
Mrs. Firth:
Okay.
Ms. Moorcroft:
I would like to ask a couple of questions about an issue we were discussing on Thursday.
The Government Leader referred to some positions that were being recentralized from Dawson City to Whitehorse. There are other positions within government, as well. What is the policy guiding the recentralization of these kinds of positions?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I wish the Member had asked me that question in Question Period; I had the note handy then.
The reason for redeploying them to Whitehorse was because of the decision to relocate the community advisor position from Teslin to Whitehorse and a municipal planner from Dawson to Whitehorse. This was undertaken for the following reasons: most of the work for these positions was better done in Whitehorse, as departments found that the absence of the employees in Whitehorse meant that some of the duties of the positions were shifted to other employees and critical deadlines and initiatives were delayed.
Ms. Moorcroft:
When this issue of decentralization was raised in the Legislature and the Members opposite were in Opposition, they had lots to say about it. They had lots to say, in particular, about the need to provide government services in rural communities. What is this government's commitment to providing government services in rural communities?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
We are committed to providing government services in rural communities, but not at any cost. It has to make sense. We have decentralized three positions with the Anniversaries Commission to Dawson City. Also, there are 12 or 16 positions being placed in Teslin, because of the new Teslin Correctional Facility. The forestry transfer will cause more positions to be decentralized to rural communities.
Ms. Moorcroft:
The Minister also indicated that each department of the government is looking at the positions that have been decentralized in Whitehorse and whether they will fit better in Whitehorse. I have been given a breakdown on why the one position in Teslin and the one position in Dawson were recentralized to Whitehorse.
What is the overall policy guiding this? The Executive Council Office is supposed to coordinate policy development work. What is the policy guiding how they recentralize positions to Whitehorse?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I believe I said during Question Period and general debate the other day that it is ludicrous to have positions decentralized to Dawson City, such as a municipal planner and land planner, and then find that the municipal planner in Dawson and the community advisor in Teslin spend a lot of time in Whitehorse hotels at an additional cost. It does not make much sense.
In those cases, the department - not Cabinet - has put forward the request to redeploy those people back to Whitehorse. It makes more sense for them to be working here in the branch than it does to have them out there.
Ms. Moorcroft:
I disagree with a number of things the Minister has said, but I will just give notice that I will be following them up in the departments.
Ms. Commodore:
I have some follow-up questions in regard to general debate on Thursday about land claims. The Government Leader knows I continue to ask questions about statements he or the City of Whitehorse have made in regard to what is happening. There is some concern by First Nations groups in Whitehorse that the government is not following through on agreements or decisions that have been made.
There was going to be a press conference today at 3:00 p.m. - although I do not believe it happened - so the Kwanlin Dun First Nation could comment on some of the things the Government Leader said.
In regard to comments made, the Kwanlin Dun First Nation believes it has been betrayed by the Ostashek government, according to the news release last Friday, which I believe came from CHON-FM. On CBC, there was some comment by Shirley Adamson from the Ta'an Kwach'an Council about some comments the Government Leader made. They believe that agreements and decisions have been made and that the government is not keeping those promises and is making deals behind their backs.
According to some of the press releases, the response that is coming from the Government Leader's office is that there has been a misunderstanding. According to the news, that comment was made by Dale Drown, the communications person. Can the Government Leader tell me who is being misunderstood here if that is the official comment from the Executive Council Office? Who is Dale Drown saying is being misunderstood? Is it the Government Leader or is it the Kwanlin Dun First Nation or the Ta'an Kwach'an? There appears to be a difference of opinion in all the comments being made.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I can tell the Member one thing - some of the comments that were attributed to me on the Friday newscast were certainly not accurate. I believe that is what the communications advisor was alluding to when he said that. I want to make it very clear to the Member opposite, on the floor of this Legislature, that the waterfront planning for the former White Pass lands from the 20-20 area to the YTG building will not prejudice First Nations selections in the waterfront area. We have made that very clear and we have consistently made this known to Kwanlin Dun at the negotiating table and in correspondence on that subject.
Ms. Commodore:
The discussions that were taking place had to do not only with the waterfront area between this government building and the 20-20 area. That was not the only area in
Page Number 2368
question. It appears that, according to Kwanlin Dun, there have been letters signed and decisions made with regard to no further discussions. I would like to ask the Minister whether or not he agrees that he has followed all of the agreements that have been made, either through an agreement in a letter or an agreement in any land claims discussions they have had. I am really concerned about the comments that Kwanlin Dun and Ta'an Kwach'an are making with regard to discussions going on between the city and this government without their involvement. The Minister stated in this House on Thursday that they have been asked to go to all of these meetings and, despite the fact that they have not been there, they are going to go ahead with the development anyway, and that they have written them letters and have phoned them, and he made a statement about not being able to drag them there.
I really believe that there has to be some understanding between this government and the two First Nations groups in the Whitehorse area before anything is resolved. It appears that that is not happening. Somehow or other, this government has to sit down with them and to try to iron out those problems so that there will not be these two disagreements or even a misunderstanding. Again, I do not know who is being misunderstood. Are they misunderstanding the government or is the government misunderstanding the two First Nations groups in Whitehorse?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I am going to check Hansard from Thursday, but I think the Member has also maybe misinterpreted things. I said nothing - I do not believe I said anything about development. I said planning. Planning has to precede development, and I believe that is what I was talking about. If I said it incorrectly in Hansard I will correct it. What I meant was planning. That is the process that is in place now. The city will be leading that planning. It will be up to the city to contact the First Nations people.
What I want to make clear again here is that the only lands we have been talking about are the former White Pass lands from the 20-20 area to the YTG building.
I guess what really amazes me now is that this comes up as such a concern, and yet when I go back to newspaper articles from March 1989, I read, "Commission to promote development". This is by the Member opposite's administration, and her leader, Mr. Penikett, "... told reporters last week that his government plans to set up a commission this year, and that its first task will be to develop the Whitehorse waterfront. Penikett said that the commission's membership will likely include the territorial government, municipal government, private interests, heritage interests and neighbourhood groups." Mr. Penikett was the leader of the government at that time and he does not even mention First Nations. We want to involve the First Nations in the development of the waterfront. I have the article right here, and he does not even mention First Nations.
This goes on. On January 23, 1991, "Mr. Byblow said that he originally met with city officials, and the planning for the capital commission was in its final stages. He hopes to have legislation introduced in the spring session, and the commission off and running by fall at the latest." This is something that has been ongoing since 1989. I am surprised at the concerns that are being raised by the Member opposite now, when we want to involve First Nations and are making every effort to. Her leader at the time did not even mention them as part of the planning group.
Ms. Commodore:
1989 was a long time ago - it was five years ago. There are certain things that happen over a period of time. What is really happening right now is that there have been some agreements signed. There is some mistrust out there about different decisions being made in regard to some parts of those areas that have been selected. Those decisions that are being made by this government and by the federal government in regard to that land are becoming a very big concern.
Let us understand that what is happening right now is that there appears to be misunderstanding and there appears to be a lack of trust between this government and the two First Nations groups in this area.
Since 1989, there have been four agreements signed. Aboriginal people of the Yukon are trusting that anything further that happens will proceed in the right manner. If the Minister cannot take the responsibility right now for dealing with the situation that exists at the present time, then who is going to? He is the Minister responsible for land claims.
The Minister of Education can sit there and smirk all he wants to, but this is a very serious situation. I think that, somehow or other, the government has to take some responsibility for what is happening. Comments continue to be made. Hansard for last Thursday has a lot of information in it, and I have been told that groups have sat down to go over it to look at statements that were made. It is no laughing matter. I wonder what the Government Leader is going to do in regard to the problems that appear to exist right now - today.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
That is one of the most amazing statements that I have heard.
We are dealing with the situation. I will say again, for the record, we are dealing with the lands from the 20-20 to the YTG building, lands that were purchased by the previous administration, as I understand it, for public use. We are trying to involve the First Nations in the planning process.
We are dealing with the issue. We are not skirting the issue, and we are not making statements similar to those made by the former leader of this government.
Ms. Commodore:
Hansard speaks for itself. It is right here in black and white. Many statements are being made by that Minister. When he talks about statements being made, all one has to do is pick up Hansard and go through it. There are a lot of comments by the Government Leader in there with which First Nations disagree.
The Government Leader can stand here on his feet all that he wants and ignore the situation as it is right now. The Government Leader can ignore the rift between the government and the two groups, which is going to remain.
I would like to ask the Government Leader to provide Yukoners with some assurances that he will look at the situation to find out exactly what is happening and whether or not there is some way that Yukon First Nation groups can feel confident that land claims negotiations will proceed in a trustworthy manner.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
As I said already, that is exactly what we are doing. We are dealing with the First Nations and we have stated our position quite clearly. We have stated that the planning for the waterfront will not prejudice Yukon First Nation land claims on the waterfront.
We certainly want to involve the First Nations. It is my understanding that the Kwanlin Dun First Nation has already been talking with city administrators. This is a new process that has just started. There have been no meetings called yet, but I understand that there have been negotiations between the city administrator and land claims negotiators for Kwanlin Dun.
Ms. Commodore:
There was also a comment on the Friday CBC news. According to Duke Connelly, "Pat Joe and Shakir have been meeting with our administration on waterfront development, so she cannot say that it comes as a complete surprise." Those are Duke Connelly's words. Connelly goes on to say that Yukon First Nations are asking for too much along the waterfront and says that he doubts the City of Whitehorse will ever agree to their claim. That is a pretty negative statement, and I wonder whether or not the Government Leader has any opinion with regard to the statements
Page Number 2369
made by Duke Connelly and the city.
It appears that the government has given the city the responsibility to deal with the waterfront development, and Duke Connelly is making statements to the press that certain things are not going to happen. That is even more scary than what is happening with this government.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
The councillor the Member opposite mentions does not speak on behalf of this government. I want to again reiterate to the Member opposite that we are talking about from the 20-20 to the YTG building - lands that were purchased by the previous administration for public use. That is what we are talking about and I am not going to comment on other land claims or negotiations along the waterfront; those issues will be looked after during land claim negotiations.
Ms. Commodore:
I want to make it very clear that I know exactly what he is talking about. He has stated it about three different times. He is talking about the land from the old 20-20 lot toward the government building. I know exactly what he is talking about. But, there still is some contradiction in regard to that land. It is no laughing matter. People still want to have discussions in regard to that area. It was made very clear by the individuals involved so, somehow or other, that disagreement or misunderstanding has to be dealt with.
If the Minister is just going to stand here and say, "I want to make it very clear to the Member that we are only talking about this area of land," I want him to know that that area of land is still in question, according to the First Nations groups. I would like to ask the Government Leader whether or not he recognizes that, or is he going to ignore it?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I have told the Member time and time again here in the last 10 minutes that we are dealing with the issue at the land claims table. We are dealing with the planning process. The city is going to invite the First Nations to participate. I said last Thursday that I believe they have to be involved in it and we are going to make every effort to involve them in it. I do not know what more the Member wants me to say on the floor of the Legislature. I am not about to start negotiating the land claim on the floor of the Legislature.
Ms. Commodore:
I am not asking him to negotiate the land claims on the floor of the Legislature; I am not asking him to do that at all. I am talking about an issue here that appears to be quite serious, serious enough for Kwanlin Dun, according to the newspaper today, that they are going to have a press conference to talk about some of the disagreements that are happening right now. The Government Leader stands up and says, "It is no big deal, there is no problem. We are doing everything that we can and everything that we are doing is right; there is a misunderstanding," - according to Dale Drown upstairs. Who is misunderstood? He is saying that everything he is doing right is misunderstood by First Nations - is that what he is saying?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I addressed that the first time I got up. The misunderstanding is the difference between planning and development. There has to be planning before there can be development. I do not believe that there is anything wrong with the planning process going ahead.
There is a very serious problem. We are trying to deal with it. The fact remains that we will deal with it, but it will be at the land claims table.
Ms. Commodore:
In that case, First Nations groups have no assurances whatsoever that anything that is happening with regard to the planning and development of the waterfront can be dealt with other than at the land claims table. Is that what the Government Leader is saying?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
That is not at all what I am saying. I said that First Nations people can be involved in the development of the waterfront. I believe they should be involved in the development of the waterfront.
Ms. Commodore:
I will probably have further questions with regard to land claims in that area.
I have one more question regarding devolution. There was some suggestion that the Minister of Indian Affairs had said to this government that First Nations in the Yukon be a part of all the devolution negotiations and discussions that are taking place. I would like the Government Leader to tell me if, in fact, that is going to happen. Does he agree with the Minister of Indian Affairs that that should take place? I understand that it is a policy of the federal government.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
We have been trying to get that in place for over a year now. We will continue to try and get a forum established in which those devolution issues can be addressed, as well as others that arise.
My understanding is that the First Nations have succeeded in convincing the Minister to table the legislation in the House. Perhaps now we will have more time to deal with that issue.
Ms. Commodore:
I am told that the Minister of Indian Affairs has suggested to the Government Leader that First Nations people be part of the consultations and negotiations with regard to devolution. He did not answer my question about whether or not he accepts that. Will this government make sure that First Nations people are part of all discussions that take place with regard to devolution? He seems to think that is quite funny, but I would like to know so that First Nations people can also know.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
As I have said, we have dealt with that issue time and time again. We want the First Nations people involved in the discussions and in putting positions forward to the federal government. It is something we have not been able to accomplish yet, but we will continue to work on it.
Ms. Commodore:
The Minister of Justice indicated to the media that negotiations in regard to the devolution of the Crown Attorney's functions are very positive, and that he expects there will be some kind of an agreement very soon. Has he written to the First Nations, to CYI, to ask them to become involved in discussions with regard to devolution of the Crown attorney's functions?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I would suggest the Member opposite direct that question to the Minister when we get to the Department of Justice.
Ms. Commodore:
This government is responsible for devolution, and I think it comes under the Government Leader's portfolio, the Executive Council Office. I should not have to wait for Justice to come up on the agenda before I get an answer in regard to whether or not CYI has been asked, on behalf of this government, to become involved in the devolution of the Crown attorney's functions. I would like him to tell me right now whether or not he can find out if a letter has been sent, either by him or by the Minister of Justice, in regard to the devolution of the Crown attorney's functions. I should not have to wait until that comes up, because I do not think it comes under his budget. I think it comes under the Executive Council Office.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I can find out, but I think the Member opposite should recall Question Period the other day, when the Minister told her discussions were in a very preliminary stage on the devolution of the Crown attorney office.
Ms. Commodore:
They may be preliminary, but I want to know whether or not they are serious about involving CYI, according to the wishes of the federal Minister, in negotiations or discussions with regard to devolution of all kinds, not just the Crown attorney functions - also mines, lands, resources, forestry, and any other further discussion he might have in regard to devolution.
Is he really serious about involving CYI?
Page Number 2370
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
Certainly we are serious, and that is why we have been working diligently to get a forum set up where we can deal with all the devolution issues, including the Crown attorney's office.
Mr. Cable:
I just have some follow-up questions for the Government Leader on the City of Whitehorse waterfront development.
Does the committee that has been set up have any formal, or written, terms of reference?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
The committee is just in the formation stage. I have had a couple of meetings with the city, and I am meeting with them again this week. The city will consult with them - they will have to; they have been criticized by other groups that they should consult with all groups before going ahead with any plan for the waterfront. That is what this exercise is all about. It is a plan for the waterfront so that, possibly, we can get something in place for the anniversaries.
Mr. Cable:
The reason I ask is because there seems to be some misunderstanding about who is doing what and who is going to be involved.
Has there been any letter setting this committee up that could be tabled, so that we can see the basic underlying terms of reference?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
There has been no letter setting out terms of reference.
The only information that has been exchanged between the city and me is that I expect the city should play the lead role in this planning committee. After all, it is the City of Whitehorse. YTG has a very important role to play in it, but the city should be playing the lead role.
Mr. Cable:
Listening to the interchange and reading the newspaper reports, I am just wondering if part of the misunderstanding arises from the lack of a clear goal for this committee. This committee, as I understand it, is strictly advisory. It has no statutory powers. Am I right?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
The Member opposite is correct. It has no statutory powers.
Mr. Cable:
What product is this committee going to produce? What does the Minister see at the end of the road? What has it actually been charged with doing?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
When the committee is formed, I may be able to give the Member some more definitive information. As I said, the committee has not yet been formed. It is in the process of being formed. The city has been pushing this government very diligently that they want to start moving on the waterfront, and we have been saying to the city that we feel that, because it is the City of Whitehorse - they are the city council - they should play the lead role. We have an important role to play in it, and we will be represented on the committee, but I believe their duty will be to come up with a plan for the development of the waterfront.
Mr. Cable:
The committee of course did not just materialize out of the ether. Something caused the committee to get moving and someone had some instructions. What, in the Minister's view, is the committee going to do? Is it going to sit down to draw up a plan, such as an amendment to the community plan, or is it simply going to talk about economic development on the waterfront?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
As I said, the City of Whitehorse will be playing the lead role in this and I believe that they have to look at the downtown plan in conjunction with the waterfront. I would think that would be a proper process and one of the steps involved in the planning of the waterfront, along with other interest groups, such as First Nations, the Chambers of Commerce, Tourism Industry Association of Yukon, Downtown Business Association - there are many groups. I believe that all of them have to be involved in the planning process.
Mr. Cable:
Is it anticipated that this group will make recommendations about how the waterfront is to be developed or will the recommendations be made in relation to the zoning and use of the lands?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I cannot prejudge that at this time, because I do not have enough information on the subject. Perhaps after my next meeting with the city I will have more information.
Mr. Cable:
As I said, I was wondering if some of the antagonism arises from a lack of clarity as to what this group is supposed to be doing.
On another point, and it is reinforced by what the Minister read from the newspapers of five years ago. What is the Government Leader's position on the formation of a waterfront commission?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
My position is that I do not think it is required. I do not think that the City of Whitehorse is so big that we require a capital city commission.
Mr. Cable:
Does the Minister feel that some overall planning group with some statutory powers is useful or desirable in the circumstances, in view of the multi-government interests that have been related to us over the last few minutes?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
Possibly some recommendations will come out of the planning committee. We will have to wait and see.
Mr. Cable:
The waterfront development has been discussed ever since I have lived here. The chambers of commerce have been beating this drum and various other people have been talking about it, but there seems to be a lot of spinning of tires.
Is the Government Leader prepared to take some initiative in getting this thing moving in the sense of giving some groups some firm direction as to what it is supposed to be doing and not just talking about it in some vague abstract terms?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I have difficulty in instructing the City of Whitehorse as to how they should be developing its waterfront. The Yukon government owns the land on the waterfront and has a role to play in the development, but I think that the initiative has to come from the City of Whitehorse as to how they want to develop the waterfront, not how the territorial government wants them to develop their waterfront. We will have input into the committee and we will be involved in the discussions.
Again, I stress, it is the City of Whitehorse that has to take the initiative and we have given the city the ability to take the initiative by saying that we will sit down and discuss this issue with them, as well as the other groups that they want involved in it - First Nations and other business groups that they want to involve.
Mr. Cable:
I am not suggesting that the Government Leader or the government wander over municipal powers. Surely, with the territorial government being the major land owner, and the two First Nations having contingent claims in the area, there should be some multi-level body created that has some firm direction. Would the Government Leader not agree with that?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
No, I do not agree at this time. I think that there are enough committees in place now.
Chair:
Is it the wish of the Members to take a brief recess at this time?
We will take a brief recess.
Recess
Chair:
I will now call Committee of the Whole to order.
Is there further general debate on Executive Council Office?
On Cabinet and Management Support
Mr. McDonald:
I wonder if the Minister could provide us with a brief explanation of the reasons for the reduction.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
The reduction of $70,700, minus eight percent, is due to $41,000 going to personnel. A term secretarial position was not renewed after March 31, 1994, and there was a
Page Number 2371
salary reduction of management by one percent and non-management by two percent. Thirty thousand is other expenses for out-of-territory travel in contract services, which were reduced.
Mr. McDonald:
On the issue of Cabinet travel, has the Minister committed to release a list of trips that all Ministers have taken in the last year toward fulfilling their duties as Ministers, or has that list been made public already?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I do not believe we have been asked for it yet, but I have no problem with it.
Mr. McDonald:
Could the Minister provide a list of the trips that have been taken and the costs for each Minister? It is a tradition in the House that Ministers divulge that.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I do not believe that will be any problem. We will get it as soon as possible.
Chair:
Is there further debate on Cabinet and management support?
On Activity
On Administration/Secretariat
Administration/Secretariat in the amount of $792,000 agreed to
Cabinet and Management Support in the amount of $792,000 agreed to
On Land Claims Secretariat
Chair:
Is there any general debate?
Mr. McDonald:
I would just ask if the Minister might give us a reason for the five-percent reduction.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
The total for Land Claims Secretariat of $1,406,700 is a decrease of $68,600. This five-percent decrease is due to $11,000 in personnel. Overall staffing levels have remained constant. The reduction is due to changes in wage and benefit packages, and the salary reduction is one percent for management and two percent for non-management. There is $43,000 for implementation funding requirements of $100,000, which are now included in this allotment. This is offset by a reduction of $57,000 in operational spending. There is $100,000 in transfer payments. Implementation funding continues to be provided, but it is more appropriately shown in the Other allotment, because the funds will be transferred to other YTG departments to carry out implementation activities, rather than to agencies outside of government as transfer payments.
Mr. McDonald:
Is it still the policy of the government to have the Deputy Minister of the Executive Council Office to also serve as the chief land claims negotiator?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
Yes, that is correct.
Mr. McDonald:
Does the Minister feel that that is the most efficacious use of the deputy minister's time? Does he feel that he is providing good service, both at the administrative level and for land claims? I only ask that because the view has been expressed that having only one person doing both jobs does a disservice to both jobs. That has come to my attention on a number of occasions in the last year. Does the Minister still feel that this is the best way to handle negotiations?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
Yes, we certainly do. If we did not, we would be making some changes. As the Member opposite will appreciate, the land claims negotiations have been bogged down somewhat with the CYI concentrating more on getting the first four through the House of Commons. If required, if we cannot meet the demands the way things are, we will certainly look at putting one person in charge of the Land Claims Secretariat.
Ms. Commodore:
During general debate, I asked the Government Leader if he had any information that they were reducing the number of federal negotiators. I am just wondering whether or not he might have an answer to that.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
As I said the other day, we are not aware of any, and we have not received any information to that effect.
On Activity
On Land Claims Secretariat
Land Claims Secretariat in the amount of $1,407,000 agreed to
On Policy and Communications
Mr. Harding:
Could the Minister give an explanation for the increase in policy and communications?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
There has been an increase of $23,000, plus $53,000 in personnel. That is a full year budgeted for the senior advisor on national issues. Previous budgets only included a partial year.
In the federal relations office, there is currently a vacant position for the director. Before proceeding with recruitment, a review will be undertaken to determine how best to provide for an effective role for this office. This budget includes salary money for a previously vacant half-time communications officer, and the Executive Council Office provides services to an increased number of government departments. Minus $30,000 is a number of expenditure areas that were cut to offset the requirement for increased wages.
Mr. Harding:
I am not too clear on how this particular area works. For example, in dealing with the federal office, I see there was a big reduction from the 1992 actual to the forecast for 1993-94, for over $250,000. We are now increasing it a bit. Is that a function of personnel costs, or were there more person years being dedicated here?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
The biggest portion of that was because we had a vacant position and, as a result, there were other expenses not incurred.
Speaker:
Can the Minister tell us about the fiscal relations officer position?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
That gentleman is still there, and I believe he will be there until this fall, at the very earliest.
Mr. McDonald:
At the very earliest? Does that mean that he will be there until this fall at the latest?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I am sorry. The gentleman keeps threatening to retire, but he has made a commitment to be around until this fall.
Mr. McDonald:
The Minister mentioned that there was a review of the office. When is this review going to be conducted? When does the Minister expect to be coming to some conclusions in term of staffing it?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
The position has been vacant for quite a while. Probably over the next two months we will decide whether that position is required and if there is any merit in refilling that position.
Speaker:
Is there further debate on Policy and Communications?
On Activities
On Policy and Intergovernmental Relations
Policy and Intergovernmental Relations in the amount of $444,000 agreed to
On Communications
Communications in the amount of $513,000 agreed to
On Federal Relations Office
Federal Relations Office in the amount of $188,000 agreed to
Policy and Communications in the amount of $1,145,000 agreed to
On Aboriginal Language Services
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
There has been a five-percent decrease. The decrease is $63,500. The breakdown is a $6,000 increase in personnel; salary reductions for management of one percent and non-management two percent; the director's position was vacant for a portion of 1993-94. Full staffing is planned for 1994-95, so that is an increase of $6,000. A vacant interpreter position has been
Page Number 2372
reduced to half time. There is a reduction of $5,500 in Other - primarily reduced contract service, full staffing combined with an evolution toward having work carried out by language groups will reduce these costs. There is a reduction of $15,000 in transfer-payment funding under this initiative, which amounts to more that 20 percent of program expenditure funding cut to meet the Canadian heritage budget.
Mr. Harding:
I am a little confused. It is hard sometimes when you receive that kind of information.
What exactly has been cut? Have any person years or positions been cut?
The Minister said that a position was left vacant. Was the reason for the reduction due to not paying the person? What exactly has been reduced? Has there been any service reductions?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
The contribution from the federal government was reduced by five percent. There was one full-time position that will be reduced to a half-time interpreter position. Instead of being full-time, it will now be reduced to half-time.
Mr. McDonald:
I have noticed on page 38 of the budget book, the Yukon Native Language Centre is not going to be expecting any contribution this coming year. Last year they received $140,000 and this year they are receiving nothing.
Could the Minister tell us what the situation is in terms of the program's relationship with the Native Language Centre? Is the Native Language Centre in agreement with this cut? Is the work that they were doing now ceased? Do they accept this arrangement?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
My understanding is that the Yukon Native Language Centre did not receive $140,000 last year as a contribution. There was, in the aboriginal language community initiatives program, $280,000 of which some of those funds provide for community-based revitalization measures for Yukon First Nations, aboriginal, cultural and other non-profit organizations. It is not necessary to list the Yukon Native Language Centre separately, as any group can apply for the funding. This was done for 1993-94 before the aboriginal language community initiative plan guidelines were formalized.
Mr. McDonald:
I did not quite catch the Minister's response with respect to the funding for the 1993-94 year. Did he say that the Yukon Native Language Centre did not, in fact, receive $140,000 for the 1993-94 year, as is shown in the budget book?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
My understanding is that they can apply under the aboriginal language community initiatives program. The $140,000 came from this $280,000. Does that clarify it for the Member opposite?
Mr. McDonald:
I am not sure where the $280,000 comes from. I just see the figure of $265,000 under the aboriginal language community initiatives program. Last year it was $280,000.
The Native Language Centre has worked to build the capacity to speak and to train trainers. It is something I know a lot of aboriginal people feel is an important contribution to furthering the cause of aboriginal languages. I wonder if the funding that is slated for this year - the $265,000 under that program - already has money earmarked for the Native Language Centre.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I understand that in the $265,000 - which is a five-percent reduction from last year; it was $280,000 then - there is money for the Native Language Education Commission. If the Native Language Centre has a specific program or something that it wants to do under the aboriginal languages community initiatives program, they can apply for funding out of this $265,000.
INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS
Chair:
Order, please. I would like to draw Members' attention to the gallery and introduce students from St. Andrew's Regional High School, Victoria, British Columbia. Welcome.
Applause
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - continued
Mr. McDonald:
Can the Minister tell us what the First Nations Language Education Commission is? I have not heard of it before. Can he also indicate whether or not the Native Language Centre is going to have to compete on the same basis as any other First Nation or anyone making an application under the aboriginal language community initiatives program?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
On the first part of the Member's question, my understanding is that it is the First Nations Education Commission. As to whether they are going to compete with other organizations for funding under that, I do not know. They are funded by the Education budget, and any extra work they do comes under this aboriginal language community initiatives program. If they have a special project, they can apply for funding under it.
Mr. McDonald:
I know that they have shown some interest in the past in seeking funds from the Executive Council Office and this particular program, and they have justified that request by the fact that many of the people who are interpreters or who work and provide service under this program are people who require upgrading, or who require some sort of professional development from the Native Language Centre. In the past, at least, they have made some fairly cultured arguments for some sort of funding.
As regards the funding for the First Nations Education Commission, is this the first year that the Education Commission has been funded through this program, or is this an older development?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
My understanding is that they are not funded from this program, but that they have applied for some additional funding under this aboriginal language community initiatives program. My understanding is that they are funded under the Education budget.
Mr. McDonald:
On page 110 of the budget book, they appear to be receiving the same $40,000 grant that they received last year. Presumably, they have some project in mind.
Could the Minister provide to us, either by giving it to us now or in some written form, some sense of what the priorities are for funding and what the program highlights are expected to be in this particular area for the coming year?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I will obtain that information for the Member, but I have some information on what we have supported in the past year, which might give the Member some idea.
There were 28 contribution agreements entered into during the 1993-94 year, totalling $350,000. There was $280,000 forecast for this activity. This was increased to $350,000 with Management Board approval, given the interest in the program within the aboriginal community.
Funding was found within the program from vacant positions and reduced contract expenditures.
Projects supported in 1993-94 included training, oral history, research, television and radio programming, translation services, conference assistance and resource programming.
The 1993-94 projects supported all but one of the Yukon aboriginal languages, and it is expected that a project involving the Tagish language will be initiated early in this fiscal year.
CYI, First Nations and language stakeholders were regularly kept informed on projects receiving funding through news releases sent directly to them.
Mr. McDonald:
I am sure, as the Minister is aware, what
Page Number 2373
language groups get what funding is a matter of some big politics among some communities. It is very helpful to know what the priorities are and how the priorities are set for establishing who does and does not get attention.
I know that it is a very difficult area to resolve, and a very difficult area to keep everyone satisfied, given the magnitude of the demand but, if the branch has some sense of direction and priorities for the coming year, I would certainly appreciate hearing of it.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I appreciate what the Member is saying. There is a lot of politics being played in the communities about which languages should be funded. I will get the information for the Member and get back to him with it.
Chair:
Is there further debate on the program?
On Activity
On Aboriginal Language Program
Aboriginal Language Program in the amount of $1,206,000 agreed to
Aboriginal Language Services in the amount of $1,206,000 agreed to
On French Language Services
On Activity
On French Language Program
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
Funding has been decreased by five percent by Ottawa, which is a decrease of $81,400. There has been a $302,000 increase in personnel - additional positions supported for implementation of services. In Education, the bilingual superintendent is a .5 full-time equivalent and the co-ordinator of French programs is a .2 full-time equivalent. In Community and Transportation Services, the counter-control clerk is a .5 full-time equivalent, and in Justice, a court services assistant is a .6 full-time equivalent.
A number of new positions in 1993-94 were not staffed until well into the fiscal year, or remained vacant. There is a desrease of $386,000 under Other, almost wholly related to reductions in contract services. In 1993-94, the printing of bilingual legislation was carried out - much of this work was contracted. There is a $3,000 transfer payment for implementation funding to the Yukon Hospital Corporation, offset by a five-percent reduction in total funding.
Mr. McDonald:
As the Minister can see on page 38, the Association des Franco-Yukonnais is expected to receive a fairly sizable reduction in the contribution agreement. Can the Minister give us some explanation for that, please?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
My understanding is that they were overbudgeted last year, and they are getting the exact same amount of money this year - $126,000 was the previous year's. In the 1993-94 forecast of $160,000, transfer payments included $126,000 funding support for l'Association des Franco-Yukonnais, and $34,000 for research into implementation of priority bilingual services in areas of child and family counselling services and health services. Actual expenditures were $9,000 to the Yukon Hospital Corporation and $126,000 to the Association des Franco-Yukonnais.
Mr. McDonald:
So, the $34,000 decrease was really one project that was funded last year, and it does not need to be funded this year. Is that correct? That one project really came in under expected expenditures. It was budgeted at $34,000 and came in at $9,000. Am I on the same wavelength?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
Yes, that is correct.
Mrs. Firth:
Could the Minister tell us what the $252,000 for contracts was for in this line?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I understand it was for second language training and translation services for other departments.
Mrs. Firth:
Are the translation services for the other departments being contracted out now? I see the government advertising for lawyers and solicitors to do translation services. Perhaps the Minister could explain to us how translation services work.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I understand that we have two people in the translation services branch of French languages. They contract out if they cannot meet the workload.
Mrs. Firth:
Could the Minister give us a breakdown of that $252,000 - the amount for translation services and the amount for language training?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
There is $44,000 for French language instruction, and $35,000 is for translation services.
Mrs. Firth:
That is $79,000. What is the rest of the $252,000 for?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I will bring a detailed note on the $252,000 back for the Member.
Mrs. Firth:
Perhaps we can just stand this aside until I get that. There is $173,000 outstanding. I would like to see what it is for.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
The difficulty that we have is that it is across government, and we will have to pull it all together.
Mrs. Firth:
What does the Minister mean by across government?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
Out of this budget, we pay for all the translation services for all government departments. We will have to break it down department by department.
Mrs. Firth:
What is the $35,000 for translation services represent, if there is still an outstanding $173,000 of translation services?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
It would be best if I brought the Member a complete breakdown of it. There is an additional $35,000 in Justice for translation services. As I said, we will have to break down the other ones for different departments, so that one will have a good understanding of where it goes.
Mrs. Firth:
I will wait to get that information from the Minister. Perhaps the Minister could tell us what the going rate is for translation services - how much by the word or page or whatever - 90 cents a word?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
It is 19 cents a word.
Mrs. Firth:
Is that comparable to other parts of Canada?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
My understanding is that it is lower than some other parts of Canada.
Mrs. Firth:
May we stand this aside until the information is provided to us?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I have no problem with that.
French Language Program in the amount of $1,539,000 stood over
French Language Services stood over
On Bureau of Management Improvement
Chair:
Is there any debate on the Bureau of Management Improvement?
Mr. Harding:
This is the bureau, I believe, that was discussed earlier in the afternoon during general debate.
In 18 months, the Bureau of Management Improvement has had expenditures of approximately $423,000, which is a sizable amount of money.
Exactly how many people are involved in this bureau, and from what level do they come? Do people come from different levels of pay within government, or are they all pretty much in the higher levels?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
We have three people employed in the bureau. The director position is classified as an MG8 position, the research position is an AR9, and the internal auditor is classified as an MG4.
Mr. Harding:
Do the personnel costs over the last 18 months pertain only to those positions identified? Exactly what makes up
Page Number 2374
that portion of the personnel costs attributed to the $423,000 over the last 18 months? Actually, it is more like $300,000.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I do not know where that figure is coming from, because my budget book has a total of $230,000.
Mr. Harding:
That is $230,000 for this year. Of that, $207,000 is for personnel costs.
What I am seeing in my budget book, as a comparison, is that, when this government came into power in 1993, this bureau was implemented, and we now have a 1992-93 actual expenditure of $76,000 and, in 1993-94, it is $117,000. Percentage-wise, personnel costs continue to increase. This year, the cost is $207,000 of the $230,000. There is a major increase in personnel costs.
The total cost of the internal audit is now $423,000 for 18 months of work, and I am somewhat alarmed at a 141 percent increase in personnel costs.
Can the Minister give me some of his thoughts on that?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
No problem. This program had very lengthy staff vacancies from 1991-92, and we re-activated the program after we took over government. That is why, in 1992-93, there was only $76,000 spent.
There are three positions in the department, and that has been downsized from the four positions previously.
Mr. Harding:
Obviously, the vacancies were filled. Is the Minister not alarmed with the increase? Is he happy with the production of the bureau for $423,000 in expenditures over 18 months?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
The fact remains that the positions were sitting vacant when we took over government so it is not a dramatic increase. It is an increase because we have staffed the positions. They were never staffed before. By staffing those positions, we will have the ability to have some checks and balances in place on the cost of providing government to the people - that is what the Bureau of Management Improvement is all about.
Mr. Harding:
Maybe it is time for an accountability check. I talked this afternoon about the suggestion box; could I get the same kind of accountability check on the Bureau of Management Improvement over the last 18 months - tasks, functions, savings they have made in government that can be directly attributed to them? I would like it to be pretty specific to them. Can the Minister provide that for me?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I will check with the department and provide whatever I can for the Member.
Mrs. Firth:
There are three full person years here. What is the allotment in FTEs for this bureau?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
It is the three FTEs.
Mrs. Firth:
Can the Minister tell us if there were any contracts given in the Bureau of Management Improvement?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
Not that I am aware of, but we will get that when the contracts are tabled. I am not aware of any.
On Activity
On Internal Audit
Internal Audit in the amount of $230,000 agreed to
Bureau of Management Improvement in the amount of $230,000 agreed to
On Bureau of Statistics
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
The Bureau of Statistics is increased by $163,700, or a 20 percent increase. There is an additional $81,000 in personnel - increases in staffing for recoverable projects to be carried out by the bureau. We have salary reductions in management of one percent and non-management of two percent. There is an additional $96,000 in increased costs related to recoverable projects to be carried out by the bureau.
Mrs. Firth:
Could the Minister provide us with a list of the projects that they are going to be carrying out?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
Three 100-percent recoverable surveys will be carried out by the branch. Data is gathered bi-annually on a national longitudinal survey on health status and a national longitudinal survey on youth. Data is gathered annually on the national labour force survey.
Mrs. Firth:
The surveys that are recoverable - does that cover the total cost of the expenditure? There was quite an increase: $163,000. Part of the increase was in staffing and part was in the surveys. How much is for staffing and how much is for surveys?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
My understanding is that there are two new surveys this year, and that is why there is additional funding.
Mrs. Firth:
What are they?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
There is the national longitudinal survey on health status and the national longitudinal survey on youth. There is $177,000 for 1994-95, as a result of the increased costs and recoverable funds for those two surveys.
Mrs. Firth:
Do we get the entire $177,000 back from the federal government?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
Yes, we do.
Mrs. Firth:
The Minister earlier listed contracts in this area amounting to $43,000. Could he give me a breakdown of that $43,000?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
Contract services amounts to $43,000. This is an increase of $6,000. Did the Member say she wanted a breakdown on that?
Mrs. Firth:
Yes.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I will have to get that information for the Member; I do not have it on my sheet.
On Activities
Administration/Management in the amount of $155,000 agreed to
On Information/Publications
Ms. Moorcroft:
Could the Minister please give a breakdown on those publications?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I do not have a complete breakdown. Monthly surveys and statistical information is put out every month by this branch. The cost of that would be under that line item.
Information/Publication in that amount of $167,000 agreed to
On Methodological Support Services
Ms. Moorcroft:
I would like a breakdown on this line item. I note that it has increased 33 percent.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
That was for the surveys that I was just discussing with the Member for Riverdale South: the health and youth longitudinal surveys.
Methodological Support Services in the amount of $675,000 agreed to
Chair:
Before I clear the whole total, Mrs. Firth had some questions about the allotments.
Mrs. Firth:
Under allotments and the heading "Other", could the Minister tell us what the 71-percent increase is for?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
The increase is associated with recoverable surveys and the travel costs associated with that. The amount was $37,100 for travel in the Yukon, which is up $26,000 from last time.
We spoke about the contract services, the $89,500 for program materials and $37,800 for communications.
Mrs. Firth:
I think that I am going to have to ask the Minister to bring back some more information about all of these surveys. It is a considerable expense, almost $200,000. It is causing a huge increase in the Bureau of Statistics budget. There is $37,000 for travel around the Yukon. I feel that I would like some further explanation about what we are doing and whether or not we have to participate in this expenditure. Even though the expenditure is recoverable, it is still taxpayers' money being spent.
Page Number 2375
I would like to know what we are going to use the information for. We have recently completed a huge health survey in the Yukon and an alcohol and drug consumption survey. I would like some more justification for this expenditure if the Minister would provide us with that information.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I will get what information I can for the Member, but the Member is aware that we are often critical of national surveys because the Yukon is not included in them. This is one way that the Yukon will be included - by participating in the national surveys. As the Member said, even though it is cost recoverable, there is a concern about taxpayers' dollars being spent. I sometimes wonder what the information is used for, too. If we want to be part of the national surveys, then we have to participate in them. However, I will get as good a breakdown as I can for the Member opposite.
Mrs. Firth:
I would appreciate that. I think sometimes we get talked into these things because we want to be part of the big picture. It costs a lot of money, and we could probably do it a little more effectively here, in such a small jurisdiction, on our own. If the Minister could bring me back that information, I would appreciate it very much.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I have no problem.
Bureau of Statistics in the amount of $997,000 agreed to
On Office of the Commissioner
Chair:
Is there any general debate?
Mr. McDonald:
I am tempted to spend a long time debating this item dealing with the representative of the Crown.
I notice that, on page 38, there is something called subsistence allowance for the Commissioner. Is this macaroni and cheese to keep him alive? What is this allowance for?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I believe that is for entertainment expenses for the Commissioner for when he entertains people.
Office of the Commissioner in the amount of $124,000 agreed to
On Cabinet Offices
On Activities
On Ministers
Ministers in the amount of $165,000 agreed to
On OIC Personnel
Mr. Harding:
May I have a breakdown on this line item?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
That is for Cabinet office staff.
Mr. Harding:
Has there been any change or reorganization planned there? I see there is reduction of three percent. What is that for?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
Part of it will be in a rollback of wages and part will be vacant staff positions.
Ms. Moorcroft:
Could the Minister also explain the 15 percent reduction in Other in the line item under allotments?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
That would be for funding for contract services that are eliminated.
Ms. Moorcroft:
Does that mean there will be fewer people employed on contract?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
This is a different category. This was transition money that was included in last year's budget.
Ms. Moorcroft:
The explanation that the reduction is due to it being transition money in last year's budget is all very well; what is the $165,000 for this year's budget then?
Perhaps I can save the Minister more time looking that up. It must relate to the Minister's line item for $165,000, unless he has another explanation there that he is madly looking for.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
This is for ministerial travel and communications.
OIC Personnel in the amount of $1,063,000 agreed to
Cabinet Offices in the amount of $1,228,000 agreed to
On Public Inquiries and Plebiscites
On Activities
On Public Inquiries
Public Inquiries in the amount of $1.00 agreed to
On Plebiscites
Mr. McDonald:
As a matter of information, are there any plebiscites of any sort planned - is there anything in the works at all?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I am not aware of anything right at this moment.
Plebiscites in the amount of $1.00 agreed to
Public Inquiries and Plebiscites in the amount of $1.00 agreed to
Chair:
We will now recess until 7:30 p.m.
Recess
Chair:
I will now call Committee of the Whole to order.
INTRODUCTION OF VISITOR
Mr. Cable:
I would like to introduce a guest here tonight: President of the Canadian Teachers Federation, Allan Bacon. Would everyone join me in welcoming Allan Bacon.
Applause
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - continued
Chair:
We will continue dealing with Bill No. 15, entitled Second Appropriation Act, 1994-95, and we will go back to the program that was stood over from this afternoon.
On French Language Services - previously stood over
On French Language Program - previously stood over
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I was asked for a breakdown of the budget for contracts and I have that information now. The overall amount budgeted for contract services was $252,000, consisting of the following: $35,000 for translation services for workloads that cannot be met by the two translators on staff; $20,000 translation services for French language legal drafting when workload cannot be met by bilingual legislative counsel; $44,000 adult instructor for French as second language training and tutors for on-the-job training; $16,000 additional court costs when trials are carried out in French - this includes translation and personnel costs; $59,000 for publication of bilingual statutes, regulations and Yukon Gazette, design guidelines for bilingual forms, signs and publications; $4,000 administrative support for review of renewable resource publications to determine priorities for bilingual publication.
Money for two capital projects have been included as part of this budget because of the differences between the Yukon and the federal government's budgeting cycle. Once the 1994-95 funding appendix between the Yukon and the federal governments has been approved, these projects will be included in a supplementary capital budget and the money transferred from O&M to capital. Those include $63,000 for office automation projects, especially for a computer network connecting the French language services branch, Education, Justice and Government Services. This will allow for computer files to be transmitted between departments, speeding up the production process. Time now lost transmitting and reviewing print copies and retyping material will be avoided. Materials from freelance translators can be transmitted electronically by modem, also saving time. Money has been allocated for four computers, modems, software and the necessary cabelling. Ten thousand dollars is interpretation equipment for French-language trials. This should reduce other contract costs for French-language trials when fully operational.
French Language Program in the amount of $1,539,000 agreed to
Page Number 2376
2376
French Language Services in the amount of $1,539,000 agreed to
Executive Council Office in the amount of $8,668,000 agreed to
Department of Community and Transportation Services
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
Please allow me to present the 1994-95 operation and maintenance budget for the Department of Community and Transportation Services.
The department's total operation and maintenance expenditure budget for the 1994-95 fiscal year is $62,450,000. This total expenditure estimate is $2,253,000, or 3.6 percent, less than main estimates, and $1,775,000, or, three percent, less than the forecast for the 1993-94 fiscal year.
This total expenditure will be offset by revenues and expenditures estimated at $4,702,000 and $2,152,000 respectively. The department's operation and maintenance budget, net of these estimated revenues and recoveries is, therefore, $55,596,000.
The reduction in estimated expenditure requirement is a result of an effort by all program areas in the department, particularly in highway maintenance, to reduce cost without a reduction in the level of service.
The department's operation and maintenance budget reflects the continuing commitment to support the social, economic and environmental well-being of the territory.
Recognizing the need to support economic wellness and safety of the general public, the department will continue to improve and strengthen efficient and safe movement of people and goods through its transportation division. To that effect, a total of $38,050,000 has been allocated for the maintenance of highways and airports, and for the development and administration of related regulations that are the Yukon's responsibility.
Through its municipal and community affairs division, the department will continue to strongly support all Yukon communities and promote the interests of all people in the territory with respect to public health and safety, land availability, supporting community priorities and land implementation of land claims negotiations.
To meet these commitments, a total operation and maintenance budget of $22,041,000 has been allocated toward programs in the municipal and community affairs division. The comprehensive municipal grant funding of $11,470,000 has been allocated for transfer to municipalities, which is the same level as that of 1993-94.
Grants-in-lieu of taxes total $3,019,000, representing an increase of $41,000 compared to the 1993-94 forecast.
Home owner grants have been increased by $53,000 over the 1993-94 forecast to $1,825,000. In addition, funds are also allocated for the Association of Yukon Communities, and hamlet operation and maintenance at the 1993-94 level on an overall basis.
In support of Yukoners' interests in a clean environment, public health and safety, and sports and recreation, the department has allocated $3,481,000 toward these areas, which is approximately at the 1993-94 level. The department, through its municipal and community affairs division, is also committed to continuing its program for orderly management of lands to promote economic and social development, and has allocated the required operation and maintenance funding to this area. Recognizing the importance of effective emergency measures and communications, the department continues to support programs in those areas as well, and made sure that funding is provided at approximately the 1993-94 level.
To sum up, I would like to say that the Department of Community and Transportation Services has allocated its financial and personnel resources carefully, in line with current and long-term priorities, and with a view to providing the greatest benefit. I believe I have given adequate highlights of the department's operation and maintenance budget, and would be glad to respond to specific questions that the hon. Members of the House may have.
Ms. Moorcroft:
I think, for continuity, that we will start with some unfinished business from Question Period today. The Minister, in his speech introducing this budget, talked about the orderly management of lands. I would like to ask the Minister if he could describe his concept of planning and how that is affecting different subdivisions around the territory.
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
I am not exactly sure what the Member opposite is looking for. Usually, if there is a regional or area plan, developments will coincide with whatever that plan may be. There are several areas in the territory that have not had the benefit of a planning exercise and, normally, there would be some sort of planning exercise undertaken before development would be carried out.
Ms. Moorcroft:
I can clarify that what I am looking for is for the Minister to demonstrate some sort of understanding of the concept of land use planning. I would agree with what he just said, that a regional plan should be in place before specific spot development is done.
On the Stevens subdivision, that is one of the reasons many people are concerned, because the planning has not been done first and, also, that gravel quarries and residential subdivisions are not compatible.
Why does the Minister think that they are compatible?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
We should set something straight, right off the bat. The Stevens subdivision is within the boundaries of the City of Whitehorse. The City of Whitehorse does have an official community plan. It is required by law to have one.
With respect to incompatible land uses, I think it was very responsible of the department to point out that there is a potential gravel source in the neighbourhood, near to the subdivision. At some point in time, that gravel source will likely be utilized.
Ms. Moorcroft:
The Minister referred to the existence of the official community plan for the City of Whitehorse. One of the things this plan says is that there is an objective to protect and enhance natural open space for recreational areas, and that the development of country residential areas should be carefully planned, with land available for the provision of community and recreation services and suitable locations with favourable site and terrain conditions.
The residents do not feel that it is favourable to be operating a large gravel quarry at the same time you have a country residential subdivision.
On the Stevens subdivision, the Minister received a letter from the Mayor of the City of Whitehorse on April 22. At the hamlet council meeting, where the Minister and I were both in attendance, the residents wanted to know just what was happening. The Minister stated that the quarry had been identified simply to make sure that people were not buying lots without knowing that there would be a quarry there at some stage.
In the letter from the city, which reads an awful lot like some marching orders, it says, "In conclusion, please consider the following: (1) Proceed with the Stevens development immediately. If this appears to be difficult for YTG to manage, transfer the land to the city as soon as possible. (2) Direct all land development through the city planning process, with YTG acting strictly as the developer. The planning process has been designed to allow full opportunity for public participation. "I do not think you will find a lot of people agreeing that they have had full participation. "(3) Please ensure that the quarry area has been identified and
Page Number 2377
2377
development has begun prior to the sale of the Stevens lots."
So, if the Minister is going to follow these recommendations from the mayor, they will not be developing the gravel quarry 10 years down the road. Which is it?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
We will put a road into the gravel quarry and allow public access for the residents of the area. I believe there is a meeting regarding the quarry some time in June. I would like to see a pit available there so the local people can have gravel for their driveways, backfilling requirements and so on. It would not be necessary to make it an industrial type of quarry until a few years down the road. I am not sure how long.
Ms. Moorcroft:
There have also been a number of problems brought to the attention of the Minister about the industrial quarry use in the McLean Lake area, and I have some questions to follow up on that.
Before I leave the subject of the Stevens quarry, though, the Minister talks about it being a public quarry and says that there will not be a lot of use of it, but on the maps it is identified as a huge, potential quarry that could be in existence for over 70 years. Saying that it is going to be a public quarry is not going to allay the concerns that it will be heavily used and zoned industrial.
Is the Minister still saying that it will be only a public quarry, or will it be, as the City of Whitehorse has recommended, identified and work developed immediately before the Stevens lots are sold?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
What we wanted to do is make sure that people understood that there is a gravel source in the area. I do not think it would have been responsible of the department to develop the subdivision now, and then a few years later start to develop a quarry. I think that it was very responsible to let the people know that there is a source of gravel in that general area.
As I see it at this point in time, there is no need to have a regular industrial quarry there. The McLean Lake operation is good for several more years. The major operators are set up out there, so I cannot see any need for them to go to the Stevens area. However, for a public pit, as I said before, for the locals, I think that it is actually a very cheap and nearby source of gravel for those people.
Ms. Moorcroft:
Will there be a quarry development plan process that will include a public information building and when are they going to set out the internal layout of the quarry area?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
I think I did mention before that the meetings will start some time in June. I am not sure of the exact date, but that will be the first meeting and there will be other meetings with consultation with the various interest groups.
Ms. Moorcroft:
Will those be held prior to lots being sold?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
I expect so. I do not believe the lots will be available until probably late August.
Ms. Moorcroft:
I would like to ask the Minister some questions regarding the McLean Lake gravel quarry. He has been made aware of the concerns of the residents. In discussion in the House during the debate on the Subdivision Act, when he was being pressed on industrial use and gravel quarries not being compatible with residential areas, he indicated that where there was a residential area, they should limit the hours of operation. Can the Minister tell us when he is prepared to do that, and how he is prepared to go about it?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
I believe that the Member is aware, as I am, that that quarry has been in operation for quite some time. Now that the leases are established, I do not know how I could go about changing them to limit the hours of operation. I believe that the City of Whitehorse has a bylaw that limits the hours of operation from something like - and I could be wrong about this - 7:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. If people are not observing those hours, the City of Whitehorse could be contacted.
Ms. Moorcroft:
I know that the residents have contacted the City of Whitehorse. They have already contacted the Department of Community and Transportation Services - often and loudly. The Minister should have done his homework a bit better. Is there a bylaw in place? If not, is the Minister prepared to bring in some rules that state that the quarry cannot be operated between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
I think perhaps the Member opposite should do her homework, because the City of Whitehorse is responsible for its own bylaws. The Yukon government cannot enforce the city's bylaw.
Ms. Moorcroft:
The City of Whitehorse is responsible for their own bylaw, but the Minister has just said that he is not certain there is a bylaw in effect. That is what I would like to know.
I would also like to know if he is going to address the concerns of the residents. He stated in the House, when we previously went over this issue, that he would be prepared to limit the hours of operation of the quarry. It seems that there has been no work done to answer the more specific question, which he knew would be coming up in the Community and Transportation Services debate, of how they are going to do it and when. Can he undertake to get back to me, if he has no answers now?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
I said we could limit the operations of the quarry in the Stevens subdivision. I do not know if we have the ability to set hours for the McLean Lake quarry.
Ms. Moorcroft:
Will the Minister find out the answer to that question and come back to me?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
I can get a copy of the bylaw from the City of Whitehorse.
Ms. Moorcroft:
I am sure that we will not clear this department tonight, so I can come back to that issue again since I am not getting anywhere right now.
I would like to ask the Minister to outline all of the subdivisions: the country residential subdivisions or other areas where the Yukon government is either developing or making land available for sale, both in the Whitehorse area and around the territory.
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
If the Member opposite will recall, that list was provided to all Members during the capital budget debate. At that time, we provided a list of all land development that is to be undertaken in 1994-95.
Ms. Moorcroft:
Is that plan still in effect, or have any of the projects been put on hold?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
We are only one month into the fiscal year, and as far as I am aware there is no reason that most or all of the land development cannot go ahead.
In September, I may have a different answer for the Member, but right now our intent is to conduct all of the land development that we had in the capital budget.
Ms. Moorcroft:
Sometimes things change pretty quickly with this government. Perhaps the Minister can outline how much planning has been done in the Mt. Sima area and whether the talks at the land claims table have caused that particular development to be put on hold.
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
I am not sure that the Mt. Sima land development was included in the 1994-95 capital budget. My recollection is that the government is intending to develop the Stevens subdivision, the Cowley Creek subdivision and what they call the Mary Lake triangle.
Ms. Moorcroft:
Could the Minister then describe what work is being done on the proposed Mt. Sima Road subdivision, or whether any money has been spent in the departmental budget on that yet this year.
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
I do not believe that there have been any funds expended in the Mt. Sima area at all this year. As far as I know, there has been some internal discussion, but I do not believe it has gone any farther than that.
Page Number 2378
2378
Ms. Moorcroft:
I had heard of some archaeological assessment work being done so that they could use that information in going forward with Mt. Sima. Could the Minister perhaps consult with his official as to whether there has been any work done - any schedules of proposals on the various steps to take to get Mt. Sima underway.
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
As I said, there have been internal discussions; however, I do not know of any work that has been carried out so far. I can check with our lands people and report back to the Member.
Ms. Moorcroft:
I would appreciate that. I would like to ask the Minister about the periphery use of city facilities. At the Association of Yukon Communities annual general meeting - not the one this past year but the previous year - there was a cost-of-service committee that was struck to look at the issue of residents outside of the City of Whitehorse using city facilities. I was asking the Minister questions about that, specifically with regard to fire protection, last week in the House. There were minutes of a meeting that was held between the city and the Department of Community and Transportation Services. Can the Minister tell me how often that group has met, and could I ask for the minutes and notes from all of those meetings?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
My understanding is that there have been about four or five meetings between the city and Community and Transportation Services. I do not know if there are actual minutes, but we can certainly arrange to give the Member a summary of discussions that took place.
For the Member's information, there are three people from the city - the chief administrative officer, the director of community services and the treasurer - and, from the our side, the Deputy Minister of Community and Transportation Services, the assistant deputy minister and the director of community and transportation services.
Mr. McDonald:
I have a couple of questions about land development, particularly in the Whitehorse area. The issue is land availability for trailer home owners. The Minister indicated he was going to go ahead with all the land development that was in the capital plan. We know that that is, primarily in Whitehorse, to prepare for highly serviced lots in the area of the existing Granger subdivision. I think the Minister would admit these lots are not selling like hotcakes.
There is another need I am sure the Minister is aware of, and that is for land for trailer home owners. The Minister is aware of the issue that has arisen recently, resulting from the eviction of three trailer home owners who are renting pads in the Kopper King trailer court. The concerns that have been expressed by those owners is that, once they are evicted from that trailer park, they have no other place to move. The reason for that, as the Minister is aware, is that the trailers are older than 10 years, and are restricted from movement by a City of Whitehorse bylaw. At the same time, there are some fairly severe restrictions for moving within a trailer park, as well as from the rental spaces in the trailer home park to the available lots in Arkell.
In Question Period, the Minister did suggest that a move to Arkell would be an option for these people, and I am sure he has since discovered that is not an option for them at all.
Consequently, the trailer home owners are facing a fairly severe catch-22 situation. They have to move but cannot - or they find it difficult. One thing that makes it impossible for them to move is availability of sites. There is very little available land for these home owners outside of Whitehorse, and there is virtually nothing available for them inside of Whitehorse. Now, if one trailer park were to change its designation, and if the land were to be used for something else, there literally would be, in all likelihood, hundreds of people facing the same situation as my constituents, who are being evicted from the Kopper King trailer park. I would like to ask the Minister whether or not he has given this matter much thought, since its first entrance onto the front pages of our local media, and whether or not the department is prepared to move with the City of Whitehorse to actually investigate the possibility of making land available for sale to trailer home owners, particularly those in the immediate situation who are forced to move.
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
I thank the Member opposite for his comments. He is absolutely right. This was an extremely unfortunate situation. I have not had any talks with the city on what we can do in the long term. Over the last few days, I have been concentrating on trying to find a solution for the three people. I think that we have come up with something that will allow these people to keep their homes. I think I mentioned this in the House the other day. There are approximately 930 trailers that are over 10 years old, in various trailer parks. I believe over 50 percent of all the trailers in the Whitehorse area need renovations or repairs somewhat beyond regular maintenance. The problem is that several of these trailers are pre-1975, approximately. I am saying "approximately", because it depends on the manufacturer of the trailer, when they became CSA certified, but it was somewhere about 1975. All the trailers that were built from that point on are CSA certified.
Prior to that, most of the mobile homes were not CSA certified and, as such, they would need major mechanical and structural renovations before they could be moved and reconnected to power or water on another lot. The Member's suggestion that we talk to the City of Whitehorse about opening up a subdivision and selling lots to people who in fact cannot move into Arkell may very well be a worthy suggestion and it is something I will, in the next few weeks, explore with the City of Whitehorse.
I do not know whether that would be the total solution because, once the power is disconnected from one of these trailers, then there is no question that it has to be brought up to code, which can be very expensive. The furnaces in a lot of them are the old pot-burner type of furnace and would have to be replaced. In many cases, the plumbing has to be upgraded, and in many cases the structure itself has to be upgraded. In some cases, therefore, it would be very, very expensive for people to do that.
As the Member suggests, if one of the trailer courts happened to decide that they wanted to make different use of the land their park is sitting on, it could leave a few hundred people in pretty dire circumstances.
Chair:
Order please. I would like to ask the people in the gallery to move to the front row of the gallery and clear the aisles. We have to obey the rules set out by the fire marshall's department as well.
Mr. McDonald:
We are burdened by rules and regulations, even in here. It is only fitting that we who pass the regulations or rules should have to be bound by them.
There certainly may not be a total solution to this problem, as the Minister points out, and certainly any partial solution would involve changes to the Landlord and Tenant Act, but we will have an opportunity to get to that portion of the solution later on in estimates perhaps.
As the Minister is aware, there are many people who are living in these trailer homes who have secured the funding for the purchase of these homes through a personal loan and that personal loan, with high interest rates and short payback term, usually means a very high repayment schedule. Consequently, as much as it would cost them to upgrade their homes to meet the building code, it would cost them more to simply abandon that investment, given that many of them, probably the vast majority, are in the lower income bracket and cannot afford to simply walk away from the loan, nor to assume both the loan and a new rental or mortgage
Page Number 2379
2379
arrangement as well.
The people with whom I have discussed the matter are certainly interested in seeking a solution. One solution is the moving of their trailer, even when they know they have to upgrade it to existing building code standards. Many of them are quite aware of what that would entail and are in agreement that if they are going to maintain that asset, they will have to ultimately ensure that it meets code requirements, and particularly the electrical code. The current situation is unsafe, at best, in some instances.
As well, an attending alternative could be the making of land available outside the City of Whitehorse. Certainly the territorial government would have to get agreement with the city for any changes of its bylaws inside the city limits, but there is an option of going outside city limits. Has the Minister given any consideration to seeking low-cost land for people who are faced with the situation similar to the ones we have just described in some detail?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
As I said earlier, I have not looked at the possibilities. If there was land available outside of the city for such a subdivision, it would not mean that they would not have to do upgrading. The only difference is that they probably would not have to do the structural upgrading, but for public health and safety reasons, the power and the mechanical upgrading would still have to be done. It may be somewhat cheaper for them.
For instance, some of the older mobile homes had two and one-half to three-inch wall studs, and I think the minimum requirement now is three and one-half inches now. That would not necessarily have to apply outside of the city. All of the rest of it still would apply.
As I stated before, I will be working with the city and the department to try and arrive at a long-term solution. Whatever that may be, I do not know at this point in time.
Mr. McDonald:
I am certain that the Minister is aware that many of the trailer home owners are interested in upgrading their homes and they are aware of the costs and the need. The home owners are prepared to do what is required of them on that front. Of course, they have no options unless there is a place for them to move their trailer home. Availability of land becomes very, very critical.
I do recall that, within the City of Whitehorse, the previous Member for Porter Creek East, Mr. Lang, had been pursuing a mobile home park development for the Range Road area, on Northland toward the golf course.
Could the Minister tell us what the status of that planning is right now?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
I do not recall what happened under the previous Minister. I have not heard anything from it. I can find out from the department if they have proceeded beyond what the Member opposite has just mentioned, and provide the Member with any information I can.
Ms. Moorcroft:
During Question Period, we have been discussing the issue of highway maintenance privatization, and we filed a written question asking for the documents that the department has looked at in considering that. Apparently, the Minister stated that having the work done by the department was actually cheaper than the privatized highway maintenance that was done in British Columbia. Can the Minister explain why they were considering privatizing highway maintenance?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
The department checked with B.C. highways, but that was quite some time ago. I think it was under the previous government, and it was done just for the sake of comparison, to see what it actually cost per kilometre of highway to maintain highways in the Yukon as compared to British Columbia. That is essentially what I was referring to. There have been no studies of investigations on privatization since I have taken office.
Ms. Moorcroft:
I do not understand, then, why the Minister would say at public meeting that they could not do the privatization because the unions would not let them. Has the Minister met with the unions to discuss that?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
No, I have not. That was information that I got from the Public Service Commissioner.
Ms. Moorcroft:
Does the Minister have any information available on personnel within their budget? I would like to know how many reductions there have been, if any, in this budget.
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
In 1993, we had approximately 574 employees. For the same month in 1994, there were approximately 554 employees. The difference of 20 is mostly vacancies.
Ms. Moorcroft:
I am trying to get some sense of where they are going. They talk about privatization at some meetings and deny all knowledge of it at others. When I asked the Minister to explain his comments, he said the Public Service Commissioner said that.
What financial implications did the Public Service Commissioner give to the rationale on the privatization discussions?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
The Public Service Commissioner naturally did not talk about savings or expenditures. The Public Service Commissioner told me that, if you privatize and it results in jobs being deleted from the public service, you then have to create that many jobs elsewhere in the public service. If you were going to privatize the Whitehorse grader station - I believe there are 12 employees there - not only would places for those 12 people have to be found, but 12 jobs would also have to be created somewhere else in the system.
Ms. Moorcroft:
Could the Minister explain what that is based on? I have some knowledge of the collective agreement, and I do not know of anything in there that would substantiate that statement. Can the Minister back that up?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
That was the information I got from the Public Service Commissioner. I will certainly ask that person to provide me with whatever section of the collective bargaining agreement that is appropriate. However, this was my understanding from talking to the commissioner.
Ms. Moorcroft:
This is not some small, fine print, subtext of an article in the collective agreement; this is a major policy issue. The Minister has his deputy there. Can he not respond to the question?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
I did respond to the question. As I said, I got that information from the Public Service Commissioner. I will ask that person to provide me with the information.
Ms. Moorcroft:
Perhaps what I will do is ask the Minister for the undertaking that they have been informed that they cannot privatize, so they will keep the public sector as it stands and not get rid of jobs by contracting them out to the private sector. Can I have that undertaking?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
No, the Member cannot.
Ms. Moorcroft:
What are they going to do, then? Are they going to privatize?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
It is certainly not the intention, at this point in time, to privatize the highway maintenance. However, it is not something that cannot be looked at. If there were a cost savings, I could fully support that move.
As I said, there has been no study. This has just been information I have obtained from department officials. We, being the department responsible for Highways, do it cheaper than privatized maintenance in B.C. Looking at it that way, why would we want to privatize the highway maintenance?
Mr. Penikett:
I had the rare privilege of hearing the Minister, in Ross River, discuss this question at the public meeting. On that occasion, he indicated that he had looked at the costs and, as he said a moment ago, the costs of the privatized highway maintenance in northern British Columbia were higher, he understood, than the costs of the public sector maintenance in the Yukon.
Page Number 2380
2380
Perhaps I could just ask him again for the source of that information, especially since he has just indicated a few moments ago that it is not a closed question, but that the question of privatization is still open.
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
My deputy minister just informed me that we are collecting information from the Department of Public Works Canada. We are getting information for the Cassiar road and we have our own experiences on the Klondike Highway this past winter. So, we have a fair bit of information that we can use to compare with our costs.
Mr. Penikett:
Mr. Chair, I apologize, but I am puzzled. Previously, the Minister said in Ross River, less than a month ago, that he had looked at it and that the costs of privatized highway maintenance in British Columbia are higher than having the public sector do it here. He had indicated, therefore, that they had looked at the question, they had studied the numbers and they had reached the conclusion it was a bad idea.
He has told us tonight that they are only just now starting the study and that it is an open question. When the Minister told the meeting in Ross River that he had looked at it, what exactly had he looked at? Was it the numbers on the Klondike Highway only?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
During devolution of the Alaska Highway, we get the numbers for the northern BC portion of the Alaska Highway. The numbers I was quoting at Ross River, from a briefing note that mentioned the northern part of B.C., were their cost per kilometre as compared to our cost per kilometre.
Mr. Penikett:
Who prepared that briefing note?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
It would be someone in our Department of Highways. I am not sure who prepared it.
Mr. Penikett:
Is it still the practice to have briefing notes to the Minister signed off by the deputy before they are presented to the Minister?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
I believe the deputy minister sees all the briefing notes but they are not signed off.
Mr. Penikett:
Would it be safe to assume that, when the deputy minister looks at briefing notes, if they were unsatisfactory he would return them to the department to be rewritten and, if they were satisfactory, they would proceed to the Minister? That was the practice during the time I was in government. Is that still the practice in Community and Transportation Services?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
Yes, I am sure it is.
Mr. Penikett:
So, in that sense, the deputy minister did approve the briefing note indicating that the costs of public sector highway maintenance in the Yukon were cheaper than private sector highway maintenance in northern B.C. - would that be a true statement?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
I think that would be a fair statement.
Mr. Penikett:
Then could I ask the Minister, having been provided with a briefing note by his department indicating that private sector highway maintenance in northern B.C. is more costly than public sector highway maintenance in the Yukon, and having told the public at a meeting in Ross River that it had been looked at and the department had decided not to proceed - in other words, the matter had been examined and concluded - could he tell the House why he would indicate that it is still an open question here tonight?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
I believe that when that was looked at it was probably during the devolution of the Alaska Highway, which in fact was under the Member opposite's government, and things change, so I do not see anything wrong with looking at it every couple of years. When that was done, it appeared that it was cheaper to do it through the public sector but that does not mean that forevermore it would be done through the public sector.
Mr. Penikett:
In essence then, what the Minister is saying is that if highway maintenance under a Conservative government is done more inefficiently than it was done under an NDP government then it would be privatized. Is that what he is saying?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
I really do not think that I said that.
Mr. Penikett:
The highways department, as the Minister knows, is one of the venerable institutions in the Yukon. In some circles, it has even been treated as if it was a government unto itself. It is certainly one of the very sacred institutions of this territory. I would be very sad to see it go.
The Minister has indicated that the reasons for re-examining the question of privatization would be cost driven. Given that his one examination of costs to date has indicated that it would not be economical, would it be fair - and as a matter of policy - to say that the Minister is looking for opportunities to privatize because, as a matter of philosophy and public policy, the party and the government to which he belongs believe that, as a normal rule, it is a good thing, that it is a question of philosophy and party policy rather than simply economics?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
No, it is simply economics. I firmly believe that government is better able to do certain things than the private sector is. It may very well be that highway maintenance is one of those things. I do not have any problem with that at all. There would have to be substantial cost savings before I would look at privatizing highways.
Chair:
Order please. 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. Is there further general debate?
Mr. Penikett:
I would like to complete the line of inquiry that I was pursing before the break. I have a few more questions for the Minister. Let me recap for the Minister so that he understands where I am going with this - as they say on the television show.
I heard the Minister say in Ross River that they had looked at the possibility of privatizing highway maintenance. They found that the costs of the privatized highway maintenance in B.C. were greater than those in the Yukon, and that they could not privatize anyway because the union would object, and there would be no savings because they would have to find other jobs for the employees who were displaced from the highway jobs.
I think that the Minister tonight undertook to come back to us with some further information on the question of job displacement. Having looked at the question since that public meeting, we cannot find any basis for the Minister's observation in the collective agreement or the act. There may be some other policy statement somewhere - perhaps a Management Board decision of the new Conservative government - protecting the employees from privatization.
What I wanted to ask the Minister is this: since the B.C. government has taken a close look at the privatized highway maintenance and has concluded that, in terms of public safety, it is of lower quality than the previous public sector operation, that the wages for the employees are lower, the quality is lower, the cost savings are illusory, and that, in some form or another, the B.C. highways are again going to be under public maintenance, what would be the basis for the cost analysis being done by the Minister between the Yukon public maintenance versus the alternative?
What would be the basis for the cost analysis done by the Minister of the Yukon public maintenance versus the alternative? He mentioned that there were cost savings to be achieved with
Page Number 2381
2381
what would he be comparing our system? Will it be Alaska? Northwest Territories? B.C.? He says the department is now studying the question, looking at the numbers. With which exact jurisdictions are they comparing our operation? I will ask that as the first part of the question. The second part of the question I would ask is this: when the study is completed by Mr. Cormie and his excellent staff - or the excellent Mr. Cormie and his excellent staff - will the Minister undertake to table that information in the House?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
I think that all of the jurisdictions that the Member opposite mentioned would be looked at if we were going to do a comparison. Privatization of highway maintenance is not a priority. It is not a priority at all for this government.
I think that it would only be responsible for us to look at other jurisdictions, and to look at other jurisdictions that have privatized highway maintenance.
The cost is certainly the major factor, but - and I agree with the Member opposite - we have to also look at the level of maintenance and the quality of the road. Public safety is our main concern. As I said, we are going to look at it; it is not a priority, but over a period of time, as we collect information, we will be making comparisons.
Mr. Penikett:
We keep giving the Minister opportunities to close this question, or to resolve the uncertainty that may be arising from the lack of clarity in the government policy. The Minister said, for example, just now, that they were going to look at all jurisdictions. Well, I would guess by the time they come to look at them, none of those jurisdictions will have private sector maintenance of the highways, so I do not know what we will be comparing when we do that analysis.
The Minister said it is not a priority. Okay, we accept that it is not a priority, but once again tonight, he suggested that it is an open question. Let me contrast the Minister's position with that of the former leader of the Conservative Party, Mr. Phelps, who, I think it was during the 1989 election, issued a statement saying absolutely, clearly and unequivocally that, under a Conservative administration in this territory - or under his leadership, I guess - that highway maintenance would not be privatized - period. Can I ask the Minister, given that it has been looked at in some form or another and is being looked at now, why he is not prepared to make such a firm statement as his colleague has previously done?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
I think that the question should remain open. As for commitment, I can commit that within the next two years we would certainly not be privatizing highway maintenance. That is essentially my term of office. But, I do not see why the government would not want to do comparisons on an ongoing basis every two, three, four years. I think it is prudent to do exactly that.
Hon. Mr. Penikett:
Let me ask the Minister this: would he be prepared to admit, based on what he knows about the B.C. experience with privatized highway maintenance, that it was, in terms of quality, cost, employee satisfaction and public safety, not a success?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
Actually, as the Member well knows, I spent most of my life in Watson Lake. I travelled the northern portion of the Alaska Highway many times. Interestingly enough, there was one contractor who did a superb job but, essentially, the Member is right. I probably cannot comment on the public safety aspect, but I know the condition of the road. The information I have now is that it actually costs more in B.C. That could have a lot to do with terrain and so on but, essentially, I think the Member opposite is correct.
Mr. Penikett:
I would make this one closing comment: I believe that, in view of the Minister's admission that the experiment in British Columbia with privatized highways maintenance has been, if not a failure, at least not a success, I am disappointed that he still regards it as an open question here.
Ms. Moorcroft:
I would like to go back to another issue on the personnel side. How does the Minister think that a two-percent wage rollback will affect morale in the department, in the face of their dislike for collective bargaining over there?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
I think that is a hypothetical question and should, more appropriately, be directed to the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission.
Ms. Moorcroft:
The Minister has the department with the largest budget and number of personnel. This afternoon, in Question Period, we were asking questions about the proposed closing of the Destruction Bay highway maintenance camp. I can assure him that there are a lot of people in not only those communities, but in the Yukon, who are quite interested in the answers to those questions. Does the Minister think this will have no effect on morale?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
It may very well have some effect on morale.
Ms. Moorcroft:
Does that concern the Minister?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
Certainly it concerns me. We have very good people working for the Yukon government and we want to be able to keep them satisfied so that they find the job challenging and that sort of thing. Anything that affects the employees concerns me.
Ms. Moorcroft:
What is the Minister going to do about it?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
I do not have the authority in the Public Service Commission. As I stated before, the question should more appropriately be directed to the Minister in charge of the public service.
Ms. Moorcroft:
They seem to like to indicate that they make collective decisions in Cabinet. Let me ask the Minister this: does he, as a Minister, support collective bargaining?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
Yes, I support collective bargaining.
Ms. Moorcroft:
Is the Minister prepared to make some statements at the Cabinet table regarding the proposed two-percent wage rollback? Does he support the two-percent wage rollback?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
I would certainly support a two-percent rollback rather than see public sector layoffs.
Ms. Moorcroft:
When we were talking about privatization earlier this evening, the Minister indicated that they could not privatize because the Public Service Commissioner had told them that was not an option open to them. I would like to ask what they were planning to do that would violate the collective agreement, which the commissioner told them they could not do.
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
I think that I answered that question earlier. My understanding is that it is contrary to the current collective agreement to contract out work functions that are normally done by our own forces, if this should result in layoffs; that is my understanding.
Ms. Moorcroft:
Does the Minister have any information available to him on the grievance record of the department? Can the Minister tell us how many grievances there have been in the past year and whether the number of grievances is up or down from the previous year, and whether the government expects the number to rise in the coming year?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
We do not have that information available here.
Ms. Moorcroft:
Could the Minister get the information and bring it back to us?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
Yes, I can provide that information to the Member.
Ms. Moorcroft:
To follow up on the closing down of the highway camp in Destruction Bay, does the Minister have any
Page Number 2382
information on the cost of closing Destruction Bay and maintaining it from other camps further away?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
As I indicated this afternoon in Question Period, the closing of the Destruction Bay highway camp is a minimum of three years away and there has not been a detailed analysis done. I also indicated this same thing to the people of Destruction Bay when the government toured the communities.
I told people that there will be a detailed cost benefit analysis and operational analysis done prior to the closing of that grader station.
Ms. Moorcroft:
I know from talking to two or three residents of that community that they have the same concerns now that they have raised in the past about this idea. I wonder why the government would champion the town then and not now?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
There are a couple of reasons. Firstly, back in 1980 or 1981, whenever it was, the people were upset about the process. That is my understanding.
Secondly, over $100 million will have been spent on that highway since 1980. In fact, it would be a lot more than that. The Shakwak project alone is over $100 million.
Ms. Moorcroft:
That is the same answer that we heard in Question Period, but I can assure the Minister that the process of taking five jobs out of a community - which will result in losses of not only individual incomes, but community survival - is not any more appealing this time than it was at any other time. These cuts will have an effect on the school and other places in the community.
Is the department looking at closing any other grader stations or highway camps?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
We are also looking at the winter closure of the Tuchitua camp.
Ms. Moorcroft:
What about the Quiet Lake camp?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
The Quiet Lake camp and the one on the North Canol were closed a year ago. They are summer camps.
Ms. Moorcroft:
Are there going to be spring and fall closures on the Dempster Highway?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
There have been no decisions made on the Dempster yet.
Ms. Moorcroft:
Have they cross-referenced the cost savings for either winter closure or, in the case of Destruction Bay, permanent closure with the safety factors involved with the closures?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
That is something we will be looking at when we do the analysis on the Destruction Bay camp. We will certainly be looking at the public safety aspect of it.
Ms. Moorcroft:
Will they complete the analysis before they pull any jobs out of the community?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
Yes, we will.
Mr. Harding:
I am very concerned about the morale in the government departments. As we go through, I intend to ask the government some questions about it. I also get a little upset when I hear the Minister saying that he supports collective bargaining, but he supports rollbacks rather than the option of massive layoffs. We have already established that this is the biggest spending budget in Yukon history. They have more money to spend than ever before - more revenues. This government has no debt whatsoever; they have admitted that they are going to have an accumulated surplus. Therefore there is no moral or financial justification for taking away the right to collective bargaining. During the election campaign, I remember the government promising that there were going to be no layoffs of government employees, and that any statement to that effect was absolutely wrong. Now, whenever we get into a discussion about the merits of this legislation, the Ministers stand up and say that they support rollbacks over the option of massive layoffs. I do not believe that the options are either/or. Why are the options either/or, in the Minister's own words. Why is the option not free collective bargaining?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
The Member opposite is obviously looking at different figures than I am, because my material suggests that we definitely do have an accumulated deficit. We hope to have an annual surplus. There should be a small annual surplus for 1993-94, and we hope to have an annual surplus for 1994-95. I very much hope that we are able to entirely retire our accumulated deficit.
Mr. Harding:
I am looking at the budget tabled by the Yukon government that we are debating right now. What I see is expenditures this year of $468.5 million dollars. They have admitted that they are going to spend a further $6.5 million, which is in the supplementary estimates for the reduction of the Alaska Highway funding, plus the contingency funds that have been set up that have become slush funds. We do not yet know where that money will be spent, but they maintain it will be spent on infrastructure or something else. If that $6.5 million is added to the $468 million, the $471 million of last year's budget is outspent.
It is simple mathematics; I am using the government's own figures. There is a bit of creative work being done by the government. Even if one accepts the accumulated deficit of $13 million, which was arrived at after some very creative accounting, such as writing off the extended care facility in one year, an entire loan to a corporation for which on the last sale of the assets, probably 33 percent or 34 percent of the debt was realized by the creditors, and their forecasted annual surplus as of March 31, 1994, of $1.4 million. That $1.4 million was arrived at even though $2.4 million of electrical rates were written off against the taxpayers of the Yukon, rather than the assets of the Yukon Energy Corporation. Also, a Faro Real Estate loan was written off, even though we are still going through the negotiations for its restructuring - or were, as of last Saturday.
I submit that everything possible has been done to reduce the position of the government's cashflow to make it appear that there is no surplus.
This $1.4 million for last year does not even include lapses, of which the government has admitted there will be about $8 million or $10 million. There is a leave accrual account. If every employee of this government quit tomorrow -
Chair:
Order please. I thought that we had finished general debate on the budget. We are now on general debate on Community and Transportation Services.
Mr. Harding:
I will respect your ruling, Mr. Chair, but I am discussing employee morale and the issue of free collective bargaining, and how it relates to the Minister's statement in general debate on Community and Transportation Services. He indicated that there might not be an impact on the employees because he supports the issue of rollbacks over the issue of massive layoffs. I am just trying to make sure that the Minister understands that there is no need for either of the options he has identified.
I am sure that you could understand, Mr. Chair, that I would want to point out to the government that if they really look at the numbers there is no accumulated deficit. There are increasing revenues so therefore there is no justification.
Does the Minister admit that, in addition to the total expenditure of $468,584,000 - which is identified on page 3 of the budget - that an additional $4.5 million will be spent somewhere - he spoke about the infrastructure program last week - and the contingency fund of $2 million will be spent by this government in this fiscal year?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
The Member opposite is fully aware that the infrastructure agreement with Canada is going to take monies that have not been identified in the budget, so that will definitely
Page Number 2383
come out of some of those monies to which he is referring. There are some school projects we need to do but were not able to identify in time for the budget.
Yes, we in fact will be spending that $4.5 million.
Mr. McDonald:
Rather than having to go through the same process with this Minister, and perhaps other Ministers, that we had to go through with the Minister of Finance, I would just like to ask the Minister to read Hansard where the Finance Minister was discussing the estimates, and particularly the section where the Finance Minister admitted that, should the lapses that are not accounted for anywhere in the summary pages of the budget document be factored into the available funding, there will be no accumulated deficit as of March 31, 1994. If he will go back and read that, I think we can resolve this matter now and will not have to continue going through the same issue, Minister by Minister. The first Minister has already acknowledged the fact of the reality of the government's finances.
Mrs. Firth:
I want to ask the Minister some questions about general policy within his department and about some of the changes in the budgetary items. I want to start by asking the Minister about the comparison of personnel costs. In the 1992-93 allotment summary, the figure that is quoted for personnel costs is $21,070,000. In this budget, for 1994-95, personnel costs are quoted at $19,386,000 - approximately $1.6 million less. Can the Minister tell me what has happened that has resulted in a $1.6 million reduction in personnel costs in Community and Transportation Services?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
A large portion of that was reduction in overtime for highways personnel. I do not have the numbers in front of me, but it was something like $800,000 for overtime. Some of it is on the callbacks of auxiliaries and casuals. They actually had a shorter period of time, from 1992-93 to 1993-94.
Mrs. Firth:
I would like to see those figures, please, if the Minister will bring them back, because it is such a substantial amount of money. Can the Minister indicate to us whether or not there has also been a reduction in the numbers of employees within his department?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
There are approximately 20 fewer people working in the overall department. I think that was at the end of March, as compared to the end of March a year ago, but, most of those are just vacant positions.
Mrs. Firth:
Does that mean those positions are not going to be filled and, therefore, no longer exist, so the staffing complement is reduced by 20 full-time equivalents, 20 individuals, or the number 20 in whatever form?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
No. The department will be looking at each of the positions, and most of them will be filled. The positions are vacant at this point in time.
Mrs. Firth:
Does the government's policy of attrition not apply to the Minister of Community and Transportation Services' department? How is the department going to decide which positions will be filled? What criteria will they use?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
When there is a vacancy, we look at that position to see if it can be eliminated. If the position can be eliminated, or if some functions can be taken on by others, that is the way that we will be carrying out the reduction.
Mrs. Firth:
When I asked the Government Leader about how he was going to determine which positions would remain and which positions would be eliminated by attrition, he indicated that there were no targets, just continuing efforts to cut positions.
When I asked the Government Leader how the government would decide which jobs would stay and which jobs would go, the he stated that there was no criteria, only a mandate to completely restructure government.
I went on to ask how they could determine whether people were being treated fairly if there were no rules in place. The Government Leader had no answer for me. I would like to find out from the Minister of Community and Transportation Services if he has an answer.
If the government is going to eliminate 20 jobs, how is it decided which jobs are going to be eliminated? Does the Minister have any criteria in his department for doing this?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
We have tried to focus on managerial and administrative positions, and I just want to read a little bit about our direction.
We ensure the directors and managers have the responsibility and authority to manage their units. The deputy minister tells them that the goal is to run the operation more efficiently, but maintaining overall effectiveness. They are held accountable for this, and they generate changes to achieve this goal.
As a general philosophy, we believe that government is most effective if it keeps its annual operation and maintenance costs under control and directs funding to capital investment. Capital investment in infrastructure in highways and municipal infrastructures provides the stimulus for private sector investments. Private sector investment in resource development and tourism will generate long-term growth in employment. We support this by ensuring the infrastructure is in place.
We want also to maintain that infrastructure, but at the least practical cost. We have focused attention on overhead costs and improving effectiveness of operation when reviewing reductions in the budget. That is why we have taken the following steps: one is the reduction of the assistant deputy minister offices. I think I have spoken about these two positions before - the Assistant Deputy Minister of corporate aervices was at the commencement of the 1993-94 fiscal year, and the savings is approximately $114,000. The Assistant Deputy Minister, transportation division, including two reporting staff, is at the commencement of the 1994-95 fiscal year, for a projected savings of about $245,000, and the transferred responsibility is to reporting directors and managers, who now report to the deputy minister.
Mrs. Firth:
When the Minister refers to "we" in that statement, who is he talking about? Who wrote that statement? Is that the Minister's own personal philosophy, or did somebody write it for him?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
When I say "we," I mean the Department of Community and Transportation Services, with me as Minister. I believe my deputy minister actually wrote this following a discussion we had regarding the philosophy behind more efficient and cost-effective government.
Mrs. Firth:
Then am I to understand that each Minister has their own philosophy and their own way of running the department? The Government Leader certainly did not share that philosophy with us the other day when he was asked exactly the same question. I will have to follow up with the other Ministers. I guess I will have to ask each one what their philosophy is, and then, maybe, we can come back to the Government Leader and get one from him, as well.
Perhaps the Minister could just give me a list of these 20 positions, so I know exactly what positions he is talking about. He is nodding his head, indicating that, yes, I will get a list of those 20 positions.
I want to follow up with another question. It is an observation I have made. The Minister is talking about reducing the size of his administrative staff, and he is saying that a goal of this government is to reduce managerial staff and administrators. In the capital budget, an observation was made with respect to the office furniture and equipment and systems within this Minister's department. The observation was that there were tremendous increases in office furniture - 275 percent in corporate services, 15 percent
Page Number 2384
in the transportation division, and another 15 percent in the municipal and community affairs division. Why is the amount spent on office furniture not going down in relation to the reduction in staff? Why would the Minister be reducing staff, yet the cost of office furniture would be escalating in such huge proportions? Everyone left behind gets a new desk, is that the plan?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
I have the capital budget here. The 275-percent increase from 1993-94 to 1994-95 was from $4,000 to $15,000. I do not know what those items are off the top of my head; however, if the Member wishes, I can certainly find out.
A 50-percent decrease was from $10,000 to $5,000 under the emergency measures. If the Member wishes, I will get the department to outline what furniture was bought, for the 275-percent increase, and what furniture was not, for the 50-percent decrease.
Mrs. Firth:
We had that discussion in the capital budget debate. The Minister was not aware at that time what that expenditure was for. I am trying to find out how this government makes decisions and how they plan. It does not make sense to me. The Minister and his department are trying to reduce the cost of government by cutting back on people, reducing positions and rolling back positions, and yet it does not matter that the amount is not in the hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. I can find other departments that are; however, I think there should be some relationship between expenditures. I am trying to understand how the Minister is planning and running this department, other than the sophisticated statement he read out, which was prepared by the deputy minister.
We will have lots of time, I am sure, to debate that. I will keep watching the pattern of spending within this department.
I want to move to another policy question within the department. The Minister gave quite a presentation to the Association for Yukon Communities. At that time, he mentioned several initiatives that his department was going to proceed with.
At that time, the Minister talked about a territory-wide review of current land development procedures being held. Could the Minister tell what this review is all about and when this territory-wide review is going to take place?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
I do not recall talking about a territorial-wide land review. What we have been doing is looking at the lands branch to try to come up with ways to make the branch more efficient and more effective. Some of the initiatives that have been discussed and with which I have been involved are actually taking place.
For instance, the land development officer is now working with municipal engineering because most of the work that he does is with municipal engineering. So the department ended up putting that person right in that branch.
Another one is the agricultural -
Mrs. Firth:
Excuse me, Mr. Chair, on a point of order.
Chair:
Mrs. Firth on a point of order.
Mrs. Firth:
On a point of order, I appreciate the Minister going on and talking about what he is going to do. I am asking the Minister specifically about the comment he made, and which the Minister has indicated he did not make.
Perhaps the Minister is reading from notes prepared by the deputy minister, but I have here the speaking notes by the Hon. Mickey Fisher made at the Association for Yukon Communities meeting. At that time the Minister said, "I am pleased to let you know that over the next year a territory-wide review of current land development procedures will be held."
All I want to know is when is this going to start, this current review -
Chair:
Order, order. There is no point of order.
Mrs. Firth:
Perhaps he could just answer the question about when this review is going to start and what it is all about. That is the question I asked; he said that he had said no such thing.
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
Given the time, I would move that we report progress on Bill No. 15.
Motion agreed to
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I move that the Speaker do now resume the Chair.
Motion agreed to
Speaker resumes the Chair
Speaker:
I will now call the House to order.
May the House have a report from the Chair of Committee of the Whole?
Mr. Abel:
The Committee of the Whole has considered Bill No. 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 Committee of the Whole. Are you agreed?
Some Hon. Members:
Agreed.
Speaker:
I declare the report carried.
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I move that the House do now adjourn.
Speaker:
It has been moved by the Hon. Government House Leader that the House do now adjourn.
Motion agreed to
Speaker:
This House now stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.
The House adjourned at 9:28 p.m.
The following Sessional Paper was tabled May 2, 1994:
94-1-121
Report of the Chief Electoral Officer of the Yukon on Contributions to Political Parties during 1993 (Speaker)
The following Legislative Returns were tabled May 2, 1994:
94-1-347
Yukon Energy Corporation: Agreement providing for the management of assets of Yukon Energy Corporation by the Yukon Electrical Company Limited and Canadian Utilities Limited; fee for services in 1993 (Phelps)
Written Question No. 30, dated November 22, 1993, by Mr. Penikett
94-1-348
Yukon Energy Corporation: discussions related to the ownership and operations of Yukon Energy Corporation as of November 22, 1993 (Phelps)
Written Question No. 31, dated November 22, 1993, by Mr. Penikett
The following Documents were filed May 2, 1994:
94-1-40
Bill of Sale and cancelled cheques relating to the sale, in June, 1993, of an aircraft by Shakwak Air Ltd. and John Ostashek to Peter Spycher (McDonald)
94-1-41
Letter dated April 28, 1994, from Pauline Steele re petition opposing the Stevens subdivision (Moorcroft)