Whitehorse, Yukon

Tuesday, May 3, 1994 - 1:30 p.m.

Page Number 2387

2387

Speaker:

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

Prayers

DAILY ROUTINE

Point of Privilege

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

On a point of personal privilege, in this House yesterday the Member for McIntyre-Takhini, through his questions, made certain allegations about my involvement in the sale of an airplane owned by Shakwak Air. My interests in the family business have been openly disclosed since I assumed public office. Given that the event in question took place nearly one year ago, in the past 24 hours I have had an opportunity to review the matter.

In June of last year, a transaction did take place involving the sale of one aircraft. The plane was sold by Shakwak Air for $46,000. The transaction took place on June 21, 1993, at my home. It was a company decision to sell the aircraft and, while I had resigned as president of the company on December 31, 1992, my name was still on the documentation with the federal Department of Transport and I signed the bill of sale on behalf of the company.

The transaction involved two cheques being issued: one in the amount of $36,000 to Shakwak Air and one in the amount of $10,000 to myself. The $10,000 constituted a partial repayment to me of a shareholder loan by Shakwak Air. I have loaned the company considerable money in the past as a shareholder and this was simply a partial repayment of that loan.

Company records show that the sale price of the aircraft was $46,000, less GST.

I now want to address my disclosure statement, which was referred to in this House yesterday. As both an MLA and a Minister, I filed two disclosure statements each year. As an MLA, I filed one pursuant to section 7 of the Legislative Assembly Act, and as a Minister I filed one pursuant to section 5 of the Executive Council Code of Conduct regarding conflicts of interest.

In each case I have declared my shares in Shakwak Air, except in the case of my most recent MLA disclosure statement, which I filed on April 20 of this year for the calendar year 1993. In that case, a clerical error was made on the check marks indicating my role in the company. They were not transferred from the working copy to the final copy that I tabled with the Clerk's office. That clerical error has been corrected this morning.

The $10,000 in question was not reported as income by me because a loan repayment is not classified as income. As noted earlier, it was income of Shakwak Air, and will be included as income when the company files its 1993 financial statement with Revenue Canada.

In conclusion, I believe I have complied with the disclosure requirements, both as an MLA and as a Minister. In the interest of Members of this House and the public, while it is not a requirement, I have decided to file with the Clerk of the Assembly, for public review, copies of the 1992 financial statements for both Shakwak Air and Rocking Star Holdings. I intend to do the same with the 1993 financial statements once they have been filed with Revenue Canada.

Speaker:

We will proceed at this time with the Order Paper.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

I would like to call the attention of Members to guests that we have in the gallery today. We have with us Grade 11 social studies students from F.H. Collins High School to observe the House in action. With them is their teacher Ms. Zimich. Would all Members please make them welcome?

Applause

Speaker:

Are there any further Returns or Documents for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Mr. Penikett:

I have a document from Statistics Canada and a report on a conference I attended.

Speaker:

Are there any Reports of Committees?

Petitions?

PETITIONS

Petition No. 7 - response

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I would like to respond to the petition received by the Yukon Legislative Assembly on April 19, and I would like to make a couple of comments.

My office has had calls from some of the people who are named in this petition who did not realize the petition was going to the Legislative Assembly. At the Ibex Valley council meeting last week, one of the residents actually questioned the chair of the Ibex Valley council about this petition going to the Legislature. The chair of council said she was not aware of it - that it was done by other people - but the chair's name is on the letter that was sent to the Legislative Assembly. Therefore, I am not exactly sure where the petition belongs.

In response to the concerns, the petition reads, "Inasmuch as some 66 residents of the Hamlet of Ibex Valley, all above the age of 18 years, have expressed their opposition to the proposed Stevens subdivision in the attached document, therefore the undersigned asks the Yukon Legislative Assembly to instruct the Minister of Community and Transportation Services to delay any action on the development of the Stevens subdivision until the concerns of residents of the Ibex Valley have been satisfactorily addressed."

I would like to talk a little bit about the concerns. The first one is lack of consultation. Since November, 1992, numerous letters from the hamlet and individual residents have been received regarding the proposed subdivision. All correspondence was responded to. With the impending resolution of land issues affecting the Stevens site, and the high priority placed on the creation of more country residential lots, the department proceeded with the preparation of an area development scheme. The process included a public information component, which included a public open house on February 24, 1994. Notices for the public open house were mailed to all residents of MacPherson and Ibex Valley. There were meetings with hamlet council members on March 9, 1994, March 23, 1994, April 13, 1994, and April 26, 1994.

Throughout the consultation meetings, refinements were made to the concepts of the area development scheme in response to specific residential hamlet concerns. The buffer at the Steele property was another concern. This issue was resolved through the consultation process.

The lot density and size was another concern. As a result of consultation, the lot sizes were adjusted to the maximum size permitted under city zoning, and density refined while maintaining an optimum use of the land base. The original plan was for 42 lots. This has been reduced to 32 lots at the present time. There is provision for future lots; however, plans are not to proceed at this time with any development of additional lots.

Page Number 2386

2386

The impact on wildlife was a concern. This issue has been researched by Renewable Resources. No significant habitat is being disrupted by the development, and provision is being made for unimpeded access through the area by wildlife.

Regarding the impact on Hidden Valley School, currently there is a capacity for 34 additional children in the school. The Department of Education is planning an expansion of three classrooms, which will increase the capacity by 72 children. The Stevens subdivision will not overcrowd the school.

In terms of the impact on the existing wells, it has already been determined that the area has very poor potential for wells. The department will be advising purchasers to install water holding tanks. The department is conducting hydro-geological surveys to determine the impact of new wells on existing wells. The survey consists of chemical analysis and drilling two test wells in order to conduct pumping tests.

Regarding the incompatibility of the quarry with country residential property, a quarry development plan is being formulated to regulate the development of the substantial granular resource of that area. This plan is scheduled for completion by mid-June 1994. The plan involves consultation with quarry operators and the interested public, and an open house will be held to invite public comment. The plan will identify potential impacts on the adjacent subdivision and will identify mitigative measures to counteract those impacts. The official community plan and zoning process is a City of Whitehorse process. Under the Municipal Act, there are specific steps that must be taken, prior to amending either the official community plan or the zoning bylaw for an area. There has been no attempt to bypass any process, and Ibex Valley residents have, through consultation, been kept aware of the steps being taken.

Speaker:

Are there any Introductions of Bills?

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

Notices of Motion?

Are there any Statements by Ministers?

This then brings us to Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Question re: Disclosure statements, John Ostashek

Mr. McDonald:

I have a few questions for the Government Leader. The Government Leader in his statement read earlier today is now, I am sure, aware how extremely serious this matter can be. Consequently, there is a need to follow up on a few of the things that he said today, and also some of the things that he said yesterday.

I have not had a chance to carefully review the Minister's statement, particularly with respect to his claim about clerical errors. I might have a chance to do that over the evening break?

The Minister chose to remove himself from Shakwak Air as the president and as a director of the company. This was a self-identified conflict of interest that he submitted to the Legislative Assembly Office in December 1992. Could the Minister tell us why he did that?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I chose to remove myself from the directorship and as president of the company, and we are in the process of trying to devolve the company. In this instance, I question the Member making this a conflict of interest. This had absolutely nothing to do with government - nothing to do with government at all nor with my office as Government Leader.

Mr. McDonald:

The Minister is not just anybody. The Minister is the Leader of the government, and he is also the Minister in Cabinet who is responsible for the ethical conduct of not only his Ministers but of government. Consequently, we do have a very direct and significant interest in what the Minister does while he is a Minister.

The Minister indicated that he is in the process of devolving the company to someone else. Can he tell us the process he is undertaking to devolve this company to someone else? Is he personally handling the process?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

The company is for sale and we hope it will be sold.

Mr. McDonald:

The company clearly, then, is not held in any sort of blind trust. The Minister is taking a direct interest in the sale. Is he going to be a party to the sale? Is he actively trying to sell this company himself?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I do not know what one would call "actively". This is a family company and my wife is divesting herself of it, and I am certainly assisting her.

Question re: Disclosure statements, John Ostashek

Mr. McDonald:

It is a serious question because the Minister comes across many different people in the conduct of public business on a daily basis and, of course, we would not want any impression left that the Minister is trying to sell this plane, or trying to actively sell the company, rather, while he is conducting public business - or that there should be left any impression whatsoever that there is any connection between the two.

Has the Minister taken any steps to ensure that there will be no connection made between the sale of his private company and his public business?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I will not be handling this personally.

Mr. McDonald:

So, the only thing that he is handling personally is the sale of the company assets - is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I have already admitted to the one instance that took place about a year ago.

Mr. McDonald:

So he has sold no other assets, and he has purchased no other assets on behalf of Shakwak Air in the calendar year 1993 - is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I believe there were some assets purchased prior to the sale of that aircraft.

Question re: Disclosure statements, John Ostashek

Mr. McDonald:

Was the Minister involved in the purchase of those assets? Did those assets include a plane?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

They certainly do. Yes, I was involved, but there is no conflict with this office.

Mr. McDonald:

I am trying to determine what the role of the Government Leader is in terms of selling the family business, and what role he feels he should play. After all, it was the Minister who decided to resign as the president and director of Shakwak Air in a self-identified conflict of interest. That was the purpose of his filing the letters with the Legislative Assembly office. I am trying to understand precisely why that was, and how that matches with his actions subsequent to that.

The Minister was asked yesterday how he could act for a company he had resigned from and then sell an asset owned by that same company. He has indicated that, because he had some shares in the company, that gave him the authority. Is there anything that the Minister can show us that demonstrates that Shakwak Air, the company of which he was no longer an officer, gave him the authority to sign on behalf of the company?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

My wife and I do communicate.

Mr. McDonald:

That is the point I am trying to make here.

The Minister of the Crown has a higher duty to the Legislature, according to Chris Pearson, Government Leader in 1981, who indicated that the rules are different for Ministers than other Members of this Legislature. The Minister acknowledged this fact by removing himself from any positions in the company. Since

Page Number 2387

2387

then, he has decided to continue acting for the company.

Can the Minister tell the House why he would remove himself as an officer of the company, and then continue to act for the company in the sale and purchase of assets?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I acted in the capacity of advisor to the president of the company, who is my wife.

Question re: Disclosure statements, John Ostashek

Mr. McDonald:

I do not want to bring in the involvement of other family members. I am trying to determine what this Minister's role was. He is obviously and clearly acting in more of a capacity than simply an advisor. He is the person who signed a bill of sale for a particular asset.

I ask again: why would the Minister remove himself as corporate director or president of the company, and then continue to act for the company?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I again say that I do not believe I am in conflict. I have filed the required documents with the Legislative Assembly. I have filed the documents as required by the Executive Council Code of Conduct. I do not believe that I am in conflict with those rules and regulations.

Mr. McDonald:

I will ask the Minister again. On his personal disclosure form, he says he removed himself from positions of authority with the company. He did that for a purpose. He then went on to act for the company. Can he tell us why he would remove himself as a corporate officer and then proceed to act for the company, on not just one occasion - the sale of the plane - but also for the purchase of assets.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

This is a small family business of which my wife is trying to divest herself. She does not have the experience in that field and I am helping her.

Mr. McDonald:

I simply, then, do not know. Perhaps we will never know why the Minister decided he would self-identify a conflict of interest and then ignore it. Now, the Minister indicated that he received two cheques in this transaction - one for $36,000 and one for $10,000 in payment for the plane. He has indicated that one of the cheques was a partial repayment of a loan to Shakwak Air. Can the Minister tell us why he would have received from the purchaser of the plane a $10,000 cheque and why that repayment of a loan would not have come through Shakwak Air.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

It was the manner in which it was done at that time and I have freely admitted that.

Question re: Disclosure statements, John Ostashek

Mr. McDonald:

Obviously, we are not disputing the circumstances of this transaction. We both agree that two cheques were paid: one cheque was paid to Shakwak Air and one cheque was paid to the Minister personally. Now, the Minister has explained this matter by indicating it was a partial repayment of a loan to the company. Why would the purchaser of the plane be responsible for paying back that loan to the Minister? Why would the purchaser of the plane not pay $46,000 to Shakwak Air and Shakwak Air would then be responsible for repaying the loan to the Minister?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

That is another way it could have been done, but the roads all lead to the same place.

Mr. McDonald:

There is a difference between doing it the way it could and should have been done, which was to have the purchaser pay to the company the amount of $46,000, as it was a company asset, and then have the company undertake further transactions that it may wish with the Minister on a personal basis at a later time.

The Minister mentioned yesterday the possible existence of a deposit that was paid on the plane. Can the Minister tell us what that was all about?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

At the time the Member was questioning me, I was having difficulty recalling the transaction. That is what that was all about.

Mr. McDonald:

I can tell the Minister that few people of my acquaintance would forget a transaction of this size, or a cheque payable to them for $10,000.

Giving the Minister the benefit of the doubt on that question, I would like to follow up on another point. The Minister indicated yesterday that, as far as he was aware, no person in government and no government equipment was used in this particular transaction.

I understand the purchaser had gone to the Government Leader's offices to get a transfer of the radio licence. Did the Government Leader, or any person working for the Government Leader, conduct any private business out of the Government Leader's office?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

As I said yesterday, I am not aware of that happening. The sale took place at my house.

Question re: Disclosure statements, John Ostashek

Mr. McDonald:

I would ask the Minister to please ask his officials, soon, to check that matter thoroughly because the information that I have seems to suggest that some portion of this transaction, particularly with respect to the radio licence, was indeed undertaken by fax out of the Government Leader's office.

Could I ask the Minister whether or not he would approve of any private business transaction being undertaken out of a Minister's office.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I believe that I answered that question yesterday when I said that I certainly do not approve of conducting business transactions from a Minister's office.

When the Member opposite talks about a fax about a radio licence, I will check to see if there was a fax sent from here. I am not aware that there was, but there is the possibility, because I do remember that some time after the sale the purchaser was wanting to transfer the licence without paying a fee. I may have helped him out by sending a fax. I do not believe the fax was sent from here; however, I will check on that and if the fax was sent from here I apologize for it and it will not happen again.

Mr. McDonald:

This brings us to the policy issue, and that is the need to provide for clear conflict-of-interest guidelines for Ministers. I would ask the Minister whether he is familiar with the Public Government Act, the act that was passed in the Legislature. The act has specific provisions that deal with Ministers, particularly Ministers who carry on private business while they are Ministers of the Crown.

Has the Minister read the act? Is the Minister aware of those provisions?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

Yes, I am aware of the act. I could not tell the Member all of the clauses in detail at this point. I indicated to the Member yesterday that the act is going through the legislative process now and we hope to introduce new legislation in the fall sitting.

Mr. McDonald:

Is the Minister aware that under the Public Government Act the conducting of any private business by a Minister is forbidden and that the ultimate sanction in that act for breaking the law is the Minister losing, not only his right to portfolios, but also his seat?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I believe that is purely hypothetical, because the Public Government Act is not law.

Question re: Disclosure statements, John Ostashek

Mr. McDonald:

The Minister knows that it is not law and we know that it is not law, because if we had known it to be law I am sure that we would be asking a deputy Government Leader

Page Number 2388

2388

when a by-election in Porter Creek North would be called.

I would like to ask the Minister a question I put to him yesterday: whether or not he believes that the provisions of the Public Government Act dealing with the conduct of private business should be proclaimed and whether or not he feels that any successor act they may desire to pass will contain those same provisions?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I cannot stand here today and say that they would contain exactly those provisions. There will be conflict-of-interest provisions in the new act.

Mr. McDonald:

I would certainly hope that there would be some conflict-of-interest provisions in the new act, but the question is what they are and how soon they will be brought forward. Every sitting over the last 18 months, Members of this Legislature have asked about conflict-of-interest legislation and at every sitting we have been told that it is just around the corner; in fact, it was promised for this spring.

Can the Minister tell us when the government is going to get very serious about this question? Will the Minister be prepared, in the interim, between the time that he introduces their own act and now, to proclaim the provisions of the Public Government Act that deal with Ministers' conduct and activities while they are a Minister of the Crown?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

It was not our intention to, but I will review it with Cabinet and see what they have to say about it.

Mr. McDonald:

I would like to ask, perhaps as a final policy question here, for today at least, whether or not this Minister, first of all, knows about or permits Ministers to conduct private business while they are Ministers of the Crown.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I just want to say one more time for the record that I believe that the Ministers on this side of the House are abiding by the rules and regulations that are in place now and the disclosure statements that are in place.

Question re: Energy Corporation, CYI participation in

Mr. Cable:

On another topic, I have some questions for the Minister responsible for the Yukon Energy Corporation with relation to privatization. As I recollect the Minister's comments last week, he indicated that privatization would not proceed without the involvement of the First Nations. It was suggested that that would have the advantage of providing investment capital - this is the rationale, not mentioned last week but in the past, - and the possibility of obtaining a write-down of the debt owed to the federal government.

That tells us why the government would want to proceed with it.

From the standpoint of the First Nations, what would be the business reasons that they would want to make a substantial investment in return for a minority interest in this corporation?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

I would suggest that the hon. Member ask them.

Mr. Cable:

Surely, the Minister, as the chief salesman for this privatization thrust involving the First Nations, has some reason that he is offering to the First Nations for these substantial investments. What proposition is being put forward by the Minister or his negotiating agent, Mr. Boylan?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

We made an offer to explore the possibilities of the partial privatization of Yukon Energy Corporation, which we discussed in this House over and over again. I do not think it is my role to stand here and guess the motives of the First Nations with respect to their side of the dealings.

Mr. Cable:

Let me ask a question, then, which relates to the basic ground rules of the investment.

I think we have established that there is no comprehensive energy policy here. I think we have established that there is no terms of reference for the privatization. Why would the First Nations make an investment in that sort of milieu, where there are no ground rules? Is it expected that these energy policy thrusts will come out of the negotiations?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

That is an absurd question. Is the Member saying that we inherited the corporation, of which he was president, without any policies? Is that the case? If so, no wonder he resigned.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Ms. Commodore:

With your permission, I would like to introduce to the House the Chief and Council of Kwanlin Dun, elders Johnny Smith and Annie Burns, other elders of Kwanlin Dun, and members of the aboriginal management board representing all First Nations.

QUESTION PERIOD - continued

Question re: Whitehorse waterfront

Ms. Commodore:

My question is for the Government Leader, who is responsible for land claims. On September 15, the Government Leader made a commitment to the Council for Yukon Indians - I do not know if he is listening. At that meeting he made a commitment "that the development of waterfront lands would not proceed without the appropriate consideration of land selection issue." He then reiterated that commitment in a letter to Chief Lena Johns of the Kwanlin Dun First Nations, dated December 17, 1993. Can the Government Leader tell this House and Yukon First Nations what has changed since he made those commitments? Why is he proceeding with the planning and development of the waterfront before his government resolves the land issue of the waterfront?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I believe that at this point we should split planning and development; they are two different phases. I received a letter from Kwanlin Dun this morning, and there has been a reply drafted today. It is my understanding that there is some interest in resolving this issue. I would hope that it will be resolved because we really have to have the Kwanlin Dun involved in the planning process for the waterfront.

Ms. Commodore:

Since June 1993, the Kwanlin Dun First Nation has attempted to reach conclusion on negotiating the waterfront land selections while YTG negotiators stalled because they did not have a mandate from this government. Those are their words. A month ago, the YTG negotiators asked to defer waterfront negotiations for three months, to allow time to negotiate other issues such as self-government. Following that, a letter dated April 25 was sent from the Yukon government negotiators to Kwanlin Dun committing the government to recognizing Kwanlin Dun's interest in the waterfront and agreeing to resolve land claims negotiations on the waterfront after July 1994.

Then on Thursday, April 28, the Government Leader stated in this House that he is proceeding with authorizing the City of Whitehorse to play the lead role in the planning for the development of the waterfront land. Can the Minister tell this House if his deal with the Mayor of Whitehorse is in violation of the commitment made by the negotiators to the Kwanlin Dun First Nations?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

No, I do not believe it is. We are not developing the waterfront at this point. These are preliminary steps in a planning process, in which, I state again, we need the involvement of the Kwanlin Dun First Nation. We are going to work to achieve that involvement.

Ms. Commodore:

The Government Leader has to watch the statements that he makes in the House because he said very clearly, on April 28, that the committee is being put together to discuss development of the waterfront.

Can the Government Leader tell us why he has changed his position? Why did he authorize a letter outlining one position on

Page Number 2389

2389

April 25 to not proceed with waterfront development and planning, three days before he stood up and proudly announced that he would be proceeding with waterfront planning and development?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I believe there is some misinterpretation of that letter. That letter went from the land claims committee; it was not signed by me. I do not even recall seeing a draft of that letter. The city wants to develop the waterfront; they are going to be involving the Kwanlin Dun. I understand that there have been meetings in process up until now. I am meeting with the city this week some time and I will be asking what they are doing to have meaningful involvement by the Kwanlin Dun in the planning process.

Question re: Whitehorse waterfront

Ms. Commodore:

The letter in question was held back for a whole month to get the approval of the Government Leader. In that letter, it commits the government to consult with Kwanlin Dun on any proposal relating to the waterfront and to address any concerns Kwanlin Dun may have. Does the Government Leader consider the city proceeding with planning for the development of the waterfront proposal falling within the commitment that I just mentioned, or is that something that is not worthy of mention to Kwanlin Dun?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

As I said, this is in the very preliminary stages, and my understanding is that city officials have had some meetings with Kwanlin Dun. Now, I said, and I will say again for the record, that I am meeting with the city this week and I will find out. I will ask directly what they are doing to have meaningful involvement by the Kwanlin Dun in the development process.

Ms. Commodore:

The Government Leader has to understand that when he stands up in the House and makes statements, what he says means something to the people who listen. The Government Leader has said that the Kwanlin Dun First Nation was asked to participate in the waterfront planning and development. He said that over and over again. He said they refused and they could not be dragged to the meetings. Can the Government Leader tell us how Kwanlin Dun was notified of the proposal to proceed with the planning and development of the waterfront? Will he table any letters or minutes of meetings asking Kwanlin Dun for their participation in the waterfront planning and development? I would like to see something, because he has insisted that he has invited them to participate.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

When I met with the city, I expressed to them that we had to have the involvement of the Kwanlin Dun. The city is facilitating the meetings for this planning process. I understand that officials from the Kwanlin Dun and the city have had some preliminary meetings.

Ms. Commodore:

Given the position of both the Kwanlin Dun and the Ta'an Kwach'an that land ownership must be resolved before planning of the waterfront lands can proceed, and given that according to the Government Leader, who is the Minister responsible for land claims, he is now giving that responsibility to the Mayor of Whitehorse and, heaven forbid, Duke Connelly, can the Government Leader tell us if the First Nations will now be negotiating with the Mayor of Whitehorse for waterfront lands? He said he has turned the responsibility over to the Mayor of Whitehorse.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

The Member opposite is either not listening or she is twisting things around. I said that the city would be responsible for leading the planning of the waterfront. The negotiations on the land of the waterfront will take place at the land claims negotiating table.

Question re: Whitehorse waterfront

Ms. Commodore:

Last Thursday, in Committee of the Whole, the Government Leader said he was planning to proceed right away, that there had been too many delays, and work had to begin immediately if the anniversaries deadline was to be met.

Can the Government Leader tell us precisely what delays he was referring to?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

Before we can have development of the waterfront, we have to have a planning process in place, and that is the step we are embarking on at this point.

Ms. Commodore:

Since June 1993, the Kwanlin Dun has repeatedly asked for the issue of waterfront lands ownership to be negotiated. In the April 25 letter to the Kwanlin Dun, the Government Leader authorized the YTG negotiator to ask for a four-month delay in negotiations to the end of July. Can the Government Leader tell us why he would sanction a four-month delay in resolving the issue of the waterfront development if it is as urgent as he said it was last Thursday?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

The land claims process is a very complicated process within the City of Whitehorse. The development process has to take place if we are ever going to get anything resolved about the waterfront in time for the anniversaries. I see no harm in embarking upon a development process at this time, and dealing with the land claims issues at the land claims table.

Ms. Commodore:

It would be to the best advantage of those individuals concerned if he would do that, but he is not. The Government Leader, through his negotiators, is asking Kwanlin Dun to delay negotiation on the waterfront ownership issue and, at the same time, he stood in this House and accused the First Nation of delaying resolution of the issue and gave this as a reason for pressing ahead with waterfront planning and development at this time.

Can the Government Leader tell us whose agenda he is serving? Does he really consider himself to be acting in good faith with Kwanlin Dun and Ta'an Kwach'an in light of his actions so far?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I believe it was a mutual agreement at the land claims table to delay dealing with the waterfront issue. I do not believe it was a one-sided issue. It was a mutual agreement by both parties.

Question re: Whitehorse waterfront

Ms. Commodore:

I am really glad that the First Nations people are here to hear what he is saying.

This morning on CBC news, the Mayor of Whitehorse said that he had to go ahead with the development of the waterfront. Yesterday, the Government Leader said that the city was only doing the planning.

Can the Government Leader tell us and First Nations who was right? Is the mayor talking about planning or is he talking about development?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I did not hear what the mayor said, but I am talking about planning. I have also said in earlier questions that we received a letter from Kwanlin Dun with regard to this issue today; there is a reply being drafted at this moment and I hope it will be delivered to them later this afternoon.

Ms. Commodore:

The Government Leader said that he is meeting with the Mayor of Whitehorse some time this week, I believe tomorrow, to talk about the waterfront planning and development committee. I would like to ask the Government Leader if Kwanlin Dun and Ta'an Kwach'an First Nations have been asked to attend this meeting to talk about the waterfront development and planning.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I said I was meeting with the mayor tomorrow or the next day - I forget which - and this is one of the issues that will be discussed. It is a general meeting that I am

Page Number 2390

2390

having with the mayor and council, but I will be asking him what approaches he has taken with the First Nations people to involve them in meaningful planning for development of the waterfront.

Ms. Commodore:

Under the UFA, Crown lands are selectable lands and the Government Leader, being responsible for land claims, knows that. I would like to ask him if he has seen the selection maps for Kwanlin Dun and Ta'an Kwach'an First Nations.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

Yes, I have had an opportunity to see the maps.

Question re: Deputy minister pay range

Mrs. Firth:

I have a question for the Government Leader about his government's policy.

The management pay grid in this government for all levels of management is broken down into pay ranges. Yesterday, we discovered through a response received from the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission that they have done away with the pay range for the deputy minister level. The government no longer has four levels of deputy ministers; it just has a category that pays from $78,000 to $119,000 per year.

I would like to ask the Government Leader what the rationale was for changing this pay scale for deputy ministers, the highest paid public servants in government.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I believe the rationale for the decision was that if we were to transfer a deputy minister from one department to another department, we did not have to worry about raising or lowering that person's wages. That was one of the reasons for changing the pay scale range.

As the Member said, it is a very broad pay range, starting somewhere in the mid-$70,000s.

Mrs. Firth:

As far as I am concerned, the government has thrown this wide open to abuse. The Government Leader is shaking his head saying no.

Deputy ministers used to have a cap at a certain level on their wages; they could only make up to a certain amount of money. Now, that cap has been removed and a deputy minister, when hired by this government, can make anywhere from $78,000 to $119,000 per year. That is over $4,000 every two weeks that someone can take home.

I want to know what protection there is here for the constituents I represent and for other taxpaying Yukoners, other than it is more convenient for the government to move them around and not have to worry about disrupting their pay scales.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I do not view the pay scale that way at all. I view the pay scale as a money-saving measure.

In the previous pay scale, with four categories, when a deputy minister was moved from a lower category to a category two places higher, person's wages were automatically raised to the new level. We no longer have to do that.

Mrs. Firth:

By the old levels, a deputy minister at the DM4 level could only make up to $93,000 per year - a paltry $93,000 per year. Now, a deputy minister can go up to $119,000 per year.

I want the Minister to tell me how the government monitors this. How do they now determine what a new deputy minister, like the one who was recently hired for Government Services, is placed in the pay range of $78,000 to $119,000 if there are no basic pay ranges? Who makes the decision what is going to be paid and how is the decision made?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

I can try and answer that question with respect to the Deputy Minister of Government Services. That person is hired within that range to meet their qualifications. They would move through, depending on their experience. The deputy ministers are not automatically hired at the top or bottom of the range. It depends on their experience and qualifications. I would think that the Member would have realized that.

Question re: Economic forecast

Mr. Penikett:

I have a very straightforward question for the Government Leader, who, in his budget address, announced that we were beginning a decade of prosperity. He trumpeted the findings of Statistic Canada with respect to the Yukon's economic performance. I wonder if the Government Leader has any comment to make on the Statistics Canada report released yesterday, which indicates that the Yukon has the worst economic performance in the country. Last year, it was the only jurisdiction to have a reduction in its gross domestic product. In fact, it fell by 7.9 percent, according to Statistics Canada. I wonder if the Government Leader has any explanation for that, in light of the promised decade of prosperity.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

Yes, I have reviewed the Statistics Canada numbers. I find them very encouraging.

First of all, I would tell Members over there, who were so anxious to get a report on the economic forecast last winter, that it had far more devastating figures than that. I think the Yukon has held up very well.

Mr. Penikett:

I have to explain to the Government Leader that the chart goes this way around, not the opposite. The Yukon Territory was the only place where the economy shrank last year.

I would like to direct a question to the incredible shrinking economist across the way. He has also bragged about the fact that the Yukon had huge growth in retail trade. Statistics Canada has just indicated that, in terms of domestic demand, we dropped by five percent last year. Can the Government Leader explain that shrinkage in light of his previous boasts about the improvements in retail trade?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

The Leader of the Official Opposition has a very, very short memory.

Some Hon. Member:

(Inaudible)

Speaker:

Order.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

He has a very short memory. In 1991, the economy in the Yukon shrunk by over five percent and for almost the very same reason as it shrunk last year, except in 1991 it was a strike that did it. Last year, our hardrock mines were down - the other major contributors to the gross domestic product - so it is no wonder that it dropped.

Mr. Penikett:

I find it astonishing that someone who could forget a $10,000 cheque is accusing anyone else of forgetting things. He is a busy man, not busy enough when it comes to economic development, apparently. I wonder if the Government Leader can confirm analysis provided by NDP researchers this morning that even though Statistics Canada confirms that personal income did go up by 4.2 percent last year, the areas of substantial growth were in transfer payments like unemployment insurance and social assistance, and that in that area, we may be leading the country.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I believe when the final figures are in for last year, social assistance payments will be down in the Yukon. I do not believe they will be up; I believe they will be down. On the briefing note that I have on that same set of figures the Member opposite has, the total wages and salaries have remained virtually the same as in 1992. This shows that alternative employment is generated in the economy, as shown by the figures on the number of people employed, according to the labour force survey, which we have been saying all along. There are 1,000 more people working in the Yukon in March of this year, than there were in March of 1992.

Speaker:

The time for Question Period has now elapsed.

Page Number 2391

2391

Notice of Opposition Private Members' Business

Mr. McDonald:

Pursuant to Standing Order 14.(2)3, the Official Opposition wishes to call business tomorrow in the following order: Motion No. 40, standing in the name of Ms. Commodore and Motion No. 59, standing in the name of Mr. Penikett.

Speaker:

We will proceed with Orders of the Day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

I move that the Speaker do now leave the Chair and 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 dealing with Bill No. 15.

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

Community and Transportation Services - continued

Chair:

Is there further general debate?

Mrs. Firth:

When we finished last evening, the Minister got in under the wire at 9:30 p.m. I was looking forward to hearing his explanation today about the announcement he made at the Association of Yukon Communities meeting that he was pleased to let people know that, over the next year, a territory-wide review of current land development procedures would be held, and that he would be inviting public involvement to develop approaches to the development and availability of land. Last evening, the Minister indicated that he had not said that but, obviously, he did in the speech he gave at the AYC meeting.

Will the Minister share this announcement with the rest of the Yukon public, and us, as Members of the Legislature, and tell us exactly what the plan is, what this review is going to entail, when it is going to start, what the objective of it is, and so on?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

The Member opposite is quite right. I dug up the speech that was given to the AYC. I actually said, "As with Solutions '93, we expect to hear the interests of the private developer and contractor, the desires of the realtor, the plans of the communities, the ideas of the bankers and the concerns of the average resident."

The actual discussion paper is being put together by our lands people now. I understand that there will be consultation with the community groups, and so on, between September and December, 1994 - this fall - and that we will be having discussions with the various municipalities, community groups and the public.

Mrs. Firth:

Could the Minister tell us when the discussion paper is going to be ready?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I am not sure of an exact date, but the lands branch is working on it now. I would assume that the discussion paper would go out before the consultations start in September, so I would expect that the discussion paper would be ready some time in July or August.

Mrs. Firth:

I am sure that the Minister would be agreeable to providing Members of the Legislature with a copy when it is ready. However, I would like to ask him about some details with respect to the discussion paper. What exactly are they looking at? I would like to know what the contents are going to be - without asking him exactly everything that is in the paper. Perhaps he could give me some kind of general outline of the kind of information that they are going to be looking for. Land development is a pretty broad category, and I would like him to be a little more specific.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

Some of the municipalities, for example, are interested in looking at the possibility of taking on land development themselves. That is something that we would like to discuss with them and, if any of them are interested, we would certainly like to work with them on it.

The actual way that we sell land - the lotteries and so on - is something we would like to discuss with people to see if there is possibly a better way to do this. We would like to discuss the type of developments that we do in various municipalities, and agricultural land. There are all sorts of things that we would like to have input on.

Hon. Mrs. Firth:

If the Minister would give a commitment to provide me with an outline of what the discussion is going to include, then I am prepared to move on. I would like to receive the outline some time during this session, if they are working on the discussion paper already. I do not want to wait until July or August for it.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I think that we could probably provide that information for the Member. As I said before, when the discussion paper is ready, all Members of the House will get a copy of it.

Speaker:

Is there any further general debate?

Ms. Moorcroft:

I would like to start by going back to the quarry regulations, the zoning bylaw and the problems associated with them.

The Minister said that there was going to be a quarry development plan put together by mid-June for the Stevens subdivision area.

It is my understanding that there are presently seven leases in the McLean Lake area. Is the government planning to move the seven leases from the McLean Lake area to the Stevens subdivision area?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

It is my understanding that we would not be leasing out the Stevens subdivision area until some time in the future. There really is no need for that quarry now, because there is still a good deal of material left at the McLean Lake area.

So, no, we would not be leasing out the properties in the near future.

Ms. Moorcroft:

The Minister was not able to bring back satisfactory answers to the concerns I was bringing forward that the residents have about dust and noise - I am not going to go through the whole list again; the Minister has heard it before. Could the Minister bring back the copies of the lease agreements for me, along with any conditions they have attached to them?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I am not exactly sure if that is public information. The general terms and conditions of the leases are, I am sure, but I am not sure whether the specifics of cost and so on are public information. I will check into it and, if it is available to the public, I will certainly bring it back for the Member.

Ms. Moorcroft:

What I am particularly interested in, of course, is the information that would provide whatever accountability is there to attach conditions to those leases. That is what I am looking for, for the Minister's clarification.

I would like to ask about something the Minister said when he was speaking to the Association of Yukon Communities this

Page Number 2392

2392

spring. He indicated that several Yukon government departments were working to develop guidelines for the equitable distribution of remaining funds for the CDF program over the coming year, and that municipalities are still eligible applicants. I would just like to quote from his speech for a minute: "However, the revised guidelines may include a hierarchy of eligible applicants, with some kinds of applicants given higher priority over others."

Can the Minister tell us what this means? Can the Minister tell us what he means when he writes about the hierarchy of eligible applicants? How are they going to decide who gets the money?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I do not have it in front of me, but there is an eligibility criterion. The question would more appropriately be directed to the Minister of Economic Development. I do not have the criterion here at this time. I suggest the Member ask that question of the Minister of Economic Development when we get into that department.

Ms. Moorcroft:

The Minister is the one who was talking about it in a public forum. Could he table the guidelines? Perhaps he could check with the Minister, as he might have a bit more clout in Cabinet.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I will check with the Minister of Economic Development and see if I cannot comply with that request.

Ms. Moorcroft:

In the introduction to this departmental budget, I note that land sales financing has been transferred to the Yukon Housing Corporation. Can the Minister explain why that has been done?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

There was a duplication of services. Our lands branch was doing land financing and they had one person looking after that task. The Yukon Housing Corporation also does financing for mortgages, home repair programs and so on, and has a very large number of clients. We felt that, rather than duplicate the services, we could combine the two by taking one person from lands over to Yukon Housing Corporation and all of the land financing to Yukon Housing. This would consolidate the process and make it a more workable portfolio.

Ms. Moorcroft:

The Department of Community and Transportation Services in the 1993-94 budget showed a development cost for land development. The Yukon Housing Corporation will show a profit because of this transfer. Will the Yukon Housing Corporation take the land development costs into their budget with this transfer?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

No. The cost for the development of land will remain with the lands branch; however, the financing of the land will be held by the Yukon Housing Corporation.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Will the monies made on the land transactions be reflected in the Yukon Housing Corporation budget, rather than in the Community and Transportation Services budget?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

Maybe I could explain a little bit. When somebody buys a piece of land from the Yukon government, they can actually finance that land over a period of time. That is the function that Yukon Housing is going to carry out, but the cost of the development will remain with lands and actually, the return of the money will be back into Community and Transportation Services.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Thank you for the answer. The note also states that the agricultural grazing lands coordination unit will be transferred to the Department of Renewable Resources. The agricultural branch looks at technical suitability and agricultural capability and, as such, can be considered an industry advocate. That is legitimate, and so it should be. The lands branch looks at the best use of the land and releases land as suitable. Why has this transfer been done?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

The main reason for transferring the position to the agricultural branch is to more or less give the would-be purchaser or lease holder of land a one-window approach to obtaining that land. The agricultural branch, as the Member is probably aware, does the soil suitability tests and makes the recommendations and so on. Now, the people who go to the agricultural branch looking for land can actually get an agreement for sale right at the agricultural branch.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Will the agricultural applications still be subject to review?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

Yes, they will still be subject to LARC and the various committees.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Is the government planning to transfer any more land branch functions to other government departments?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

Not that I am aware of.

Ms. Moorcroft:

We are seeing many positions moving to other departments and reorganizations taking place. I would like to have the Minister's assurance that they are not planning to completely remove the lands branch.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

No, that is certainly not our intention.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Yesterday, the Minister was going to provide some further information on the committee work that is being done about the Whitehorse periphery use of city facilities. I wonder whether the cost-of-service committee that was struck over a year ago by the Association of Yukon Communities is still looking at the issue of rural services. I would also like to know if the Association of Yukon Communities will be involved in the development of the rural services policy that the Minister has talked about.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

Essentially, there are two committees. There is the YTG-city committee and there is the Association of Yukon Communities committee, which is the committee that the Member was referring to.

The YTG-city committee is more or less a group of people organized for fact finding. The Association of Yukon Communities apparently has met a couple of times, but is still waiting for additional information from the first group. These committees will be involved in the development of the rural services policy.

Ms. Moorcroft:

The Association of Yukon Communities committee is made up of representatives from the hamlets, the City of Whitehorse and the Yukon government, to analyze the need for a cost-sharing agreement between the municipality and the rural areas to compensate for rural use of municipal facilities. The YTG/city committee is doing fact finding on exactly the same information. The only difference between the two committees is that the hamlets are not involved in the one committee. The Minister has just said that the YTG city fact-finding committee will go back to the AYC committee. I would like to know who is going to be involved in the decision making. Is it going to be just the city and YTG doing the fact finding and the decision making, or are they going to involve the AYC committee and the hamlets, again, in the process? They have been shut out the last while.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

The AYC committee will certainly be involved in the decision making. There was an agreement with the AYC committee that the staff of YTG and the city would be given the opportunity to get some base information, and then present it to the AYC committee.

Ms. Moorcroft:

When does the Minister expect that information will be presented to the AYC committee?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I believe that some of the information has gone to that committee already but we should be able to finalize it in the next month or month and a half. Apparently, the one holdup right now, the information they have not so far been able to get but on which they are working, is the Whitehorse landfill.

Ms. Moorcroft:

I was just wondering which issue I would follow up on next, but landfill was right up there, so the Minister has just provided a lead-in. I know the Minister has looked at the

Page Number 2393

2393

notes on the Whitehorse periphery use of city landfill and there is a breakdown here covering a six-day period - 146 vehicles. Based on licence plate checks, 35 vehicles or 24 percent of users were from outside the city limits. That seems to me to be a very low and a very random sample. Has the Bureau of Statistics looked at these numbers, or has there been any work done to do a more comprehensive study on just exactly how much landfill use is done by residents outside the city?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

The Bureau of Statistics apparently has not even been considered to look at this, but we are not satisfied with the numbers the Member has. I believe those were the City of Whitehorse numbers. They just count vehicles that come in and checked licence plates, and arrived at some 25 percent coming from out of town, but I do not think they took into consideration their own garbage trucks, and so on. It may very well be that 25 percent of the vehicles going to the city dump on that particular day were from out of town, but that certainly would not mean that 25 percent of the garbage that goes into the city landfill would be generated by people from out of town. That is why we are not totally satisfied with those numbers.

Ms. Moorcroft:

The Mile 9 Carcross Road dump has a number of volunteers who participate in the recycling program there and those volunteers have even talked about spending six days recording the number of vehicles that go there. They believe that approximately 24 percent of the users of the landfill outside city limits are people who live inside city limits. The Minister has received correspondence from at least one of my constituents regarding that dump and how poorly it is kept and how overused it is. I would like to ask when they are going to make this decision of either putting in a transfer station there or finding some way to deal with the garbage that is generated - more responsible management. It is a question that has been asked in previous sessions and, indeed, of previous governments, so I hope the Minister has an answer.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

The Mile 9 dump has been an issue for quite some time, as the Member opposite has noted. When the rural services policy is finalized and accepted, if the users of the Mile 9 dump want to take on the extra cost, we may very well look at a transfer station, but a transfer station really just moves the garbage from one place to another. It does not totally alleviate the problem. That dump was filled, I think, some time last fall or summer. We had trucks go in and remove the garbage and actually transfer it to another dump that is not used so much.

It is not a good situation; we know that. The problem is to find another site. It is very, very difficult. In the past several years, numerous sites have been looked at and, for one reason or another, they have all been rejected.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Is the Minister committed to the continuation of the recycling program that is presently underway in the Whitehorse landfill, and which, on a volunteer basis, is also undertaken at other dumps in the territory? The Minister has talked about finding a better way of dealing with it, and reducing the amount of garbage we put out is a good way of dealing with it, as well as recycling programs. What is the Minister's commitment on that?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I certainly support the recycling program in principle. The City of Whitehorse and Renewable Resources provide some of the funding for the Raven Recycling Centre - at least, for something to do with the bottles. It is not really in Community and Transportation Services' area.

In principle, yes, I do support recycling, and the ROTS program here in the city.

Ms. Moorcroft:

I am glad to hear the Minister supports it in principle. Does he support it in practice?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

If the Member means, do I take my recyclables to Raven, yes, I do.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Very good. I had given notice during general debate that I would like to ask the Minister about recentralization.

I would like to know how many people within the department have been transferred back to Whitehorse. Could the Minister provide a list of all the travel costs for all the people who are being recentralized back to Whitehorse from rural communities, since they have indicated it is the travel costs that have made it difficult for them to maintain those positions within the communities?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I have a list of the adjustments in positions. My notes are a bit scribbled, but I can read it into Hansard.

The eastern area superintendent was moved from Faro to Whitehorse. We moved a parts person to Dawson City to support the area workshop and improve service. We moved a driver trainer to Dawson City to better support the northern area superintendent. We will be moving the community planning advisory and municipal advisor from Dawson to Whitehorse, in order to improve the effectiveness of operation. We have moved the municipal advisor from Teslin to Whitehorse for the same reason.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Could the Minister bring back the travel costs associated with the municipal advisors in Teslin and Dawson and the community planner in Dawson, from the time of their decentralization to Teslin and Dawson, respectively, to the time they will be moved back to Whitehorse?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

Yes, certainly. However, it is not cost alone that is driving the recentralization of those two positions, nor the decentralization of the other two positions. For the community planner, for example, we currently have about six area plans in the Whitehorse area for which we need people. In Dawson, for instance, the community planner did do the Klondike Valley land use plan while the position was there, but once that plan was completed, there was no need for a planner in Dawson City. On the other hand, in the immediate Whitehorse area, there are several plans on the go, plus other plans in, for example, Ross River and other areas, so recentralization of that position makes a lot of sense.

Ms. Moorcroft:

The Minister has spoken of the six land use planning exercises that are occurring in the Whitehorse area. I believe he is referring to the ones in the Mayo Road area. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

There is Mayo Road, Carcross and the Hamlet of Mount Lorne.

Ms. Moorcroft:

The hamlet plan is done. The Minister just talked about the Klondike Valley land use plan, and in his speech to the Association of Yukon Communities he also talked about the Dawson City boundary expansion, which was the subject of some debate in this Legislature. The City of Dawson has expanded its boundaries and taken in a very large area. Does the Minister not believe that they need to do some work on planning in the Klondike area?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

A municipality is responsible for its own planning. The community planning advisor does not do planning for a municipality. They may very well assist, or provide some advice to them, but the municipality is responsible for its own planning.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Well, it is widely believed, and indeed voiced, by many residents of Dawson that I have talked to that the community planner position is being moved back to Whitehorse strictly as a political move. Can the Minister give me his assurance that that is not the case?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

Certainly, I can give that assurance. The initiative was undertaken by the department. It was not a ministerial directive.

Ms. Moorcroft:

The Minister said that is not cost alone. What are the other reasons for moving this position?

Page Number 2394

2394

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

Generally, it is the effectiveness of the position and the efficiency in having work done. Although they do travel quite a lot throughout the territory, most of their work is preparing amendments to acts, drafting policy, drafting regulations, and that sort of thing, which they pretty well have to do in Whitehorse because they have access to the information here. Working at a job where one needs access to many, many people and a lot of information is very difficult, regardless of the fax machines and communication networks we do have - it is still very difficult to do in a community outside of Whitehorse.

Mr. Cable:

I would like to ask some general questions of the Minister on planning and some specific questions in relation to the Stevens subdivision.

The planning functions appear to be focused in a couple of the divisions of the department. Could the Minister indicate where the planners are in his department in relation to land, highways, and quarry development?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

In the community services branch of the Department of Community and Transportation Services, we have a manager of planning. The decentralized position in Dawson is that of a community planner. There is a planning technician and a secretary. There are four positions dealing with planning in the community services branch.

The Department of Renewable Resources has planners for regional plans and land use. Ours are more community-oriented, whereas the Department of Renewable Resources' plans fall within the planning for larger land use areas, such as the Kluane land use plan.

Mr. Cable:

Is there planning done within the transportation division? If so, is it integrated with the planning done in the other divisions?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

There certainly is planning in highways. It is functional planning and it is to do with highways, whereas the community planners are looking more at land use, zoning, and that type of thing.

Mr. Cable:

I would like to get down to a few specifics because, from the specifics, we might find out the workings of the department.

The Stevens area development scheme speaks of reports that, assumedly, were commissioned by the Government of Yukon and carried out in 1977 and 1978. Could the Minister confirm that those reports were commissioned by the government, as opposed to the municipality of the City of Whitehorse? Could the Minister also confirm what segment of his department would have commissioned those reports. I am specifically referring to the reports referred to in paragraph 2(1) of the Stevens area development scheme, prepared by R.G. Hilker and R.M. Hardy and Associates Ltd.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I do not have that information here. We can check it out and provide the Member with the information.

Mr. Cable:

Is the Minister saying that he is not aware whether the Government of Yukon commissioned it, or that he is not aware of which particular department commissioned it?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I was not aware of the study.

Mr. Cable:

Let me ask this question concerning the gravel pit out at the Stevens subdivision that seems to be the bone of contention: was it the Minister's department that identified that area as a potential gravel pit or was it the City of Whitehorse?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I am not sure who initially decided that there was a gravel source there. It could have been Public Works Canada - I do not know. I do know that there was some further testing on it about three years ago. I remember when a cat was sent there to clear a trail into the site of the gravel source in the winter time and wrecked some ski trails used by the people in MacPherson. There was a big hullabaloo about it in the paper. I believe that was about three years ago, and I think that it was our department that actually hired the people to do the testing.

Mr. Cable:

Would that be with a view to determining gravel sources for the highways division, or for municipal purposes?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

It was for public use in the Whitehorse area.

Mr. Cable:

Is that the long-term projected use for the quarry that is immediately adjacent to the Stevens subdivision - simply public use as opposed to a source of gravel for the highway division?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

It is not focused on the highways at all. Highways does not have an interest in that particular source.

Mr. Cable:

Has the Minister's department, either through the studies I previously referred to, or otherwise, conducted an inventory of gravel deposits in and around the City of Whitehorse?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I do not believe all the sources have been identified. There have been several reports. As the Member pointed out, this one goes back to 1978. There are several reports like that for different areas, but I do not believe there has been an extensive study done identifying all the sources. There are probably quite a number out there we do not know about.

Mr. Cable:

That would apply both within the City of Whitehorse and in the immediately surrounding area. Would that be the Minister's position?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

That would probably be mostly within the City of Whitehorse. On the highway right-of-ways, I believe the highways people know most of the gravel sources - at least where there is plenty for their own use. I do not think the quantity of all the ones within the city, or near the city, is fully known.

Mr. Cable:

The Minister's deputy is an engineer. Would the Minister refer to him to determine whether, in his view, there are quite a variety of potential gravel sources in and around the City of Whitehorse, because of the geography and geology?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I understand the Member opposite is an engineer as well as a lawyer, so perhaps he could tell us. There are likely sources here that we do not know about, and there are sources that we do know about. For instance, there is one in the Chadburn Lake area, but because that is like a protected area I do not know whether we would want to establish a large quarrying operation in that particular area. I do believe there may very well be other sources that are not fully known - maybe the locations are known but the quantities are probably not known.

Mr. Cable:

Then I would not be exaggerating if I said there had not been a complete inventory taken and that there may be many other potential sources of usable gravel in the City of Whitehorse that could be used instead of the gravels in the quarry immediately adjacent to the Stevens subdivision.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

That may very well be an observation, but the other point to keep in mind is the distance for haulage. A lot of the people who live in Ibex Valley had to buy material coming from McLean Lake, which becomes very costly. A public pit in that general area would probably be looked on quite favourably by a lot of people. Where the problem comes in is if it were to go out to lease operators, and crushers and batch plants and asphalt plants and so on were to set up in the area. Those would be incompatible uses with the residential nature of the neighbourhood.

It may very well be that it will not ever need to be developed as that type of a quarry. I do not want to say that it never will be, nor do I want to say that we will do it next year, because I do not know. If we were to find another good source of gravel at, say, the Fish Lake Road area - fairly handy to that section of the city - it may be that we would never have to worry about ever developing the Stevens subdivision pit as anything more than Ia public pit.

Mr. Cable:

Is it fair to say that, in view of the fact that a

Page Number 2395

2395

complete inventory has not been done of gravel pits within the city, and that this pit is probably not going to be used for large-scale commercial use, that there is no urgency to commit these lands to the quarry until an inventory has been taken?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

It is very important that people know about it when they buy lots in the area. I do not think it would be responsible of this government to sell the lots, knowing there is a gravel source there that might be needed at some time in the future. It is only right that we tell people that there is a gravel source there. For a public pit, I think it is an enhancement to an area.

However, if there are no other gravel sources in the area - or at some point in the future, perhaps 10 or 15 years from now - they may have to use this as a regular quarry operation. However, I do not know that at this time, but I think it is only fair to let people know that there is a good source of gravel in the area.

Mr. Cable:

Is the reason the Minister is advancing for letting people know only because they may want a source of gravel, or is it because the gravel pit will seriously depreciate the value of the residential properties, if they buy in and later find out there is a gravel pit?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I do not think it is either one of those reasons, or only partially. People have the right to know, if they do not want to be anywhere near an area that might create a lot of noise or dust - all the things people do not like about a large quarry operation. I do not think it would be fair to sell them the lots and then, a couple of years later, develop that operation.

Mr. Cable:

I do not think it would be fair, either, because a gravel pit has to rank right up there with a glue factory and a dump as to what one would not want 100 metres away from one's residential property. What appears to be happening is we are trying to shove a round peg in a square hole, just because this gravel happens to be sitting there. The Stevens area development scheme refers to the official plan of the City of Whitehorse and refers to the identification of the quarry as necessary to protect the quarry potential.

It certainly does not say that one has to protect each and every quarry. I am wondering, in view of the fact that these two uses appear to be so inherently incompatible - a quarry where there is noise and dust and the disturbance of people who might be going out for a walk - why are we trying to shove these two basically incompatible uses together, rather than investigating whether the product from the quarry can be obtained somewhere else?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

We are going to do that. I think we have a fairly lengthy period of time to do that because the McLean Lake quarry is good for a number of years. But, again, I do not think a public pit is that much of an incompatible use. I live within half a kilometre of a public pit on the Hot Springs Road. In fact, I think the Member opposite drives very near to it on his way home every night.

If I happen to see a truck going in there, then I know that someone is working there; otherwise I do not even know. Nearly all of the lots in the Stevens subdivision area are at least that distance from where the pit would be.

So, I do not feel a public pit is an incompatible use, but the large operations likely are an incompatible use and I would prefer not to see that happen. But, at some point in time, it may happen. It may happen if there is no other good source of gravel.

Apparently, this area has been tested and there is sand and gravel; there are all of the things that quarry operators need in one area. But, by the same token, I do not know that it is absolutely necessary to have the crushers, the batch plants and the asphalt plants set up right in the pit. I do not see why one would have to do that. I know that it is probably more economical, but if one is in an area where there are residences, why would one not truck the gravel somewhere else to process it?

Mr. Cable:

From a planning standpoint, I would think that the Minister's planners, or City of Whitehorse officials, would be somewhat concerned that there is this indefinite potential for commercialization - to use the Minister's words, and incompatible use. In fact, there is large scale commercial usage of the quarry.

Is the Minister prepared to organize the Stevens subdivision on some basis so that there will be no large scale commercial use of the quarry at some time in the future?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I would like to see the results of the meeting in June. Apparently, there will be public meetings held in June - I am not sure of the exact dates - to discuss the quarry pit in the Stevens area. I would like to see the residents at that meeting talk about this. These are only my ideas; I have not yet discussed them with the people who are intending to develop the pit.

I do believe that you could run a quarry by taking the material somewhere else. If and when we get to the point where we need that material, then why could we not move the material somewhere else to process it? I do not see any reason why that could not be.

Right now, when there is material handy, it certainly would be cheaper to set your crusher in the gravel pit; there is no question about that. As long as there are sources of gravel around that are accessible and not in the middle of a residential subdivision, that is the way that it would be done. This is the way it worked in the town I came from in Alberta. The material was brought to the crusher, and the material was trucked quite a few miles.

At that time, they used quite small trucks compared to the vehicles they are using nowadays.

I think what I am saying is that it is possible. It may be more costly and therefore it might not be feasible to open that area up as a large industrial quarry for a number of years.

Mr. Cable:

As the Minister is no doubt aware from all of these meetings, there is a mixed jurisdictional bag involved in the dispute around the Stevens subdivision. Who is actually driving the decision on the protection of this quarry? Is it the Minister's department or the City of Whitehorse?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

Apparently it is a joint interest. The city is interested in making sure that there is gravel available, and we were definitely interested in making sure the people knew about it when we developed the lots.

Mr. Cable:

Somebody made the decision that this quarry should be protected because it had some value. Was it the Minister's department that made that decision?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

Yes, it was.

Mr. Cable:

Regarding the identification of the residential subdivision land, who was it that actually identified the Stevens subdivision area as a potential for a residential subdivision? Was it the Minister's department or the City of Whitehorse?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I think it was probably the government. It could have been the city, through their official community plan, but I think it was probably the government that identified it several years ago as a potential residential area.

Mr. Cable:

Did the Minister, or any of his predecessors, receive information from the department's planners that these two uses are basically incompatible - a quarry 100 metres away from a residential subdivision?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

The quarry regulations themselves advise that a quarry must be 100 metres away from a residential subdivision. In this case, there are no lots within 100 metres of the quarry. They are all much farther away than that.

Mr. Cable:

I must have an outdated plan. How close is the lot that is the closest to the quarry, in metres? Is it substantially greater than 100 metres? Is that what the Minister is saying?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

Yes, I am.

Page Number 2396

2396

Mr. Cable:

How many metres are we talking about? How far is the residential subdivision from where the Minister feels the quarry operations will be carried out?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

We will be having a break here soon and, after the break, I will bring down the latest plan. We can put some measurements on it, and I will provide it to the Member opposite.

Mr. Cable:

The Minister indicated that the plan met the quarry regulations. Of course, the quarry regulations are promulgated by the Minister's department. Is the Minister satisfied that the issues of noise and dust will be met when people come into this pit? Where are the distances from this subdivision? There seems to be quite a concern among the people who have met with the Minister that this quarry is an incompatible use with the residential subdivision. They have raised the issues of dust and noise and I am sure there are some others - was road safety another issue? Whatever the regulations say, has the Minister been satisfied by his internal planners that this is a good planning exercise?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I am satisfied that the two uses can exist, but it would depend on the nature of the quarry operation. As I said before, if there were a crusher running 18 to 24 hours a day in the summer, and there were a batch plant making concrete, and there were an asphalt plant in there with its smell and so on, I would agree - especially if these things were running 24 hours a day - that it would be incompatible to a residential neighbourhood. As I said before, I live very close to one and I do not even know they are in there. I asked the fellow who lives right across the road from it how bad the dust was and he said there was no dust. This is a public quarry. Periodically, a few trucks will come out and haul some gravel away. Mostly, the locals use it for their own driveways, and so on.

So, it depends on the nature of the quarry - the type of operation that goes on there. Also, the residents will have input into the hours when the thing is running. I understand that, even though at McLean Lake they are supposed to be running from something like 7:00 in the morning until 10:00 at night, no more than that, sometimes they are going until 2:00 in the morning. Whether this is correct or not, I do not know. That is what some people have told me.

If that is the case, it is certainly not compatible. If there are trucks going by near one's residence, which does happen at McLean Lake, that is not compatible.

Mr. Cable:

Could the Minister advise us as to what the considerations are with regard to the location of gravel pits in municipalities? These are gravel pits that would be used by the residents for picking up gravel, as opposed to large commercial usages.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I do not really know. It depends on where the source of gravel is. In Whitehorse, if I remember correctly, I believe there is a public pit in Hillcrest. There is one on the Mayo Road on the other side of Takhini Bridge. There is one out at the Hot Springs near where I live, and one in the McLean Lake area. The decomposed granite there was quarried long before I ever moved to Whitehorse. Public pits will develop wherever the source is.

Mr. Cable:

The question I was leading up to is that it is not crucial that the pits used by people immediately adjacent are not necessarily located within one mile, 10 miles or even 15 miles, because they are only going to use the odd truckful on the odd occasion. Would it not be fair to say that transportation costs would not be a major factor in determining where to situate these gravel pits?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I do not know. There is a private developer who built a road just past Hidden Valley School to some lots he completed. He had to build an access road along the highway for about one-half of a kilometre. Most of that gravel came from the pit near my home. Probably 60 or 80 truckloads of gravel went out of there. A public pit is not just for me and my pickup truck. It is also for people in the area who are building driveways, and so on. It can get fairly costly if you need 30 or 40 loads of gravel for your driveway, and you have to drive all the way to McLean Lake from the Ibex Valley and back.

Mr. Cable:

I am getting to an obvious point, in view of the examples just used: the gravel pit does not have to be a couple of hundred metres away. It can be a couple of miles away and still serve the function for which it was designed. Would that not be a fair statement?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

Certainly, within reason.

Ms. Moorcroft:

The Minister's answers do not seem to bear a lot of resemblance to the facts, in some cases. It is like flailing away at a scarecrow blowing in the wind; you just cannot pin it down.

When I look at the Stevens subdivision map, the gravel quarry is shown as being as large, if not larger, than the entire residential development of the 32 or 37 lots, whatever it may be once the future development close to the gravel quarry is filled in.

The gravel is to be extracted from the roadside of the hill, leaving the subdivision side of the slope intact to help buffer against sound and dust. However, the hill lies on the upwind side of the proposed community and prevailing winds would carry sound and dust well into the residential area. The Minister is saying that maybe in 10 years it would be a commercial or regular quarry operation. He also said that he would prefer not to see the quarry operate as a commercial quarry, and that it will just be a public pit. At the same time, the Minister is saying that a public pit may see extensive use, and he is refusing to give any commitment that there will not be commercial development within the next 10 years - or even two years down the road. The City of Whitehorse has made it clear that they want to see development occur immediately.

Is the Department of Community and Transportation Services discussing with contractors any future gravel leases in the new Stevens gravel quarry area?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

There are no leases that the deputy minister and I are aware of.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Any attempt to develop both residential and gravel quarry uses, side by side, can only lead to increased conflicts for many, many years to come.

We have certainly seen the level of conflict while discussing this idea. It is simply bad planning. Would the Minister agree with that?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

Not necessarily; no, I would not.

Mr. Penikett:

I wanted to pursue an issue that may take a few minutes. I wonder, Mr. Chair, if it was your preference to take a break before beginning this new line of inquiry or not.

Chair:

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

Some Hon. Members:

Agreed.

Recess

Chair:

I will now call Committee of the Whole to order. Is there any further general debate?

Mr. Penikett:

I would be negligent in my duties if I did not ask the Minister about the inquiry into what some people still refer to as the Dawson sewer scandal - the events of last year, where the mayor of the city was alleged to have given direct instructions to a contractor, perhaps in violation of his authority in law and contrary to the terms of the contract signed with the people doing the work.

Page Number 2397

2397

First of all, I would like to have a general progress report on what is happening. I was disturbed to hear some reports about a key witness not making himself available for the deputy minister's investigation. In simple terms, I would like to know where we are at and where we are going on this.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I am sure the Member opposite knows that there was a public query by the inspector of municipalities regarding the whole affair. The Member is correct about there being one witness who did not want to provide information. I believe there was good reason for that; there was a conflict because he is a government employee. The inspector of municipalities has completed his query and is putting the report together. It will be given to the City of Dawson and also made public as soon as it is completed.

Mr. Penikett:

I do not want to get into asking questions now that intrude into areas which may have been examined by the inspector. However, I understand that His Worship, the Mayor, had justified some of his actions on the basis of past grievances about the sewer system and about the way it was put in and the massive cost. I remember hearing about the original promise that Andre Carrell spoke about - that the new system was going to lower the operating costs - when in fact it doubled them. Let me ask the Minister this question: will the inspector of municipalities' report cover all of those questions, including the historical ones, or will it just address the narrow particulars of the question as it was posed by the colleagues of the mayor, the city councillors in Dawson? The second thing that I am interested in knowing is when the report might be tabled, and whether, to the Minister's knowledge, the report is likely to recommend a further public inquiry or judicial inquiry following up on these events.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

The terms of reference are basically what city council asked of the inspector of municipalities. That did not include historical data. As to when it will be available, the inspector of municipalities just informed me that, if we get out of here fairly soon, he should have it completed within two to four weeks.

Mr. Penikett:

I do not know from the Minister's last remark if he meant completing the estimates for his department or the whole budget. My response to his remark would differ depending on that. I may as well give notice now that I would like to ask some questions on this once the report is tabled. I hope it will be tabled during the life of this legislative sitting.

I would like to ask the Minister a question that he may have to take as notice. I would be curious to know if, even without the historical concept, the inspector of municipalities was able, or had reason, to examine the precise evidence about the facts of this matter, since I have heard two versions. One version was that the mayor gave instructions to the contractor, and he carried them out, and those instructions and the contractor's work were not provided for under the terms of the agreement with the municipality. Another version I have heard is that the mayor gave instructions to the contractor, and the contractor did not actually carry out either the original disconnect or the subsequent correction of that. There was, therefore, no potential liability incurred by anyone, and the only result was some confusion about whether or not the work was done, who authorized it, who was accountable, and whether or not it was done according to the precise terms of the contract.

I do not want to get into a lot of detail on that, but I would be curious to know if the report will actually include an examination of the actual facts of the question, and if the disputes about facts will be resolved in the report.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

The idea of the inquiry is to find out what actually did happen, who was responsible for what, and that will all be in the report that will be tabled. With respect to the Member's other comment, it is two to four weeks after Community and Transportation Services' budget is completed.

Mr. Penikett:

One part of the question the Minister did not answer was whether he is anticipating further investigations, prosecutions or any other consequences of the report.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I do not want to get into details of the inquiry, but my understanding is that there will be no further investigation.

Chair:

Is there further general debate on the department?

Is there any debate on office of the deputy minister?

On Office of the Deputy Minister

Ms. Moorcroft:

If the Minister could just give a brief explanation of the lines as we run through them, I will let him know if I have any specific questions. The only question I have in general debate is on emergency measures. I note that on page 67 the recoveries for emergency measures have increased approximately four percent and the expenditures have decreased by four percent. So, why is there a decrease in expenditures when there is an increase in recoveries?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

My understanding is that this is recoverable from the federal government, from Emergency Preparedness Canada, and the $165,000 is what we feel we will recover in 1994-95.

Ms. Moorcroft:

The question I was asking was why the recoveries have gone up. He has just said they feel they will recover it. What is the basis for that feeling? My subsequent question is: why are they predicting a reduction in actual expenditures?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

The $165,000 on the recovery is a negotiated amount and, as I said, we feel that is the amount we can successfully negotiate with Emergency Preparedness Canada. The decrease in the actual expenditure is mainly due to the increased efficiency in training and education of employees and volunteers through the implementation of distance learning programs.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Will there be less programming done this year than in previous years?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

No, it should be about the same as in previous years.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Is there any reduction in staffing within the emergency measures area?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

Actually, there is a slight increase. We have a part-time secretary we did not previously have.

On Activities

On Deputy Minister's Office

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

There is an increase of $23,000 from 1993-94 to 1994-95, resulting from the change of casual position to full-time position for an office secretary. This position was transferred from the transportation division administration.

The 1994-95 budget consists of $233,000 for personnel, which includes salary, wages and benefits for three staff members - the deputy minister, the deputy minister's secretary and an office secretary.

There is $24,000 allocated for other expenditures, primarily deputy minister travel, in the amounts of $2,000 for in-Yukon travel and $9,000 for outside the Yukon. There is $5,000 allocated for communications; $5,000 for non-consumable assets; and $3,000 for various smaller amounts.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Is there still a travel freeze in place?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

No, there is not an actual freeze, but all travel outside the Yukon has to be approved by the Minister.

Deputy Minister's Office in the amount of $247,000 agreed to

On Emergency Measures

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

In comparison to previous years, there is a decrease of $11,000 from 1993-94 to 1994-95 due to the increased efficiency in the training and education of employees and volunteers through implementation of a distance learning program. The 1994-95 O&M budget consists of $121,000 for personnel. This

Page Number 2398

2398

includes the salary and wages and benefits for director, and a part-time clerk; $167,000 for Other, which is $73,000 for travel, $3,000 for employees, and $63,000 for Other in Yukon, and $4,000 for employees, and $3,000 for Other outside Yukon; $60,000 for contract services; $15,000 for communications; $7,000 program materials and supplies; and $12,000 in smaller amounts.

Emergency Measures in the amount of $288,000 agreed to

On Communications

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

There is an increase of $27,000 from 1993-94 to 1994-95. The VHF mobile radio system has increased $49,000 due to circuit changes for the addition of the Dempster Highway and CRTC-improved increase to link charges. This increase is offset by a reduction of $15,000 in community TV and radio, as a second preventive maintenance trip is no longer required, and various reductions in communication administration totalling $6,000.

Communications in the amount of $418,000 agreed to

Office of the Deputy Minister in the amount of $953,000 agreed to

On Corporate Services Division

Ms. Moorcroft:

If the Minister provides a breakdown of the lines as we go through them, I have no questions for general debate.

On Activities

On Human Resources

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

There is a decrease of $9,000 from 1993-94 to 1994-95, mainly resulting from a scaling down of management/supervisory refresher training and general training in the communities. The O&M budget consists of $348,000 for personnel. It includes salary, wages and benefits for the director, 2 employee service clerks, two personnel officers, and an administrative assistant; $16,000 for other; $7,000 for travel in Yukon; $7,000 for communications; and $2,000 for contract services.

Human Resources in the amount of $364,000 agreed to

On Finance, Systems and Administration

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

An increase of $84,000 is mainly the result of the transfer of the records management responsibility from Government Services, with two full-time equivalent positions. The 1994-95 budget consists of $698,000 for personnel. They include the salary, wages and benefits for the director, nine finance and accounting administration staff, two records management clerks and one systems administrator. There is $39,000 for other, comprised of $15,000 for supplies, which includes the deputy minister's office and corporate services as a whole; $7,000 for communications; $6,000 for contract services; $6,000 for other, which would include staff training memberships and so on, and $7,000 in smaller amounts.

Finance, Systems and Administration in the amount of $737,000 agreed to

On Policy, Planning and Evaluation

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

There is a decrease of $1,000, which is the result of various small items. The 1994-95 budget consists of $298,000 for personnel, which includes salary, wages and benefits for director, two policy analysts and a policy program research officer. There is $7,000 for other, which includes $4,000 for communications and $3,000 for training, reference materials and so on.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Could the Minister elaborate on what legislative policy and program development work the policy unit will be providing in the next year?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

We do not have a comprehensive list, but some of the main ones they will be involved with are Municipal Act amendments, Motor Vehicles Act amendments, the rural services-rural government policy, the land development policy, and the transportation strategy.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Does the Minister have any progress reports or any information available on the Motor Vehicles Act amendments, the rural services policy and the lands policy? The Minister has made public statements about a number of those initiatives, and I am just wondering if there is any information available yet.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

Using some of those examples that I gave the Member a few minutes ago, there will be a public consultation on the Municipal Act this summer, as well as on the Motor Vehicles Act. There has been quite a lot of work done on the rural services and rural government policy, but there needs to be further work and consultation. I think I spoke of the land development policy during general debate, and it will be some time in late fall of this year.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Did I understand the Minister to say that the Motor Vehicles Act amendments would be going to public consultation over the summer?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

Yes, they will.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Could the Minister arrange to provide a briefing for any Members of the Opposition who are interested in looking over those proposed amendments?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

Certainly. I do not have any problem with that, on any of these. When we get to the point of consultation, I will certainly let the Opposition know and if they wish to have a briefing we will arrange it.

Policy, Planning and Evaluation in the amount of $305,000 agreed to

Corporate Services Division in the amount of $1,406,000 agreed to

On Transportation Division

Ms. Moorcroft:

I have some questions. Perhaps the Minister could refer, for the first question, to the statistics on page 51, which give the expenditures by highway. The line I am interested in is the one marked "other roads" for $2,259,000. There is quite a comprehensive list of the major highways and how much they are each getting. What roads are covered under "other roads" and what level of service will be provided for them?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

The Member opposite and I both live on an "other" road. I do not have a comprehensive list of those roads here. The level of maintenance depends on whether it is a school bus route - school bus routes naturally get priority - and the Member can probably identify fairly well, living on the Annie Lake Road, with the type of maintenance we provide. If the Member wishes, I could probably get her a list of all of the roads in the territory that are classed under "other".

Ms. Moorcroft:

The department has already provided me with a list of all the roads that are maintained under the rural road maintenance policy. What I am enquiring about is whether roads that are maintained under this "other roads" line are all roads that are not listed under a specific highway. Do they charge, for instance, if they run out of money on the Canol Road budget and put that into the "other roads" expenditure?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

A good example would be if we ran out of money on the Canol Road. We would not be charging the Canol Road maintenance to other roads. If we ran out of money, and we had extra money in other roads, we would transfer that money over, and it would be seen in a supplementary at some time during the year.

If you go back to 1992-93 and look at actual costs for other roads, the forecast for 1993-94 and the estimate for 1994-95, we are running fairly constant.

Ms. Moorcroft:

On that same page, I note that the recoverable services were $160,000 in 1992-93, and they were estimated at $580,000 for 1993-94, which is up significantly. It

Page Number 2399

2399

then drops down to $200,000 for the 1994-95 fiscal year. Can the Minister provide an explanation?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I have been informed that we have made a mistake. The $580,000 was an overestimate, and that is why it is more realistic at $200,000 for 1994-95. This more or less coincides with the 1992-93 actual cost.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Do you know what the 1993-94 actual costs will roughly be?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

No, I do not.

Ms. Moorcroft:

I am glad that I caught that mistake. I have another question in relation to the supplementary information on page 49.

It reads here that the type of equipment for highway maintenance has changed since 1993-94. There is a list below of projected replacements, which list some equipment. Those words do not seem to have a lot of meaning, and I would like to know what new changes there have been. If you look at the list, it has tandem axle trucks, graders and light duty pickup trucks, and so on. There is nothing new there. What changes have been made in the types of equipment for highway maintenance?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

We do not have the actual detail here, but I believe that the two trailers that we see here for projected replacement are probably pup trailers that are pulled behind tandem trucks. As it says, we are getting into longer hauls, so we are starting to use pup trailers with tandem dumps.

Ms. Moorcroft:

That does not seem to be a lot of changes in the types of equipment. I still wonder why that statement was made: that the type of equipment for highway maintenance has changed. Is there anything other than the adding of two trailers included in these changes?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

There is not a lot of change in this. However, I understand that the highways division is finding that we are using the plow trucks more. As the highway is being improved, we are able to use plough trucks rather than graders, in many instances. That will be a change. As time goes on, we will likely end up with more plough trucks and fewer graders. It is probably not reflected in this, other than those two trailers, which are a new way to haul gravel long distances.

Ms. Moorcroft:

On page 56, under weigh stations, there has been a decrease in over-dimensional permits issued from 1992-93, and a projected further decrease for 1994-95. I am wondering why there was a decrease. Mining is supposed to be up, and certainly hauling mining equipment is a large part of the over-dimensional permits issued. Is this due to the projected closure of the Haines Junction and Cassiar weigh stations? They are supposed to be replaced by mobile safety officers. Does that mean that over-dimensional trucking will avoid permitting?

Or is this just reflective of the drop in the economy since the Yukon Party took office?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

The Member could have done that without the little shot at the end, but that is all right. No, the closing of the weigh scale will not make any difference in this at all. We are just estimating that there will probably be somewhat fewer over-dimensional loads.

Ms. Moorcroft:

I guess they must be estimating that mining activity will also be decreasing. I would like to ask about the absence of the assistant deputy minister's office in the list of expenditure lines. At least, in past years, that was reflected in the totals, so I would expect to see a 100-percent drop there since that position is gone. I would like to know how many people in the ADM office have been affected by that change, and what the personnel situation is.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

The ADM position is vacant. There were a total of four positions in that office. Two of the people have been relocated or redeployed. One person is subject to layoff at the end of this month; however, that person will have preferential status in any competition that comes up.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Does the Minister have an accounting of the amount of money that is affected - the amount that was spent in the previous year and is not being spent in the current year?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

It totals $245,000.

Ms. Moorcroft:

On the Whitehorse access road for $303,000, is that the South Access Road?

I believe it is the South Access Road. What are they doing about improving it? That road is in very poor condition, and there are certainly some very serious safety factors to be taken into account.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

The number the Member opposite is looking at is for maintenance of both the South Access Road and the portion of the Two Mile Hill that the Yukon government is responsible for.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Is the territorial government responsible for painting the Two Mile Hill?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

Yes, we are and, in anticipation of the next question, it has been pre-marked for painting. It will be done very shortly, as soon as the weather permits.

Ms. Moorcroft:

The weather has been pretty dry lately, so I will hold the Minister to his commitment on that. It is certainly not very safe to have the lanes unmarked, particularly when a lot of people are not used to driving on four-lane roads in the Yukon.

I have one further question related to community airports and emergency airstrips. I understand that at the Northern Air Transport Association meeting some concerns were raised about the Livingstone airstrip and the need to have a wind sock there, which is not a really expensive investment and I would like to ask the Minister if he is prepared to consider it. I can follow up on that with a letter to him.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

That airstrip is not our responsibility. I do not know whether it is a private strip, but it is not one of our airstrips at all.

Ms. Moorcroft:

I know it is used both by private enterprise and by government people, but I will follow it up with a representation to the Minister.

Chair:

Are you prepared to proceed with line-by-line debate?

On Activities

On Maintenance and Engineering Administration

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

There is a decrease of $292,000 as a result of the restructuring in the transportation division, in order to reduce administration costs. The budget consists of $1,307,000 for personnel, which includes salary, wages and benefits for 14.38 staff in highway maintenance administration and six staff in transportation engineering administration.

There is $303,000 allocated for Other, which consists of $60,000 for travel - $39,000 in Yukon and $21,000 outside of Yukon; $34,000 for contract services; $64,000 for rental expense; $32,000 for supplies; $67,000 for communications; $31,000 for other, including training, conference fees, et cetera, and $15,000 in smaller amounts.

Maintenance and Engineering Administration in the amount of $1,610,000 agreed to

On Highway Maintenance

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

There is a decrease of $1,299,000, mainly due to the completion of the contribution to the South Klondike Highway agreement in the amount of $460,000; the winter closure of Tuchitua camp for $150,000; reduced calcium on the Campbell Highway, $100,000; reduced snow removal on the Dempster Highway, $350,000; a reduction of $200,000 in the budget for the Whitehorse camp to reflect actual costs; and $39,000 for other smaller increases and decreases.

The 1994-95 budget consists of $9,423,000 for personnel,

Page Number 2400

2400

which includes salary, wages and benefits for highway maintenance charged to various highway activities. There is $21,997,000 for various other operational expenditures other than labour costs, and for program materials.

Mr. Cable:

I have a question about Wickstrom Road. The Minister and his colleague, the Minister of Health and Social Services, have had discussions with people who live on Wickstrom Road with respect to the corner that immediately precedes the intersection between Wickstrom and the Hospital Road. It is the proposition of the people who live along Wickstrom Road, as I understand it, that, at least in part, the traffic that is now on there has been created by the new hospital construction. It appears that the City of Whitehorse and the territorial government are not clear on who is actually going to fix that corner to make it safe - if, in fact, that is on the books.

Is it the Minister's proposition that there is no responsibility in the territorial government whatsoever for making that corner safer for the residents and their children? Is the Minister prepared to consider a contribution by the territorial government?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I would like to make it clear to everyone that Wickstrom Road, from the intersection to, I believe, the church, is totally the responsibility of the City of Whitehorse - the guard rail, the bad corner, the pavement, and so on. For some reason I do not understand, there is an old order-in-council from years ago that the Yukon government is responsible from somewhere around the middle of that church to Long Lake. To make it even sillier, I believe that, from some point around Long Lake to somewhere beyond, it is again the responsibility of the City of Whitehorse. It is one of the silliest things I have seen, and no one seems to know why this was done.

To reiterate what I first said, from the intersection to somewhere near the church is totally the city's responsibility. They have been trying to work on my colleague, because of the hospital construction, saying that, since there is increased traffic, we should fix the road.

We are definitely not going to fix the road. We have already made arrangements to rebuild the road from the Lewes Boulevard intersection to the hospital property. On the hospital property itself is definitely our responsibility. However, the city is trying, in some political form of blackmail, to get my colleague to fix the road.

If the Minister of Health and Social Services wants to rebuild the road, that is his prerogative. However, Community and Transportation Services is definitely not going to do it.

Mr. Cable:

I was hoping the Minister would be more amenable or less hard-hearted than his colleague, the Minister of Health and Social Services. I thought that when the people along Wickstrom Road related their problem to me they had a very good case. All the jurisdiction stuff aside, the hospital has clearly created increased traffic, and the hospital is for the benefit of all Yukoners. All Yukoners provide revenue to the territorial government. Why are the Minister and his government adopting such a hard position on this? Is there not some sort of equity that is visible to the Minister, in view of the hospital construction?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I thought perhaps my colleague would answer that one. The thing is that the City of Whitehorse - I have a lot of respect for the mayor and the city manager, whom I get along very well with - tries very hard in cases like this to force the government into doing something that is totally their responsibility. I have certain sympathies for the people who live on the road. I have a breakfast meeting with city people next week, and I certainly will be talking to the mayor and council about this. Again, I want to make it very clear that we are not going to accept responsibility for something that is clearly the responsibility of the City of Whitehorse.

Mr. Cable:

That may be the issue at law, but does the Minister really see this as a legal issue, or a question of what is equitable between the City of Whitehorse and the government? If the government were to stick a hospital up in Riverdale, surely the government would at least pay, in part, for the approach roads and any costs associated with the changes in traffic patterns. Would that not be an accurate assumption?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

The Member may not like my answer, but he can ask it again of the other Minister.

Surely, the issue here is pretty straightforward. What we have is a terribly dangerous corner. It has been dangerous for many, many years. The building of the hospital does not really change the situation with regard to the corner. It is a blind corner; the guard rail is sort of hanging there, and it has been a problem for many, many years. It is our very clear position that the construction of the hospital has not changed the corner at all. It has been inadequate for many, many years and the city should fix it.

The actual traffic increase is not the issue; it is the corner itself that is dangerous today. If somebody happened to be walking just underneath the curvature of the river bank, someone coming along in a car from downtown to Wickstrom Road would not be able to see that person. I, with respect, do not feel the issue has anything to do with the hospital. It is a corner that is inadequate; it has been for years, and it is time the city lived up to its responsibility and fixed it.

Mr. Cable:

Would both Ministers not agree, though, that the safety problem is not only a function of the topography but the volume of traffic? One cannot simply say that the corner is dangerous; if there were no vehicles travelling along, it would not be dangerous at all. But if the traffic increases, then of course the safety problem is increased. Is that not a fair observation?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

It is not really a fair observation. The problem has been there for many, many years. It is an inadequate corner and it is dangerous, no matter how many cars or vehicles travel along it. The opportunity for problems increases with increased traffic, there is no question about that, but the increased traffic does not make it more dangerous. The corner is dangerous as it sits and as it has been for a good many years. This is not the first time the issue has been brought forward by residents of Wickstrom Road.

Highway Maintenance in the amount of $31,420,000 agreed to

On Airports

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

There was an increase of $45,000, mainly due to the transfer of $113,000 for the responsibility of emergency airstrip maintenance from highway maintenance to the airport branch. This increase is partially offset by a net decrease of $68,000 from savings in administration, program materials and repairs at various airport sites.

The 1994 operation and maintenance budget consists of $886,000 for personnel, including salary, wages and benefits for two staff and administration; four staff in operations; an airport caretaker in Dawson and three contract observer/communicators in Old Crow.

The personnel budget also includes $330,000 for internal labour charges from highway maintenance for maintenance work on airport runways.

There is $1,460,000 for Other expenditures; $50,000 for travel, with $30,000 for travel in Yukon and $18,000 outside of Yukon; $746,000 for contract services; $21,000 for rental expense; $74,000 for supplies; $174,000 for utilities; $38,000 for communications; $325,000 for internal charges, such as road equipment; and $32,000 for various smaller items.

Airports in the amount of $2,346,000 agreed to

On Transport Services

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

There is a decrease of $55,000 from 1993-94, mainly due to the phased closure of the Cassiar Junction and

Page Number 2401

2401

Haines Junction weigh stations. The Cassiar weigh station is scheduled to close in October, 1994. The 1994-95 budget consists of $2,197,000 for personnel, which includes salary, wages and benefits for 4.5 staff in administration, 13.2 staff in motor vehicles and 20.96 staff in weigh stations; $477,000 for Other, which consists of $57,000 for travel - $33,000 for employee and $10,000 for other in Yukon, and $14,000 outside Yukon - $19,000 for honoraria; $34,000 for contract services; $62,000 for rent; $108,000 for supplies; $33,000 for program materials; $33,000 for utilities; $67,000 for communications; $28,000 for other, which is various public awareness education programs; and $36,000 in smaller amounts.

Transport Services in the amount of $2,674,000 agreed to

Transportation Division in the amount of $38,050,000 agreed to

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I move that you 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 the 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 from the Chair of the 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 5:28 p.m.

The following Sessional Paper was tabled May 3, 1994:

94-1-122

Growth of Gross Domestic Product by jurisdiction at factor cost in 1993 at current prices (dated May 2, 1994) (Penikett)

The following document was filed May 3, 1994:

94-1-42

Documents relating to a conference attended by Tony Penikett in Ottawa on April 20-30, 1994, on "A Northern Foreign Policy for Canada" (Penikett)