Whitehorse, Yukon

Thursday, May 5, 1994 - 1:30 p.m.

Page Number 2437

2437

Speaker:

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

Prayers

Speaker:

We will proceed at this time with the Order Paper.

DAILY ROUTINE

Speaker:

Introduction of Visitors.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Ms. Moorcroft:

I would like to welcome four of my constituents: my family members Angus, Caitlin, Adam and Al Pope.

Applause

Speaker:

Are there any Returns or Documents for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I have a return for tabling.

Speaker:

Are there any Reports of Committees?

Are there any Petitions?

Introduction of Bills?

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

Bill No. 26: Introduction and First Reading

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

I move that Bill No. 26, entitled An Act to Amend the Public Printing Act, be now introduced and read a first time.

Speaker:

It has been moved by the Minister of Government Services that Bill No. 26, entitled An Act to Amend the Public Printing Act, be now introduced and read a first time.

Motion for introduction and first reading of Bill No. 26 agreed to

Speaker:

Are there any further Bills for introduction?

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

Are there any Notices of Motion?

Are there any Statements by Ministers?

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Tourism career preparation in Yukon schools

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

I rise today with both my hats on, for the initiative I wish to announce is a cooperative venture between the Department of Education, Yukon College and the tourism industry.

As we know, tourism is an extremely important sector of the Yukon economy, particularly now because of the dormant state of many of the territory's mines, and particularly as we approach the enormous potential of the gold rush anniversary.

Unfortunately, we have not done enough to promote the tourism industry as a potential career for our own young people. For too many of our students, the industry is seen merely as a place for a summer job, as a stepping stone toward a career in another field, and, most probably, in another place.

It would be unfortunate if we lost the ideas and energy of our young people who could do so much for the Yukon tourist industry. That is why the Tourism Industry Association is placing a great emphasis these days on tourism awareness, in the Yukon community generally, and primarily in our schools.

TIA has taken part in career awareness days at F.H. Collins and at the St. Elias School in Haines Junction. They have conducted "Welcome Yukon" hospitality training seminars at these schools as well as at Teslin School; these workshops have been very well received.

Perhaps the most exciting development in this area is the creation of a career preparation program in tourism and hospitality, which we hope to pilot at F.H. Collins in the second semester of the 1994-95 school year. The program will consist of six credit courses, including business management and accounting. The courses, featuring speakers from the industry, will examine the entire range of tourism: accommodation, recreation, travel, attractions, food and beverage, transportation, events and conferences, and other services. Included in the program will be 100 hours of work placement in the Yukon business community.

Our curriculum division and the career prep department at F.H. Collins are working very closely with TIA, Yukon College and a local hotel in the development of this program. Together, we will monitor and assess the program, modify it if necessary, and we hope to implement it in high schools across the territory in future years.

Participation in the program will, I am confident, convince Yukon students that tourism offers exciting career opportunities right here at home, and will give them the practical knowledge and experience to make a significant start on such a career.

This initiative will, I hope, also convince industry operators that their best hope for a strong and prosperous future waits in the Yukon's own classrooms.

The excellent cooperation we received between the Department of Education and the business community, which has given birth to this program, serves us well. It is an excellent model for what we hope to achieve when we work together. I congratulate all of those who have worked hard to develop it, and look forward to the response from its first students, in about a year.

Mr. Harding:

This announcement today by the Minister is a solid initiative. We in the Official Opposition believe that it is a good idea to provide experience to students in different fields. We hope this is not the end of a process. We hope that it is just a beginning that will involve and expose students to experiences such as this, and in other areas in the future in terms of gaining practical experience. We think that it is a positive step and we hope to see more of it in the future from the Minister of Education.

Speaker:

This then brings us to the Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Question re: Conflict-of-interest legislation

Mr. Penikett:

On June 2, 1992, in response to strong public demand, all Members in this House voted for new rules for public office holders in the Yukon; namely, that no Minister or Leader of the Official Opposition could run a private business while in office. Last week we discovered that that rule, which the party opposite had voted for, has not been respected. I would like to ask a question of fact: at what point - on what date exactly - did the Yukon Party government decide that it was perfectly acceptable for a Minister to engage in private business while in Cabinet?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

As the Member opposite is aware, upon us assuming office, the piece of legislation he is referring to had not been proclaimed and is not the law of the Yukon Territory. We chose to use the disclosure rules and conflict-of-interest guidelines that were in place during the seven and one-half years that he was in power.

Page Number 2438

2438

Mr. Penikett:

The Government Leader is wrong. We did not have a rule when I was in power where a Minister could continue to conduct businesses - quite the opposite.

When the Members opposite voted for the Public Government Act, they told the world that they were endorsing the new rules and standard. As every other jurisdiction has been moving toward higher standards, we are curious to know why this government is moving in a different direction.

I would like to know why the Government Leader kept his Ministers-can-do-private-business-while-in-Cabinet rule secret?

Why, until we discovered by accident last week that he had been doing private business, did he never tell this House, by way of a ministerial statement or any other policy statement, that this was the rule that operated with this government?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

There were no changes made from what was in the policy books when we took office. There was nothing on which to make a ministerial statement. We are going to be addressing this issue. I have said so quite clearly in this Legislature. We will be bringing legislation forward at the next session to deal, not only with conflict of interest, but also to deal with the ombudsperson and to deal with access to information. There will be plenty of time for debate on it and for input from Members opposite.

There are many different forms we can use. Perhaps we should have a debate in the House one day as to what form would be the best. I have some problems with the Public Government Act as it sits. I do not believe it is fair and equitable for all citizens of the Yukon who may wish to seek a seat in this Legislature.

Mr. Penikett:

The record will show that, since this government came to office, there has been no consultation whatsoever with Members on this side of the House about this question and, indeed, there is a new law that could be put into place, for which the Members opposite voted.

The question is relevant because, of course, the Government Leader appeared to officially divorce himself from a business and then carried out activities on behalf of that business.

I want to ask the Minister, given that he is operating on rules that are considered outdated in almost every other jurisdiction in this country, how is the public to know at the moment whether a Minister is acting on the public's behalf or in his own private interest if the only recourse at the moment is for the Government Leader to play the role of judge, jury and acquitter whenever any questions are raised about this subject?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I believe the disclosure rules that are in place have served this Legislature well over the years. I believe they have, and I do not see that there has been a real problem. There may be some perceived problems and we are going to deal with those. We will deal with those perceived problems but, again, I have some concerns that we do not, in a small jurisdiction like the Yukon, where I believe disclosure is the best way of handling those sort of conflict issues that may arise or are perceived to arise, stifle ourselves with rules and regulations that will preclude some very good possible candidates from running for this Legislature.

Question re: Conflict-of-interest legislation

Mr. Harding:

I fear that the Government Leader is missing the point here, which is that disclosure was decided by this House to be inadequate, and that is why they voted for the Public Government Act and the new rules.

We all know the problems of trying to deal, on the floor of this House, with the concerns of business activities of Ministers, and the real or apparent conflicts that they have or could give rise to.

One very real problem is the public perception of conflict, sometimes created just by asking questions to determine whether or not there is a conflict. The Catch-22 is, by not proclaiming the Public Government Act, the government has left us with no other avenue for exploring the concerns that people bring to us.

Does the Minister agree that a more constructive and appropriate solution to addressing such concerns would be by referral to an independent conflicts commissioner?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

That is one of the avenues that we will be exploring. I would like to make this very clear: we have no intention to proclaim the Public Government Act, or even that section pertaining to conflict. We have no desire to do that at this point.

We are prepared to look at different avenues to address the act and we may want to possibly set up a committee of this Legislature.

There are other avenues that we could pursue; we could have a good debate in this Legislature about it.

We are prepared to address the issue and make some changes from the information provided by the recommendations, the debates in this House, from a committee, or from whatever method we choose. We are prepared to address the issue and what I believe is perceived conflict of interest.

Mr. Harding:

The Government Leader told us over a year ago that a Cabinet committee was formed to look at the conflict-of-interest legislation and to bring forward new legislation. We are again being promised that we are going to get the legislation next fall. The Minister will have to excuse me if I am being skeptical.

I have to ask the Government Leader if, in the interim, he will either proclaim those sections of the Public Government Act, which set up the office of the conflicts commissioner, or simply appoint an independent conflicts commissioner to give advice and resolve issues of conflict of interest?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

If the Member opposite says that he is a little skeptical because we have not done anything with that legislation in the 18 months we have been here, I could say that we are a little skeptical about how sincere the Official Opposition was when it did not proclaim the legislation after putting it through the Legislature. It was their responsibility as a government. They did not do it. It is as simple as that.

Some Hon. Member:

(Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

It was their repsonsibility to proclaim it - not the next government that comes along down the road.

I am prepared to look at some options to satisfy the Members opposite. We will have to find a forum in which to address those options.

Mr. Harding:

I should remind the Government Leader that the Public Government Act was taken to the Commissioner to be proclaimed and he refused to do it. It is as simple as that. The Public Government Act came before the House, and the Members opposite seem to hate it so much now because they have dirtied their hands a little bit. They seem to hate the act now.

Some Hon. Member:

(Inaudible)

Mr. Harding:

The Minister of Justice says, "like what?". That is pretty obvious. As Members elected to a position of trust by the people, the issue of conflict of interest concerns us all - except for maybe the Justice Minister. Could the Government Leader make a commitment that all Members will be given an opportunity to participate in the development of the proposed legislation?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I have no problem at all making a commitment of that sort. We can have debates in the House, we can have a committee and we can talk about a forum in which to address it. I do want to make it very, very clear that I believe the conflict-of-interest issue is being deliberately blown totally out of proportion, based on what has transpired in this Legislature for many, many years - when I was not even part of this Legislature.

Page Number 2439

2439

The disclosure and conflict-of-interest guidelines that we have now have served this Legislature well.

Question re: Curragh Inc., sale of assets

Mr. Cable:

I have some questions on Curragh and the Faro operations. The Government Leader indicated last week that he had had discussions with the various bidders that are bidding to the receiver.

Has the Government Leader formed an opinion as to whether or not any of the bidders are in a financial position to hold off bringing the property into production and to warehouse it, as opposed to those bidders who are not in as good a financial position and must bring it to production sooner, due to cash flow problems?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I believe we have had meetings with all the potential purchasers of the mine.

I am a bit confused by the Member's question. He is suggesting that a company that does not have much money could be somehow successful, yet if a company does not have enough money to keep the property out of production, it would put it into production in order to lose more money - I do not follow that logic.

Mr. Cable:

Let me ask this question: have any of the applicants, in conversation with the Government Leader, his Ministers or his public servants, approached the government for concessions by way of guarantees or loans?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

Yes, it would be fair to say that they have.

Mr. Cable:

Presumably, that would lead the Government Leader to form an opinion as to which bidder would be preferable. Does the Government Leader, representing the government as a creditor and as a representative of the Yukon people, intend to make any representations to the court on the application, which I believe will be heard on Saturday?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

Our lawyers will be in court on Saturday, as they have been at every other court hearing. I want to go back to some of the Member's preamble, which said that we were in a position to make some decisions because we were last for loan guarantees. That is not the case, because our answer was very clear to each and every one of them. The answer was no, that they should buy this and be able to put it into production as an economically viable operation, when they are buying it for a few cents on the dollar. If they cannot, I do not think government should be in there at all. If they do not have the money to put it into production, and it would take government money to get it started, I do not think it would have much chance of success.

Question re: Curragh Inc., sale of assets

Mr. Harding:

Today, the receiver has made some public comments about the status of the Faro mine sale. The receiver said it was up to creditors to decide which of the two potential bids makes more sense. The Yukon government is a creditor and will be heavily involved in the decision as to which bid is successful.

The Government Leader said they met with all the buyers, know what all the bids are, and that all the cards are on the table. Which of the two remaining bids has the government, as a creditor, decided to support?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

That decision has not been made. I just heard about the newscast when I came back from lunch. We were not aware that the creditors were going to make the choice as to whom the receiver was going to negotiate with. Our understanding was that the receiver was going to make that choice on his own and go into private deliberations with one company.

We will have to address that issue over the next few days.

Mr. Harding:

I have been saying for some time that the crunch is going to come for this government to make a decision on the Faro mine sale issue. The government told this Legislature that they have had meetings and have been very active in the sale process with potential buyers so, surely, with all the cards on the table, they have some feeling about the bids.

Can the Government Leader tell us what their feelings are with regard to the bids from the two remaining potential buyers?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

While we have met with potential buyers, it is only, I believe, two days ago that we were even aware of what the bids are and we have not had in-depth discussions with the potential buyers to be able to assess how they are going to finance it. We do not know what depth their pockets have. We have not got into those discussions with potential buyers at this point, so it is very difficult for us to make a decision when we only found out less than an hour ago that it was going to be up to the creditors to make the decision.

Mr. Harding:

Both bidders are looking for a development agreement with YTG, and issues such as power rates, bulk haulage and Grum stripping have been identified by the two remaining potential bidders. The government has said that they have talked to these buyers so they know what is on the table.

Is the government going to do anything to add to these concerns or are they just going to take the position of doing nothing at all?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I want to say once more that this will be dealt with in the courts by our lawyers, not on the floor of this Legislature.

Question re: Public Service Commission, hiring practices

Ms. Moorcroft:

My question is for the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission.

Earlier this week, the Member for Riverside ran into brick walls when he asked about a recent deputy ministerial appointment, and last week, when I asked the same Minister about a perception of political interference held by some 20 percent of government employees, I was brushed off with a spurious claim that this referred to Opposition Members seeking information.

Can the Minister assure this House that political factors are not taken into consideration in the hiring or firing policies of this government?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

Yes, I can give that assurance, but I should tell the Member that the hiring of a deputy minister is not the same as the hiring of other personnel. The deputy ministers are contractual employees and are appointments made by the Government Leader and they serve at pleasure, so it is a little bit different situation.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Hiring at the deputy minister level may not necessarily be free of political consideration. I am sure the Minister will agree that such consideration should not affect hiring, functioning or departure of government employees below that level. Recently we have observed the departure of two assistant deputy ministers from the public service. Will the Minister give his assurance that political interference, particularly policy differences with either of the Ministers in question, played no role in the rather hasty departure of either of those assistant deputy ministers.

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

I am not sure what the Member is talking about. Those are personnel matters that are not ordinarily discussed on the floor of the Legislature. If the Member wishes to meet with me right after Question Period, when we take the break, I will discuss those issues with her, because I do not want to see political interference at the lower levels in government.

Ms. Moorcroft:

I note the Minister is not denying that political interference played any role there.

While we are on the subject of assistant deputy ministers, we note the Public Service Commission is currently advertising for

Page Number 2440

2440

an assistant deputy minister for the Department of Education. From the tone of the advertisement, it seems they are looking for a business manager, not an educational administrator. Can the Minister explain why this advertisement puts so much emphasis on the need for "an experienced general manager" and almost no emphasis on experience or expertise in the complex field of public education?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

I am not exactly sure of that, but I will look at that and discuss it with the Public Service Commission and the Department of Education, which would have had some input into the type of person they were looking for to fill that particular job.

Question re: Public Service Commission, hiring practices

Ms. Moorcroft:

Before the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission became a born-again supporter of the party opposite, that party included, as a plank in its 1992 election platform -

Speaker:

The Member should not be making accusations about various people within government. I am referring to the statement "born-again" Member of the government.

Ms. Moorcroft:

The Yukon Party included, as a plank in its 1992 election platform, restoring freedom of speech and association. Does the Minister support that part of the Yukon Party's declared agenda, especially as it relates to government employees?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

Yes.

Ms. Moorcroft:

The Minister has pledged allegiance to the principle of collective bargaining. Yet, he recently sent a personalized letter to individual teachers at their place of work, completely bypassing the teachers' legal bargaining agent, the Yukon Teachers Association.

Is the Minister familiar with sections 274 and 275 of the Education Act, which expressly forbids anyone acting in a managerial capacity from interfering in representation by the bargaining agent and from discriminating against the bargaining agent?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

Yes. This issue was discussed in the Legislature last night. I would invite the Member for Mount Lorne to read the Hansard from yesterday, and perhaps, while she is at it, she would read those sections to the Leader of the Official Opposition and her colleague, the Member for Faro.

Ms. Moorcroft:

What we have here seems to be a Minister responsible for all government employees, who seems quite willing to ignore the spirit of established legislation by sending his political message over the heads of legal bargaining agents and directly to the employees.

In the interests of fair labour practices and positive employer/employee relations, will the Minister now give an assurance, in his capacity as Minister in charge of employee relations, that he will refrain from interfering with, or discriminating against, the Yukon Teachers Association or any other legal bargaining agent for public employees?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

Yes, and I expect the same from the Members of the Opposition.

Question re: Public Service Commission, hiring practices

Ms. Moorcroft:

Perhaps I should remind the Minister that this is 1994, not 1924, and he is responsible for employee relations for a government, not a garment factory.

The day after the Minister wrote his letter to teachers, and long before the letter was delivered to them individually, the government and the Yukon Teachers Association began a collective bargaining process.

Will the Minister make a commitment that he will not interfere in that bargaining process by any further direct communication with members of the Yukon Teachers Association?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

I just answered that question.

I should tell the Member that the letter I wrote to the teachers was in response to letters I received from them.

Last night - perhaps the Member was not listening, but I am sure her colleague for Faro and the Leader of the Official Opposition heard - I clearly stated that the purpose of that letter was to respond to everyone who wrote to me. There were hundreds of teachers who wrote to me and expressed their opinions, and they deserved a response from me, and that is what they received.

The letters were not written to interfere with the collective bargaining process. What did interfere, or was probably meant to interfere, with the collective bargaining process was the showboating by the Member for Faro last night, backed up by the Leader of the Official Opposition.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Both sides in this process have agreed to impose a media blackout on the process of negotiations. Can we have the Minister's assurance that he will not attempt to use statements in the House or in the media that would be prejudicial to the bargaining process?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

Yes, and I have said I expect the same from that side.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Last week, the Minister professed concerns about a perception of political interference that is held by a significant percentage of the Yukon public service. I would remind the Minister that he made the announcement about the wage rollbacks and the legislated cuts without notifying or negotiating with the Teachers Association. Does the Minister not acknowledge that the highly political tone of his letter to the teachers, based on questionable financial data, could be construed as manipulation, political interference or political intimidation on the Minister's part?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

No, I do not. If the Member persists and persists, then we may have some trouble. I would like to know if she agrees to leave the bargaining process alone, and agrees with the media blackout, or has she taken it upon herself to be the agent for the Teacher's Association - to bargain collectively over the Clerk's Table.

Question re: Conflict-of-interest legislation

Mrs. Firth:

I am -

Speaker:

Order. Please let the Member ask her question.

Mrs. Firth:

I have a non-controversial subject I want to raise again. I want to ask the Government Leader some questions about conflict of interest.

Yesterday, I pointed out that for some time now I have been requesting the government to bring forward conflict-of-interest legislation. I asked the Minister yesterday if he would get the Commissioner to proclaim the present conflict-of-interest legislation, and he indicated no, he would not.

I would like to ask the Minister if he would be prepared to use the conflict-of-interest portion of the Public Government Act as a policy guideline, as an interim measure, until such time as he can bring forward his own legislation. There seems to be some reservation about it being law, so I am asking if the Minister would be prepared to bring it forward as a policy guideline and use it as an interim measure.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

No. I said earlier that we would not proclaim that act because we believe it needs some changes. We will not be using it as a policy guideline.

We have conflict rules in place now. They have served this Legislature well for many years. They will suffice until such time

Page Number 2441

2441

as we bring forward other legislation.

Mrs. Firth:

They seem to have served well until now.

I understand, from what the Minister said about the present conflict-of-interest legislation eliminating some people from running for office, that the Minister thinks Cabinet Ministers should be able to do business while acting as Ministers. Is that what the Minister thinks is the problem? Does he think that Ministers should be able to do business while they are Cabinet Ministers?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

This is one of the issues that, I think, needs a thorough debate.

The Official Opposition, when they were on this side, agreed to let the teachers have their jobs secured for four years while they ran for office. That was extended, in sections of the Public Government Act that they proclaimed, to allow public service people to have their jobs secured for four years while they run for office. However, that piece of legislation is asking the Yukon businessperson to give up everything he has worked for, all his life, to serve for four years in office, and have nothing to go back to.

I believe that this needs thorough debate and some rational decisions. I am prepared to enter that debate. I am prepared to form a committee of this Legislature - this might be one possible way of doing it. I really think this issue needs a thorough airing. We need to have something in place that will not put people who have a payroll job and would have their job secured while they run for office, in a different situation from the small businessperson who would have no security at any time during his career, unless he kept his business going.

Mrs. Firth:

I understand that the answer to my question is that the Members who are Cabinet Ministers should be able to do business while they are Ministers. That is one problem, and the Minister has confirmed that with his comments today.

I would like to ask the Minister if that is the only problem with this particular piece of legislation. Could the Minister tell me what the other problems are with the conflict-of-interest legislation?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

Again, the Member opposite is saying things I did not say. I did not make any decision, one way or the other, about whether or not Cabinet Ministers should be in business. I said that the conflict-of-interest rules we have now will suffice until we have new ones in place, and I am prepared to look at all alternatives. I am prepared to look at something that will give the Members opposite more comfort. However, again, I caution -

Some Hon. Member:

(Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I am prepared to look at every one of them, but I caution that we do not want conflict-of-interest legislation that keeps good people from seeking office in this Legislature.

Question re: Conflict-of-interest legislation

Mrs. Firth:

I am trying to be very good with the length of the questions and answers.

I do not want to get into a debate about the good people. The Government Leader has already established that he does not like the particular clause in the bill that restricts Ministers from doing business. I think that has been established over and over this afternoon.

For one and one-half years, the Government Leader has been telling me, as a Member in this House, that he had a Cabinet committee working on this legislation - it was coming in the spring, it was coming in the fall, it was coming in the spring, it was coming in the fall.

Has anything really been done regarding this legislation? Can the Government Leader tell us in exact detail what has been done with respect to conflict-of-interest legislation by his government over the last one and one-half years, when he has been promising it every six months?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

The legislation is in the bureaucracy now, and that is where it is being held up. We are waiting for recommendations to come back. We told them we want it torn into three different acts. Justice is working on it, as is the Executive Council Office. They are working on it at the deputy minister level to bring some recommendations back. We will then look at it and send it back out to be drafted. We fully intend to have something in this Legislature for the next sitting.

Mrs. Firth:

Surely the Minister can hear himself speaking and can realize how thin and hollow his commitment sounds to the public and to me. Now, it is the bureaucracy holding it up.

I want to see a resolution of this issue. Can the Minister very specifically - because I want to know what we are going to do - tell us where we go from here? What happens next? What is the next step?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I said earlier in Question Period that we will be working on the legislation over the summer. We intend to table it in this Legislature next fall, and then we can put it out to hearings, or we can do whatever the Legislature wants with it. I am prepared to sit down with the Members opposite and discuss some forum where we can talk about conflict, because it affects all Members in this House, not only the Members on this side. It affects Members on the opposite side of the House, as well.

Mrs. Firth:

I want the Minister to be very specific here. He has just told me again that they are working on it and we will have the legislation in the fall, and then they will put it out to the public for discussion or whatever. I am sorry, but I do not have any faith or confidence in the Minister's promises any more, and I do not think I am being unreasonable.

Can the Minister tell us exactly what is going to be done? I want to know very specifically. I do not want some generalization that something is going to happen in the fall. How is he going to involve us? What is the plan? Exactly what is going to happen now, once he gets this bill back from the bureaucracy?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I would have to say that, if the Member opposite were to agree with anything we were doing, I would be very surprised. I would be very surprised if there were anything we could do to satisfy the Member for Riverdale South.

Some Hon. Member:

(Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

We will be bringing the legislation forward this fall, and the Members opposite will have time for input into it.

Some Hon. Member:

(Inaudible)

Question re: Whitehorse Correctional Centre, security

Mr. Cable:

I have some questions for the Minister of Justice on the escape on March 18 from the correctional institute.

The facts, as I understand them, are that there was a picnic table put up close to the fence, and the gentleman who escaped from the correctional institute put the picnic table up and climbed over the fence. I gather also that there was no correction officer on duty in the yard. To make matters worse, I gather the surveillance camera had broken down - in fact, it had been broken down for some time.

Would the Minister agree that having prisoners in the yard without an attendant, with the surveillance camera broken and with this invitation of a picnic table sitting there waiting to be used, posed a security risk to the public?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

The allegations coming from the Member are probably from the same source that used to provide information to us and others when we were in Opposition - the same person. I do not know exactly what he is trying to do to try to get even with the corrections branch, but it is interesting to hear allegations from the same person, no matter what the party.

Page Number 2442

2442

There is an audit being done on procedures at the Whitehorse Correctional Centre, and the incident in question is one that is being investigated thoroughly. Whatever mistakes that were made, or whatever security problems existed regarding fencing, have been corrected.

Mr. Cable:

That brings me to the security audit. Is it being done internally or externally?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

I will have to get details about exactly how it is being done. I doubt very much whether anybody could seriously say that the manner in which WCC is being run poses any kind of danger to the public.

Mr. Cable:

Certainly the facts that I related to the Minister in the first question would suggest that there was some need for a change, so that the prisoners do not just have an invitation to walk over the fence. Could the Minister indicate whether the maximum security inmates have access to this part of the yard where the picnic table is situated, so they too can jump over the fence?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

Is the Member honestly telling us that he believes that the situation up there is as lax as he describes, or is he deliberately exaggerating the situation in order to score political points and make the public uneasy. What he is saying is absolutely incorrect.

Speaker:

The time for Question Period has now elapsed.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Joe:

In the gallery this afternoon is the Chief of the Na-Cho Ny'ak Dun. He has come to check on us again. Would all the Member please welcome him to the House.

Applause

Speaker:

We will now proceed with Orders of the Day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

I move that the Speaker do now leave the Chair and that the House resolve into Committee of the Whole.

Speaker:

It has been moved by the Hon. Government House Leader that the Speaker do now leave the Chair and that the House resolve into Committee of the Whole.

Motion agreed to

Speaker leaves the Chair

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Chair:

I will now call Committee of the Whole to order.

Are the Members 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 are dealing with Bill No. 15, entitled Second Appropriation Act, 1994-95. We are discussing the Department of Education. Is there further general debate?

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

Department of Education - continued

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

Over the last couple of weeks since the budget was tabled, one of the things that the Department of Education decided to do was provide a technical briefing for Opposition Members, members of the public, the Yukon Teachers Association and others. That briefing was held, I believe, last Friday, April 22, at the education building. I understand that the briefing was attended by about 20 individuals. Two officials from my department gave an overview and a technical briefing of the actual budget. Some questions arose from that briefing, and I would like to take a few moments and go through some of the questions that were asked. I hope to clarify in a better way, the concerns that were expressed.

This occasion was the first time that we had offered such a briefing. I received many positive comments from the Yukon Teachers Association, some school councils and from some of the Opposition Members. They felt the briefing was useful. These people went on to make some recommendations for improvement next time, and I would encourage anyone who attended that briefing to make any suggestions that would make the briefings more informative. My sense is that the more Members know about the department, the less time we have to spend in here discussing some of the more technical questions.

In fact, people have a better overall understanding of what the Department of Education has to do when it puts the budget together and how it puts the budget together.

There was some concern about the five-percent cutback in Education as it appeared in the budget book. Some have described it as a massive cut. I would like to call the Members' attention to one of the pages that has come under criticism, or where concern has been expressed, and that is on the statistics page covering public schools - page 96.

If Members want to follow along, I can go through the information and provide a brief rundown of the areas of concern, explain some of those concerns, and maybe afterwards we can continue with the discussion.

I will be reading into the record some briefing notes that I have on special programs in a few moments.

There was a question about program delivery and why we are including all the statistics. That was explained fairly well in the technical briefing, as well as other information being provided. This is the first time that the payroll statistics have been included. In order to round out the entire picture of wages and benefits, on page 96, one would have to add the ADM and support staff, at $266,000; the Gadzoosdaa residence staff, at $524,000; superintendents and staff, at $471,000; clerical staff, at $1,347,000; and custodial staff, at $2,938,000. Added to that is the fact that we pay $74,000 to the YTA toward the president's salary. That is on page 110 of the main estimates.

The third area that I would like to briefly talk about is the program support and development statistics. There appears to be a $40,000 cut to the school libraries. I know that has been a concern to the Members opposite. I would like to explain that. First of all, it is a reduction. We have not eliminated it, and are still spending $120,000 this year on books for the libraries. However, it is interesting to note that the increase in the public libraries area is $51,000. This is $11,000 more than the cuts to the school libraries.

The other significant aspect is that there are three public libraries in schools that will benefit from that: Dawson, Faro and Carmacks. I think it is significant that in the last year we had new schools come onstream, so a whole new set of library materials and books were purchased for those schools last year. We have no new schools coming onstream this year, so there was no need to purchase as much library material.

There are several reasons for the decreases in that area, but, again, overall, there is an increase in the purchasing of books and periodicals for the territory's libraries.

There is also an increase in administration in this area. This is to pay for a secondment from the school system to work with the department staff on the math diagnostic assessment. There were some concerns expressed at the briefing about why there was an increase in administration of that area. The other concern was a

Page Number 2443

2443

reference to enrollment statistics, on page 92 of the main estimates, and that the budget is being cut while enrollment is going up. I think it is important to consider that budgets are constructed on a projected enrollment figure. In fact, if one looks at page 90 of the 1993-94 main estimates - I have a copy here, if Members wish me to table it - one would see a projected enrollment of 6,028 in the 1993-94 budget. The projected enrollment in which the 1994-95 budget is constructed is around a projected enrollment number of 5,884 for September 1994. That is why one sees the difference there, because we were working on projected enrollments.

I want to turn back now to the 14-percent increase in special programs. There is a 14-percent increase, or $156,000 in total, in the budget, over the forecast for 1993-94. Salary dollars for the teacher of hearing impaired students and the teacher of visually impaired students have been moved from program delivery into special programs. As well, additional money, $20,000, is being made available to purchase program materials, particularly to support programming for intellectually able students in a school counselling program. Additional money is also being made available for travel, particularly to respond to unanticipated events. There is an extra $3,000 in the budget for that.

The budget associated with one speech language pathologist position has been moved from the Department of Health and Social Services. Speech and hearing clinic budgets dovetail the special programs budget, because this position works with students in schools, and this budget increase was incurred at the last supplementary. As well, additional funds have been made available to hire a clinical psychologist to work with behaviourally disordered students. A competition will be held in the near future and funds are being re-allocated from the program delivery line item. The speech language pathologist and the two teachers for sensory impairments - hearing and vision - do not represent an increase in personnel, but the clinical psychologist is an increase in personnel.

In addition, increased funding of $154,000 for educational assistance has been made available in the program delivery budget. The total budget for educational assistance represents 66 FTEs for the full fiscal year.

Special needs resources have been a high priority of the department for the past few years. The large increase in funding and personnel in this area since 1989 has provided conditions for a more adequate response to students with special educational needs. There is no doubt that more can be done, and the department will continue to enhance this area as opportunities permit. Recruitment will be taking place shortly for a clinical psychologist.

The numbers of program and implementation teachers, learning assistance teachers and education assistants will be maintained in the 1994-95 school year.

The special programs branch does not work in isolation though. It works with other agencies whose mandates fall within the branch. Liaison continues with the Child Development Centre to enhance transition of handicapped preschoolers into the public school system. There is continued liaison and working relationships with the Learning Disabilities Association and the Association for Community Living. Also, a meeting was held with the Health and Social Services department to establish guidelines for joint programs and to discuss issues and mutual concerns. As well, with our new protocol agreement, cooperation continues with Health and Social Services to provide services to students with hearing impairments.

Regarding psychological services to schools: Yukon currently has four school psychologists - one located in Dawson, three in Whitehorse - and they serve a school population of nearly 5,800 students. The ratio of one school psychologist to 1,450 students compares favourably to ratios recommended by the National Association of School Psychologists, of 1:1,800. Ratios for school psychologists in Manitoba, for example, are 1:500 and 1:3,000. There are currently no psychologists in the Northwest Territories.

That capsulates, for the moment, some of the issues that were raised. I can tell the Members as well that there were other questions raised by school council members, YTA and others at the briefing. We have a list of those questions and, very shortly, the responses will be going out to all concerned who did ask questions at that particular briefing.

I hope the briefing proved effective or useful for the Members in the Opposition and others out there. Again, it is quite important that the more we understand about the complexity of the Department of Education budget, the easier it will be to discuss items and areas of the budget in this House.

I would be happy to accept questions from the Members opposite.

Mr. Harding:

The Minister is obviously quite proud of his briefing, and I have to tell him that I think it was a good idea. There were other important matters I had to deal with, not that the briefing was not important. We sent two of our staff members, and they told me about the communications they had with department officials. They found it to be quite helpful, and they briefed me on the questions they asked. I had also given them some questions I wanted asked on my behalf, and they returned some of the initial responses, and we are looking forward to reading the other answers that will be provided to us.

I agree that briefings are an effective way to deal with some of the more technical aspects of the Education budget, which leaves us lots of time here for items in general debate.

There are a lot of issues to cover in general debate. There is a lot of public interest in what is going on. There are a lot of people in the territory who want questions put to the Minister and who want to hear what the Minister has to say about the education system in the territory, the state of it, and the factors influencing it. They want to hear reasons for decisions the Minister has either made or participated in.

As long as there is public interest, and as long as I have a personal interest as the Official Opposition Education critic, and a larger duty to the public in general, I will be raising those issues. I cannot say how long it is going to take, but there are a number of issues. We are going to have to cover them all.

I would like to move away from the discussions that came up in Question Period for a bit of a cool-down period. When we get back into them this afternoon, I am sure we will be hearing from the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission. I have some questions with regard to how the Minister of Education feels about certain actions that have been taken, and I have questions for the Minister about his justification for supporting the initiatives that have an impact on his ministry.

As always, we welcome the informed answers of the Minister of Education to the questions we put to him.

As a respite, I would like to discuss with the Minister some of the things that are happening in the capital area. Going through the 1994-95 capital budget, and having it broken down into two sessions, makes it difficult to get information from the Minister about how things are progressing and how things on the operation and maintenance side are affecting the capital plans that were announced during the previous session for the 1994-95 year.

I would like to ask the Minister what is happening on the capital side. Are things still being planned as announced in the 1994-95 capital budget? Have there been any changes on the capital side?

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

I hope this discussion is going to be brief, because we did have a very long capital budget debate previously. This is the O&M budget, and we have prepared our responses accordingly. I hope we are not going to fall back into the capital

Page Number 2444

2444

budget for a few hours before we get back into the O&M. I think our purpose for being here is to discuss the O&M budget that is before us.

I can tell the Member that, as far as I know, contracts are being let and projects are starting to get underway on many of the capital projects that were in that budget. As far as I know right now, they are all on schedule, as far as they were laid out in the budget. Some were not scheduled to start until later, but many of the larger ones - for example the school at Mount Lorne - are well underway. I think that planning has begun on most of the other projects; contracts are in preparation for being let, and the work is ongoing. At this time, I do not see any changes in that capital budget.

Mr. Harding:

Are there any additions? The Minister of Community and Transportation Services mentioned the other day changes to Hidden Valley, for example. I looked in the 1994-95 budget and saw absolutely nothing about Hidden Valley School expansion. It is not listed in the multi-year project list or anything else.

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

I think that there was just planning money for Hidden Valley in the last budget. My understanding is that we are looking at three classrooms in Hidden Valley, and that is scheduled to go in the next capital budget, not in this capital budget. I do not think that it would be in the five-year capital plan, because it is not necessarily a huge capital project. It is just an expansion of a few classrooms on to a school, but I will check into that for the Member.

Mr. Harding:

I appreciate that, because I have had some representations made to me that indicated that the expansion will be going ahead this summer, and that there is more than planning money in the budget.

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

Maybe where the rumour is coming from, or where the Member has heard that kind of information, is from our looking at all kinds of options for the $4.5 million. There is a feeling that some of the money has to be spent on education. Of course, that is one of the projects that is on the books that could be accelerated. There are not a lot of projects right now that we could accelerate - especially the larger projects - because they take time to plan. However, that is a project that is smaller in nature and would be easier to accelerate if we had to, but we want to do this on a priority basis. We want to look at all of our projects to find out which ones are demonstrating the most need right now.

That particular expansion may not really be needed until the new subdivision comes onstream and more people move out into that area. We have to weigh those factors at the same time.

Mr. Harding:

Basically, all that is going on is an evaluation exercise by Education to use some of the infrastructure money. Let me say that I am glad that some of the infrastructure money is being used to improve education.

Is the Minister saying that the information may have come from people asking questions about the evaluation process? Would that be a fair statement?

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

That could be true. We are looking at all of our capital projects in Education that are now on the books, forecasted for the future, to see where they could plug in to that assessment. No decision has yet been made; this is a preliminary review. I am saying that is where the information may have come from when somebody asked the question whether it could be accelerated. Perhaps someone thought that the decision was made to accelerate the project.

Mr. Harding:

I would like to ask the Minister about some questions that were raised in the last session. If he does not have a briefing note on this, that is fine, I can understand it. However, before we carry on with the Department of Education, I would like to have an answer.

What is happening at the St. Elias School? Are the renovations at the school complete?

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

Yes, the existing renovations are substantially complete - that is the library and the two classrooms. Planning is underway now to fix the ventilation problems in the school.

Mr. Harding:

I would like to move on to another area, and that is the issue of grade reorganization.

We asked some questions in Question Period last week about grade reorganization. The Minister said there would be further evaluation done. Can he give me a more specific indication of when he is going to make a decision regarding grade reorganization?

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

I would like to make a decision by the end of the school year; that is my hope at this time.

Mr. Harding:

The department held some consultation meetings. I attended one of them. There was a report compiled by the department and one of the officials involved indicated that it went to the Minister. The report included a full set of recommendations on grade reorganization. Has the Minister received that report?

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

I received a briefing note laying out what happened at the various meetings, but it is not in the context of a full report, as such.

Mr. Harding:

The Minister has not received any report and the department has made no final reports or recommendations to anyone in the department or to the Minister?

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

The department has made some comments on the grade reorganization meetings and I have read that document. I have had representations from many people, as I mentioned the other day, who feel that there should be more consultation and involvement. At this point, I am deliberating on what our next move will be. We have not made a decision on that yet.

Mr. Harding:

Could those comments be considered to be recommendations?

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

I do not think they were in the form of one-two-three-four recommendations. They were more in the form of an analysis of what was heard at the various meetings. They were not in a clear, concise, numbered form. There was just a report of what happened at the various meetings.

Mr. Harding:

Could I get a copy of that report, or an analysis of what is in it?

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

No, that is a briefing note that was given to me as the Minister and I am going to be discussing that with Cabinet colleagues, and I am going to be looking at some options on how to go further with this. My concern is that the representations made to me by members of the general public indicate that it is their sense that the consultations may not have been comprehensive enough. I think I want to have another look at that.

Mr. Harding:

The Minister told me that no recommendations were made, that we simply had a compilation, an analysis, of what was said. Could the Minister tell me what information would be in it, if there is no recommendation? If it is just a statement of what was said, why would we not be able to be provided with a copy? I think it would be very interesting.

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

No, this was a briefing note to me as the Minister, to look at what happened at the meetings. I do not think there was a clear consensus from either side of what people want. What I have heard, from the general public, is that there may be a need for some further review of the subject, because it is an important subject. I am considering that at this time.

Mr. Harding:

If he does not want to give it to me in the form of a briefing note, can he give me a compilation of the comments recorded by the department on the meetings for grade reorganization?

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

The Member said he attended some of

Page Number 2445

2445

the meetings, so I guess I can repeat what I remember being in the note. Some people were for grade reorganization, and some people were against grade reorganization. There were many reasons why people wanted it or did not want it. The ones who did not want it were concerned about losing various programs at the high school level. There was a whole range. That is what the report really said. It laid out the concerns people expressed, and it basically said there was no real consensus, one way or the other, on which to make a decision on the approach to grade reorganization - whether it was a strong consensus to stay where we are, or a strong consensus to go the other way.

Mr. Harding:

I do not, for the life of me, see why the Minister is so reluctant to give me a compilation of the comments that were made at the consultative meetings. I do not want him to repeat what he remembers of the briefing note; I am not even asking him to give me the briefing note. I want a compilation of the comments that were made at the meetings. I would also appreciate any information that I could get from the department in terms of its thinking at this point, based on those consultations.

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

I think I can ask the department to put together a compilation of comments that were made at the meetings. There are probably notes and minutes of those meetings and I think we could put together a fair assessment of what people said.

Mr. Harding:

What observations has the department made based on those consultative meetings? Can I get some comments from the department on that?

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

I do not think there was a count done or a factual analysis done. As I said to the Member earlier, the report from the department said that there was no real consensus of an opinion one way or the other. There were people on both sides, and there was no strong opinion one way or the other. Since then, I have had several calls from parents who have expressed concern that maybe the consultative process was too quick, that they did not get a chance to participate and needed some more information. I am trying to consider that.

Mr. Penikett:

As has everybody in this House, I have received lobbies on this question and I want to put the matter in different terms for the Minister than has been discussed up to now.

Rather than try to evaluate or assess the input from public meetings - which, at least to my ears, sounded overwhelmingly negative about the proposal, but perhaps I am wrong - I want to put the question in different terms. I want to ask the Minister about his political direction on this question.

What the people who came to my office said to me - and they were mostly people from Riverdale; I should state that for a start - was that they thought the government had put itself in an impossible position by, during the campaign, promising a high school for Porter Creek. That inevitably meant that they were politically committed to turning the junior high school in Porter Creek into a high school, which, it was believed, was a politically popular option in that neighbourhood or in those constituencies.

However, the parents and students involved in Jeckell, which is a junior high school, certainly do not want their junior high school turned into a high school or even turned into an elementary school. They do not want it to become something other than what it is.

In terms of neighbourhood politics, forget the educational theory, because I have read all the background material and did not see anything to show one way or the other any huge advantages or disadvantages to proceeding with this. What seems to be happening, though, given that there is, according to the Minister's terms, no clear consensus from the public, is that most governments, having been given that consensus, would go with the status quo. It is the least-cost option in terms of political pain, if I can put it that way, but the Minister is caught, as a Riverdale MLA, having to deliver a commitment made on behalf of Porter Creek, which will be difficult to do without having a negative impact on his own neighbourhood.

I want to ask him, as one Whitehorse MLA to another, rather than as an Opposition critic: where is he going on this? While the decision to go to the two-tier system might produce pleasure, glee, delight and votes in Porter Creek, it seems to me that decision would, based on my casual observations, have the opposite impact in the neighbourhood of Riverdale. Perhaps I am all wrong about that but, without getting into educational theory and without measuring the response from the representations, I want to know where the Minister is headed with this, politically.

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

I want to make it clear right from the beginning that I do not have a preference one way or the other. At the last Ministers of Education conference, I made a point of polling all the other Ministers as to what they had in their jurisdictions, what works and what does not work. Interestingly enough, they all work and they all do not work. It seems it is all just a preference at the time. The only recommendation I did get from a couple of the Ministers was that, whatever you do, do not put just one grade in one school. They said that creates a problem. However, some had three tiers, some had two tiers, and some even had four tiers.

There was not a really clear consensus, and I do not have a bias either way. The observation the Member made about Riverdale and Porter Creek is somewhat true.

During the election, we talked about the need for a second high school and, really, more a need for more high school space, whether it be a second high school or an addition to an existing one. That is something that, rather than be decided by a political party, it should be decided by the parents and constituents who will send their children to this one - or two - high schools.

I can tell the Member about turning Porter Creek Junior Secondary into a high school. The very first time I ever heard about that was about a year after I was in office as the Minister. I asked about various options, and I was briefed on this option. I had not realized that, at one time, that school was designed to be converted to a high school at some point in time. I suspect there will come a time where we will need a second high school in Porter Creek, or in Granger, which is the growth area of Whitehorse. I suppose we will need something there down the road.

However, I have no bias on this one way or the other. I think the Member is right when he talks about the political cost of making this kind of a decision, and that will certainly be weighed. I agree somewhat that, if there is no consensus, there is the old adage "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". That is something we will be looking at.

As I said, the analysis from the department was that there was no clear consensus at the meetings, one way or the other, of wanting a two-tier or three-tier system. That would probably give a stronger argument to the fact that it perhaps should stay at the status quo. Having said that, I have had a lot of calls and letters from people who felt that the one-month process we did, when we had the consultation, might not have been thorough enough, and that there might not have been enough information to tell people exactly what would happen if we had two high schools, and what programs we might or might not lose. Perhaps we have to do that before we can actually make a decision on the route to follow. Perhaps we have to ask the constituents their preference on one or two high schools.

Mr. Penikett:

Let me make it clear, as I am sure the Education critic from our caucus has, that the Official Opposition is not taking a position on this one way or another, and I am not advocating one now. I am simply making the observation that, if the issue is as divisive as it seems to be, I am curious about why

Page Number 2446

2446

the department seems to be continually wanting to push ahead on it. That is just my own curiosity, and not a question to the Minister. What I would like to pass on to the Minister - and I am sure he would want to know this - is that, during the last election, Conservatives in my riding wanted people to believe that if there were a new high school built, it would be built in my constituency. I know that if the Minister has any tension about which neighbourhood to put it in, I am sure that he will want to know that.

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

I will take that representation from the Member, and I appreciate his input.

Mr. Harding:

The Minister has indicated that he wants to make a decision on this issue by the end of the school year - he hopes. Now I hear him talking about more consultation. One gets the distinct impression that he is not quite there yet in terms of making a decision, and he would like to buy a little time in this area. Is the fact that he now wants to further the consultation process going to impact on his aim to have a decision made by the end of the school year?

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

Yes, it may. One of the reasons I want to have some kind of consensus on which route we are going is because it does impact on capital spending. We plan our capital budgets in August and September, and if we are going to add on to F.H. Collins, or convert a junior high school, or build a new high school, or whatever option we choose, then we are going to have to know fairly shortly so that we can get the planning money in the budget and get started on those kinds of options. It is just a matter of the timing of the budget, so that we can get the information we need as soon as possible and make a decision about it. Time is kind of running out, because we know that we do have a bit of a bubble in the high school system, and that in about three years' time there will be quite a number of students either going to F.H. Collins or split into two schools. Therefore, I would like to try to get some kind of consensus from the constituents about the approach that they want so that we can plan for it.

Mr. Harding:

I am becoming somewhat concerned because the Minister has already tabled two capital budgets and we are getting to a bit of a bottleneck here.

The Yukon Party has promised - I have the four-year plan here - to construct a junior high school in Whitehorse and a high school in Whitehorse. The plan contains promises for a Catholic school, a French school, Grey Mountain Primary School, J. V. Clark School, and now Dawson wants a new school. How is the Minister going to deal with this He has not built one school in the last two capital budgets.

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

We are working on many of those projects, which will be contained in capital budgets in the future. That is how we are going to deal with them.

Mr. Harding:

We are very interested in this question. The Minister of Education will remember very well, during the last session of the Legislature, our long and very intense debate about highway spending. At the end of that debate, the will of this House, by vote, was that $4.5 million of the discretionary capital would be taken from the $30-plus million that was being spent on the Alaska Highway and put toward the building of two new schools.

As I said before, since we have Porter Creek Junior High School, the new junior high school, a Catholic school, a French school, J. V. Clark School, Grey Mountain Primary school, and two capital budgets remaining, is the Minister going to be listening to the will of the House regarding two of those projects and going ahead with them?

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

I am confident that some of those projects will go ahead in the next couple of years. There is no doubt about that.

Mr. Harding:

Would the Minister be more specific? I thought that the direction of the House was quite clear. Could the Minister be more specific about his priorities for this school, because he certainly has a lot of chits out there to pay off.

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

That is the difference between the previous government and this government; we do not pay off chits like they did. We do not build grandiose schools in the Premier's riding or the Government Leader's riding.

We look at the demonstrated needs of the schools and we hope to plan to build the schools in the areas where they are needed. Currently, we are building an addition to a school in a riding represented by the Member for Mount Lorne, a school that is only a few years old and already overcrowded.

We are looking at planning for a school in Dawson that was built by the previous administration, which is overcrowded only a few short years after being built.

In the future, we will be looking at a school in Mayo that was neglected by the previous administration for seven years and requires some upgrading.

We are also looking at some other projects.

We have had some very positive comments from Ottawa about the French school and we are pleased to say that we do have more of a commitment from Ottawa now. The federal government is very interested in building a French school. We are looking for a building site for that school at the present time.

There are a lot of things going on right now with respect to future plans for schools in the territory.

We do have to sort out the problem about whether or not we build on to the Porter Creek Junior High and make it a second high school, or whether we add on to F. H. Collins in some way. That decision will depend on the grade reorganization question. As I stated earlier, there was not a clear consensus on grade reorganization, and I will be making representations to Cabinet in the future about those issues.

Mr. Penikett:

Let me just say that I am getting a bit tired of the Minister of Education's continued remarks about the grandiose school in my riding. I would like to point out that, until the last election, my constituency was by far the largest in the City of Whitehorse. It had one overcrowded school, which served the entire population of that area.

At the same time, I would point out that there were numerous schools in the Riverdale area, which the Member opposite represents. The population there was well taken care of. Most of the people in my riding had to bus great distances to school, even within the city.

They had to suffer for years and years with inadequate schooling, and now that they finally have a modern, contemporary school, they will have to suffer sniping and snotty comments from the Minister of Education until the end of time. We expected those comments during the election. However, now that the Member is the Minister of Education, he should have a bit more of a balanced approach to the needs of all areas of the city.

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

I do not begrudge the people in the Granger and McIntyre area a school at all. We should have built a school there and we did.

The concern I have is that we built a new Catholic school in Porter Creek and a new school in Hidden Valley. They did not cost $10 million, like the school in Granger. I do not think anyone, including the teachers in the other schools in the territory, would deny that that school is a bit over-designed. We have to do our best to design our future schools to be functional facilities for teaching and learning. I doubt there is anyone out there who does not realize that the Granger School is probably fancier than any school we have ever built before in the territory. I think that is a legitimate point to make.

Mr. McDonald:

I took the trouble of asking the Minister of Education about one year ago if he would check on his allegations

Page Number 2447

2447

that the Granger School cost $10 million. He repeats that figure. I think he is probably, at minimum, a couple of million dollars out. He did check that figure and discovered, at that time, that he was wrong. He is now repeating that number today. I can only believe that he is intentionally misleading us, because I know he has checked the number before.

I would like the Minister to indicate to us, once again, now that he knows the figure to not be $10 million, why he has said otherwise?

Chair:

Order please. I would remind Members not to use words such as "misleading" in the House.

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

If the Member wants, I can table the cost of the school. I did it before. If it is less than $10 million, it is marginally under $10 million. It is certainly a heck of a lot more than any other school of that size that we have built.

Mr. McDonald:

I just received a report from Government Services, which did list the Granger School as having come in under budget. I believe the construction price was in the $7 million to $8 million range. The Minister is 20 percent out in saying that it was a $10 million school. Consequently, the Minister is clearly wrong, and he has been shown to be wrong on this point in the past. We have to, again, demonstrate to him that it is inappropriate to be making wild allegations that he cannot support.

I would like to ask the Minister, then, with respect to the Robert Service School, the Watson Lake high school and the Granger School, whether or not he has expressed any concerns about the budget estimates for any of those schools - all of which are very similar in design. They are nice designs and the cost per square foot was higher than average. I would like to ask the Minister whether or not there were any concerns expressed by Members opposite about those designs. I think if he checks he will find that there were not. In fact, I know he will find there were not, because I checked.

I would like to ask him whether or not he has any comments to make about his voting record in the past, or voting records of any Member of the Yukon Party, with respect to any one of those three schools and why, in particular, for the Robert Service School in Dawson, we have not heard one single peep about the cost of that school. We certainly never did while we were in government and we have not heard anything since. We built a school in Watson Lake, as well. The Speaker will know all about that school, as he helped to design it. That was also a school of high quality, because there was a feeling that we should be building schools of high quality - schools that last. That explanation was given in the Legislature when we moved our operation and maintenance and capital estimates forward for approvals. I just do not recall anybody complaining that we should not be building schools of high quality. I wonder if the Minister might want to comment about some of those comments because I think we have to get things tied down very clearly.

Now, I heard, while I was listening in on the radio - I was just out in my office for a moment - the Minister indicate that the government was showing more interest in some of the schools than the previous government did. He has listed the J.V. Clark School as having been neglected by the previous government. Under the circumstances, given that there was budgeted money for J.V. Clark School redesign, which the Yukon Party government cancelled, I would like to ask him about his commitment to J.V. Clark School and compare that with the NDP government's. I would like to ask him about his dollar commitment - the hard cash - to schools, which he has been responsible for cutting back while he has been in government. All of those things, I think, help fill in the full picture that might help us explain not only what the government is doing now, but also what previous governments have done. I only bring these points up because, coming back into the Legislature, I realized that the Minister is trying to do everything he can to trash the record of the previous government in order to help justify his meagre efforts. I think it is important, under the circumstances, to make it quite clear that there is a difference in records, and one that the Yukon Party government should not be particularly proud of.

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

I would be more than pleased to comment on some of the issues that were raised by the Member. With respect to the J.V. Clark School, it was just a structural study done on the school and we hope we will be able to move in there this summer and carry out some of the structural work on the school to make sure it is safe for the students. The necessary work will be done.

The Member asked me to comment on the Dawson school and the Watson Lake school, and I have to tell the Member that in both those cases I think there was some extravagance. For example, in the Watson Lake school, the first issue that came up when they announced they were going to build the Watson Lake High School was the question, "Who asked for it," because, at the time, we were wondering why the Watson Lake school showed up on the ledger of the Government of Yukon. As for the Dawson school, I can tell the Member that I was concerned, as an Opposition Member - I was not the Education critic at the time, but I was concerned as an Opposition Member - of the extravagance of that school and I am still concerned about it. I toured the school here last year and I can tell the Member that if he goes to that school, and I am sure he has been there, and he goes up into the little tower in the corner of the school - it must have cost thousands of dollars to build - it is totally non-functional; it does not serve any useful purpose; it is a waste of money; it is decorative, and that is all it is. It is just sort of a lounge for the teachers at the school to sit in. Many times, they do not even go up there. It is wasted space. It would be far better if that type of space was converted into classroom space or computer space or a workshop or some extra space for the kids.

It looks nice, no one can deny that. It is in a very attractive school but, for heaven's sake, it is outrageous the way it was designed because it has no useful function in the school. I do not think the Member could stand up and defend it. Everybody in Dawson realizes it; the school staff and everybody there realizes it. They cannot hold a class in it - it is about a 12 by 12 cubicle with a set of stairs going up the centre of it and a few lounge chairs and such sitting in it. And it cost a lot of money to add that to that school, and I think that money could have been better spent. We are hoping that, in the future, money will be better spent when we are designing such schools.

Mr. McDonald:

I will begin by dealing with the points the Minister mentioned and would ask that the Minister get back to me with his comments about the $10 million Granger School. I have not seen a $10 million Granger School so I would like him to either correct the record publicly or stop making allegations that he cannot substantiate.

We have gone back at him on this point on a number of occasions already, and it is time that his rhetoric matched the facts.

With respect to the J.V. Clark School, he mentioned that the study that was done was a structural study. I am not sure precisely what he is talking about there. There was a structural study done, for which he was responsible, that was funded by his government and undertaken by his government, but it was in response to concerns expressed by the people in Mayo that no school was being built there because the money that had been voted in this Legislature for the redesign of that school and ultimately for construction was cut by his government.

With respect to the extravagance of the schools, it is interesting to note that, when the Minister talks about the outrageous design for the Robert Service School, he tries to draw what he calls "everyone in Dawson and all the teachers" into his claim that they

Page Number 2448

2448

think the design is outrageous and should not have been done.

Having been at the opening of that school, and having received an award, signed by the mayor of that town, thanking the government for that particular school and design, saying that, finally, someone put something into Dawson that was attractive and a showpiece for the community, and which also served a useful purpose, instead of putting in something that was a non-decorative, functional box, because that was the way of the past, and having heard the teachers in Dawson say that they do appreciate the design, given that they were involved in the design, as were a lot of community members in that town, I am having trouble trying to understand who all the residents of Dawson and the teachers are the Minister now claims are lining up in opposition to that particular design.

There were probably a couple of hundred people at the opening ceremonies, and Dawson is a community of 800 or 900. They were very appreciative of the project and the fact that they were involved in the design. I am happy to have been involved in the design and construction of that school, although I do not claim to have been involved in the detail of the design. I was happy to have been presenting a case for the funding for that school in the Legislature, and I do not recall, at the time, the current Minister, nor any of his colleagues - including the critic - criticizing that particular construction project. In fact, if they said anything at all, it was that we were not going fast enough, and we were not doing things quickly enough. There were certainly no concerns about the costs associated with that project, which were well exposed in the capital estimates. While the Minister may have felt privately the whole situation was outrageous, he did not take the trouble to share his feelings with the rest of us in the Legislature, as we debated this expenditure, budget after budget.

The Minister went on to make some allegations about the need for the school in Watson Lake - to the effect that if nobody asked for it, it should not have been built. I do remember going to Watson Lake and talking to the community and the school committee at the time, and they took that view that it was very much desired. I remember talking to the school committee chair - I believe it was a man named John Devries - who indicated that the school was highly desired, and the committee wanted to be involved in the design. I believe the school committee was quite involved in the design.

When the process came to some conclusions, and budget estimates were drawn up and presented to the Legislature, that was another school of outrageous design that was presented to the Members. I do not recall hearing great concerns about that particular project. In fact, I do not recall hearing anything other than some concerns about whether or not the tiles on the roof were flammable. I think that that was the only issue that we had to deal with on the whole Watson Lake school construction project. Rather, it was the tiles on the roof and whether or not there was going to be local hiring. Those were the two issues that had to be addressed. The cost of the school was not challenged, although the Minister now says that he secretly held some hard feelings about this project.

I can assure him that the community in Watson Lake was involved in the design, and when I was at the opening, which was also attended by the MLA, who was at one point the school committee chair, the mayor of that community said that this was a design worthy of his fine community, and that it was appropriate that this project be given to Watson Lake. He said he felt that projects such as this ought to be promoted in the communities, and that if people were going to spend money on institutions that were expected to last for a long time, and were going to be housing one of the most important activities that the government was responsible for, and if our children were going to be spending most of their childhood in this facility, then it should be a facility that is attractive, and it should meet the design objectives of the community. They felt that in the case of Watson Lake, that was achieved through that particular project.

So, I am surprised that the Minister now feels that there is a groundswell of concern around the territory about these three schools. I did not detect that right up until election time, when they decided to pick on the so-called $10 million school in the Granger subdivision - which I think was an $8 million school - which was expected to house a population of 350 or more students. It was expected to serve a population that was, in fact, in excess of that expected for Watson Lake or Dawson City. I am certain that politics did not have anything to do with the claim that this was an extravagant expenditure. The Minister has made it quite clear about how he feels school designs should be undertaken now.

I am a little surprised to see the true lack of commitment by the government in constructing new schools, even the kind of functional square boxes that I am sure the Minister would like to promote.

The Minister has taken some trouble to congratulate the designers of the Catholic school in Porter Creek and the Hidden Valley School. Given that the previous administration was also responsible for those two schools, I think that I would agree with the Member. Those are fine schools and they served a good purpose for the small student populations they were expected to serve - 150 to a maximum of 200 students.

I would like to point out to the Minister that when he comes back with some figures about the schools and the cost per square foot, perhaps he could throw in any information that his department has about when the Porter Creek Junior High School was constructed, and the cost per square foot for that facility. I think we will then have a fairly clear impression of the facts and figures that we can use in the future and that we can all depend on.

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

I would be more than happy to bring that information back to the Member and I will also bring back the cost of the Granger School, including the furnishings of the school, which is all part of equipping a school.

The Member opposite is very good at twisting the words of other Members in the House to say something different from what was actually said.

When I talked about the Dawson school and the appearance of the Dawson school, I talked about the non-functional part of the school, meaning the tower.

When I toured the school, the school council took me through the school and brought me to this tower and showed me that the tower really had no use in the school, and that they needed a functional addition to the school that would serve their purpose.

That is the type of waste that I think we can no longer afford, and that is the kind of thing that we should try to avoid in the future.

The Member talks about the number of people who appeared in Dawson and Watson Lake who were very pleased with the school and the opening of the new school. Well, I do not know of any community that would not be happy at the opening of a new school. I think that the Member knows full well that the initiative in the Watson Lake area was more politically driven than actually need driven.

When the people were asked if they wanted a new school, were they going to say no? I do not think so. I think if the government is prepared to build a new school in a community, the community will welcome the new school with open arms. That is what I am talking about.

At that time, I was the buddy MLA for that area and I travelled to Watson Lake quite a few times. Many people in the community asked why they were getting the new school. What was happening? Once the government announced that they were going to

Page Number 2449

2449

build the new school, then many people became involved in the construction of the school. Of course they would get involved; that is part of being in a small community; they wanted to build it.

I can tell the Member that many people in that community felt that the need for that school was driven by the MLA at that time, Mr. Porter, who was seeking to get re-elected and felt that building a school would help him do so.

Mr. Joe:

I have one short question for the Minister. I hear that the J.V. Clark School is aging. Many people talk to me about it. There is an important meeting coming up on May 10 regarding education. I would invite the Minister to go to Mayo. If he goes, I will, too. We should all hear from the grass-root people and listen to what they have to say.

We always ask questions among ourselves in this House. We tend to get nowhere. Why can we not face the people themselves, and hear what they have to say?

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

I travelled to Mayo last summer and spent a couple of days there. I met with the school council and discussed the issue. I made a commitment to them, at that time, to do several analyses of the school in order to determine whether or not the school is safe. We conducted those tests. We did an air quality test and a structural test of the school. The results are both in, and we are taking action to do repairs where necessary. That money is in the budget and we will do the work.

Members have to realize, however, that there is a bit of a dilemma. There are several areas in the territory where there are overcrowded schools. We are trying to get the kids out of the hallways and small rooms and into decent classrooms. That has to be a priority. In the case of Mayo, there is a school that was built for more than 200 students, and only 90 students attend it right now. We have to have a set of priorities when we have a limited budget with which to work.

Unfortunately, I do not have a $50 million surplus in the bank, as the previous government did. I have to work within the constraints we have as government. We are planning to build a new school in Mayo eventually. There will be plans to do that. In the meantime, however, we are going to repair the school so that it is safe for the children there. That is a priority. We are about to do it, and there will be some work done this year.

Mr. Joe:

I can tell about the renovation of that school. While the inspector was inspecting the power - and I think the Minister knows all about this, too - he found burning wires hanging down inside the ceiling. While the inspector was there inspecting the school, water dripped on top of his head. When he came around the corner, there was another pail on the floor, under some more dripping water. Why was the room not fixed yet?

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

I will check on any of those problems. I know we received a report and we are acting on it. Some of the things that can be fixed right away are being done; some of the more complicated structural things will be done at a future date, some time this summer when the children are not in the school. We are trying to bring the school up to a safe standard for the students. I gave a commitment to the school council that we would do that, and I give a commitment to the Member for Mayo-Tatchun as well that we will do that.

Mr. McDonald:

To get back to the claims made by the Minister with respect to the schools that have been built, I will take the trouble to pass on his concerns about the design of the Robert Service School to the 25-member community school design committee. I am certain they, at least, will be interested in knowing how much faith there is in the government today about the decisions they made a number of years ago. As a matter of fact, I think it was the mayor - who was, at the time, a PC candidate - who was saying that he actually liked the tower at the Robert Service School and indicated to me that it was a unique feature that brought a lot of character to the building. Because it is not as functional as the Minister would like it to be; I guess it is one of those appendages one could probably just lop off. If there is no point to it, I am sure we could build much more functional schools. They do not really need windows for people to live in there. We could probably do well to bring the ceilings down two or three feet, too. It will be interesting to see what the Minister thinks about when he promotes functional design in the future - if there is a school built in the next few years.

When I went to Watson Lake, before the school was even inserted into the capital budget, I do not recall hearing anyone, including the school committee chair, indicate that the school was not needed. In fact, I got a long pitch from school council members in that community, among others, that the school was highly desirable. We have differing opinions about what transpired and what the need for those schools was.

I will make only one comment about the Minister's claim that he has no money at all to work with. I agree with him that his budget is smaller. There is no doubt about that. As a percentage of the discretionary capital, it is also smaller - that is, of the discretionary capital, not the gross capital. Of the money the Government of the Yukon has to spend on school construction, the money the Department of Education is spending now has declined from previous years.

I think that is a matter of choice, and I think the Members have made their choice, and we are living with the consequences.

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

One of the reasons we have not been rushing out to build schools, as Members may wish us to do, is because we have had to look at the various problems we now have in some of the areas. We have had to prioritize them. Some of those we are dealing with are additions to current schools, and we are trying to deal with that first.

We have now spent about 45 minutes on the capital budget, and we are really here to debate the operation and maintenance budget. I would suggest we try to move into the operation and maintenance side of the budget, if we are ever going to get to some of those figures. I think that would be a wise use of our time.

Mr. Harding:

The Minister's request will be granted. I think it was important to point out the fact that the Yukon Party has promised a lot and delivered very little in the area of the production of any functional schools. That is what that debate was about.

I would like to move into another area we talked a bit about last night, which is the issue of the morale of the Education department and the educators in this territory, and their indignation at unjustified actions by this government and the real lack of respect that has been shown to them. That is the issue of the rollback-and-freeze legislation the government unilaterally announced, out of the blue, they were going to impose on educators and employees of the government of this territory.

As I talked to educators around the territory, what I have heard expressed a lot is that, aside from the fact they were very upset at the way this was done, they are really afraid of the impact on young teachers in this territory.

This legislation is going to impact on the first-, the second-, the third-year teachers, as well as the fourth- and fifth-year teachers - the people who do not have a lot of experience under their belts. I sense a real disincentive to become a committed, young, Yukon educator, when one receives treatment at the hands of the government that some of them have received. The young educators really need to be brought onstream - not sent down the stream. That is what is happening in this territory. That is what this legislation has done. That is an overwhelming concern expressed throughout this territory by educators. Is the Minister concerned? Does he concede there is a problem with the young teachers in this territory and their morale, as a result of this action, in terms of the rollback and the

Page Number 2450

2450

experience-increase freezes?

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

We are currently in collective bargaining with the teachers and I prefer not to discuss the issue any further. If the Member is really interested in what my views are about morale, I can suggest to the Member that he look at the Hansard of yesterday. I know he has an audience, and he wants to play to the audience again, but it is a very expensive waste of our time to go back over the exact same things we talked about in here yesterday. I think it is time we start talking about the budget, start talking about the items in the budget and start dealing with the numbers. I am prepared to answer those questions. I am not prepared to go back over that and talk about what I talked about last night. We talked about that, we went over that ground; let us get on with it.

Mr. Harding:

The Minister can dictate to his department all he wants. He can dictate to his other Cabinet colleagues, but he is not going to dictate to this Member what I am going to ask in general debate on education. There are a lot of people in this territory who want answers, and I know the government does not like standing up and answering questions. They are really starting to fight it and they are really getting defensive, but I am going to ask those questions and I am going to ask them for as long as it takes, until I find out exactly where this government is going. I asked no questions last night in general debate about the impact of this legislation on young educators in this territory. We have not even begun to start the discussion on this subject, because it is very serious. I ask the Minister this question again and I hope he answers it. Is he concerned about the express impact - and I am sure he has received letters, as has the Government Leader and the Public Service Commissioner - of these cuts on young educators in this territory? Has he received them and what does he think of them?

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

Yes, I have received many letters from teachers and many teachers that have tenure. Even young teachers have written me letters, explaining that they are concerned about this. I think they have a very valid concern. I hope that concern can be addressed at the bargaining table.

Mr. Harding:

This media blackout is interesting, in the fact that the government does not want to talk about it.

The thing that galls me the most is that the Members opposite stand up in the Legislature and say that, because they have now announced a media blackout, they support free collective bargaining.

Let us not forget how this situation started. This announcement was unilaterally made by the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission, who announced he had to institute rollbacks because he was fighting the federal debt. Then, after two days of questioning in this Legislature, the government was getting pounded so badly, because they knew they had no justification, they decided that they had better do something about it. They decided that they would go into free collective bargaining.

Thirdly, they have not removed the threat of the legislation. There is still a deadline in place for May 20, 1994, unless something has changed that they have not told this House about - and that would not be a first.

So let us not hide behind this facade of free collective bargaining. We are asking questions about what action was taken and what is on the table right now. From what we know right now, the legislation is still there and there is still a deadline of May 20, 1994.

If the young educators have a valid concern, and the Minister is concerned about them, what is he going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

I am sure that will be dealt with at the bargaining table.

Mr. Harding:

Does the Minister understand the theory behind experience increases? Could he explain that to this House?

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

Yes, I know what the theory is. The theory is that as a teacher acquires more years in teaching and become more experienced, they are paid more for their job.

Mr. Harding:

Why then does the Minister think that practice should be removed?

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

It may not be removed at the bargaining table.

Mr. Harding:

I received a copy of a letter that was sent to the Government Leader by one of my constituents that I would like to read. I think that it is good for the Minister to hear this, because I think it illustrates the problem here quite well.

My constituent wrote, with a copy to me, stating, "Your rollback and freeze will cost an experienced teacher just two percent, but it will cost a beginner two percent, plus approximately $2,000 the first year, $4,000 the second year and $6,000 the third. That teacher's salary will effectively be capped at the end of their 10-year initiation at that salary, which is less than that $6,000. I also understand that in the collective bargaining process the new teachers have already lost one year's increment. In total, this adds up to far more than two percent and perhaps much closer to 15 percent.

"Let us examine who these junior teachers are. They have just spent four or five years in university, outside of the territory, at a cost of around $20,000 per year. Typically, they arrive here with a whopping pile of student loans. I understand that some are in hock by as much $50,000. When hired, they need to relocate to a rural community, buy a reliable vehicle, set up households, buy furniture, and being in their mid-20s or so they are possibly considering marriage and the beginning of a family.

"Of your employees, they are in the greatest financial need, yet these are the ones being more severely penalized by your proposed policy. You are victimizing the most vulnerable."

That letter my constituent wrote to the Government Leader pretty well sums up one of the more glaring problems with this legislative initiative by the government, which they seem to have reneged upon.

I would like to ask the Minister if he would make some general comment about experience increases and the impact this legislation could have on young teachers?

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

I hope that can be achieved at the bargaining table.

Mr. Harding:

I think we have to pursue this a bit further. The Minister is telling this House that the issue can be resolved at the bargaining table. Is he saying that he supports the lifting of the legislation to accommodate that change?

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

I am not going to comment on the give and take at the bargaining table. We have agreed to a media blackout. That is what we will do. The Member should stop trying to bootleg the bargaining onto the floor of this House.

Some Hon. Member:

(Inaudible)

Mr. Harding:

I am the official spokesperson for education for the Opposition. Let us not forget who announced this - it was the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission. On the radio, he unilaterally announced, in a dictatorial fashion to all government employees and teachers in the territory, that they were going to freeze, cut back and roll back wages. He said that they were not going to freely collective bargain. Now they are going to stand up and try to convince this House and the people of the Yukon that they support collective bargaining. Who are they trying to kid?

They tell us we should not ask questions about their actions. It is ridiculous. They had so many reasons for this legislation, we cannot keep track of them. First it was to fight the federal debt. Then it was due to some phony debt that they created in the Yukon. We all know no one believes that. Statistics Canada and anyone

Page Number 2451

2451

else who has looked at the budget can plainly see that even the most creative bookkeeping attempts cannot hide the fact that we have had, and still have, the best financial picture in the country.

The Minister is shaking his head. He obviously does not realize that he has the biggest budget in Yukon history. He is spending more money than any government here ever has had before. He has no debt - none, nyet, nada, nothing. He has increasing revenues. I do not know what this is all about. The only deficit this government has is in their heads.

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

I would like to try and make it clear for the Member for Faro. We discussed this last night. He made his speeches and played to the audience, and he is doing it again today. I was asked earlier today in Question Period, by the Member for Mount Lorne, and I gave assurances that we would not collective bargain outside of the collective bargaining table - that it would not be done in this Legislature. Now the Member for Faro insists on doing that. I would like to know his purpose. Is he trying to defeat the collective bargaining? Does he think that the Clerk's Table is a collective bargaining table? I would like to know if he is the official spokesperson for the Teachers Association. It was the Yukon Teachers Association that asked for a media blackout on negotiations. We agreed to that, and a joint press release was issued; therefore, we are not prepared to collective bargain on the floor of this House. The Member for Mount Lorne wanted to know what the definition of "collective bargaining" is. I will tell her. It is not something that takes place in the Legislative Assembly. That is what the Member for Faro is trying to do. He can make all the speeches he wants, but we are not prepared to discuss the issues that are at the collective bargaining table. The Member for Faro should know better than that.

Mr. Harding:

I cannot believe my ears. Whenever that Minister gets up he makes the most ridiculous statements. He is doing it again today; he did it last night. He does it every time we talk about this subject - this newly found respect for collective bargaining. We should not forget who dropped the bomb - who said that they were going to introduce legislation in this next sitting that was going to absolve the government of the responsibility to freely collective bargain. We are asking questions about that legislation, that we, as legislators, are still being told will be coming before this House on May 20. If he removed that legislation, then perhaps -

Speaker:

Order please.

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

On a point of order. The Member is now talking about the collective bargaining process. It is the responsibility of the Minister of the Public Service Commission. We are dealing with the Education budget. Let us talk about education issues. Let us talk about the dollar values, and the issues in the Education budget. Let us get back to what we are supposed to be doing and quit wasting the taxpayers' money going on and on about the same thing that the Member went on and on about last night.

Mr. Harding:

On the point of order. I will get back to talking about education issues; that is no problem. I would like to ask the Minister a question. Does he think these rollbacks and legislation will have any impact on the educators or the education system in this territory?

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

The question of rollbacks is a matter of collective bargaining and I am not going to comment on it.

Mr. Harding:

Exactly. That is why the Member opposite's comments are so ridiculous. It all has an impact on the education system of this territory.

When this legislation was announced, I have never seen anything like it in the short time, the 18 or 19 months, that I have been elected to this Legislature. I have never seen the groundswell of public opposition to an initiative by government in the nine years that I have been in this territory.

I had a person come up to me in my riding of Faro, who has been working in the school as an educational assistant - a single parent, two children; she has been there seven years, working as an educational assistant - and she was very, very distressed about the announcement by the government because her take-home pay was about $1,350 a month before the rollbacks. She was very, very concerned about how this rollback would impact on her because she was barely managing to scrape by as it was.

I know the Minister likes to give great speeches about overpaid teachers, underworked teachers, and all that type of thing, but these are real people. She was so worried, she actually went to the social assistance office because she did not know if she could make it any longer with the rollback initiative. What she found out was that, on welfare, as a single mother with two children, she could make $1,700 per month. So, working full time would provide her with $1,350, but social assistance would provide her with $1,700.

She was absolutely shocked, and I was shocked, too. That really brought home to me just how much impact the spurious announcement by the government had. To say that it is all well and good now, when the legislation is still there impacting on the education community and impacting on the education system, and to say that we should not be discussing or debating it in Education general debate is absolutely preposterous.

If the government did not have the threat of legislation hanging over the people's heads in the Yukon, then people in the education system may be able to see that the government may be a little bit more sincere about the respect for education as a wealth creator in this territory, and not as a debt creator, as the Government Leader likes to refer to it.

I would like to ask the Minister of Education this: is he prepared to tell us whether he would support the removal of the legislation so that we can get on to talking about free collective bargaining?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

We do not know yet. Perhaps the Member for Faro has not realized it, but we are presently sitting down and talking with the teachers about their collective agreement. We do not know whether legislation with respect to the Yukon Teachers Association will be necessary or not.

If it becomes necessary, and that legislation is brought into the House, at that time the Member for Faro will have all the time he wants to discuss that legislation. We will do it in the same manner as with any other piece of legislation. There will be general debate, there will be clause-by-clause debate and, at that time, I will be prepared to discuss whatever legislation is brought forward with the Member for Faro.

I do not know how he expects to have a hypothetical debate now on legislation that -

Some Hon. Member:

(Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

Perhaps the Member was not listening. I want to tell him that the government is now sitting down with the teachers and discussing their collective agreement with them. We hope to reach an agreement whereby the necessity of legislation will not exist.

However, if it does, there will be legislation and we will discuss it at that time.

Ms. Moorcroft:

First of all, I would like to point out to the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission that he is not the Speaker any more, so he cannot tell us what we can and cannot talk about in the House.

The Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission is making the statement, as he said in Question Period, that they will not bargain in the House. Well, he will not bargain out of the House, either. That Minister cannot define collective bargaining; that Minister cannot engage in collective bargaining. I would venture to say he cannot negotiate his way out of a wet paper bag.

Page Number 2452

2452

I asked that Minister a direct question in this House about whether he was prepared to lift the wage-restraint legislation and the threat of legislation in agreeing to meet with the Yukon Teachers Association. It is in Hansard; the Minister said no, he is working to a timetable of May 20, and he has also repeated that message in the House.

Does the Minister of Education honestly believe that his coalition majority government over there is engaging in collective bargaining? He stands up and says he supports collective bargaining. Does he honestly believe they are engaging in it?

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

Yes.

Ms. Moorcroft:

How would the Minister of Education define it? How would he put together engaging in collective bargaining, and holding a threat of wage restraint legislation, at the same time?

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

We are at the table with the teachers, and all items are on the table. I am optimistic there will be a settlement with the teachers and no need for legislation.

Ms. Moorcroft:

I would just like to point out the inconsistency. The Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission will not say that they are lifting that threat of legislation; they are reserving that. When we look at this budget, we have had charts presented to us that show the effect of the estimated payroll savings of the proposed compensation-restraint legislation. That is right there in their budget. Perhaps the Minister of Education could tell us, of the total $3,134,000 estimated fiscal savings for this year from the restraint legislation, how much of that applies to the Department of Education?

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

I have that broken down in various departments. I will get that figure for the Member.

Mr. Harding:

Obviously, the government is not going to talk about this, regardless of the fact that they have announced this legislation and told us, as legislators, that we are going to be dealing with it, and that we know it has impacted on the education system in the territory. Can I ask the Minister a question about the justification?

He does not want to talk about the specifics or his belief in whether or not it was fairly done, or whether or not it treats people with respect. I guess we will never get the answer from them until we debate the legislation, which I assume is probably going to come down at some point. So, the best we can do is lay out the concerns, and the Members opposite can continue to ignore them.

Did the Minister hear the Public Service Commissioner on the radio, talking about the need to fight the federal debt, saying that is why they were bringing in this legislation and depriving the educators of the right to collective bargain? Did he hear that on the radio, and does he agree with that as a justification?

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

I am surprised at the Member opposite not feeling that we, as Canadians, have any responsibility whatsoever for the overall Canadian debt; that we can just accept money from Ottawa as it rolls in, spend it whatever way we want, and not think about that $500 billion debt that our children are going to inherit; that we do not have any responsibility whatsoever to try to reduce our government costs overall, because we know what is going to happen down the road here.

We have a letter that was tabled here - and this is an old debate; we are going back into history again. There was a letter tabled here by the Government Leader, from the Finance Minister, which told us the very best we can expect in the next few years is a hold-the-line transfer payment or a reduction. Inflation itself will eat up many millions of dollars over the next three or four years, with no increase from Ottawa, and I do not know where that money is supposed to come from. That is how we will make our contribution: by reducing the overall cost of operating our government. The operation and maintenance cost of government in the territory is very high, and many people in this territory - government and non-government - have, because of the economy, paid the price in the last little while. We, as a government, have to get our house in order.

All the Members on this side and the other side of the House have taken a five-percent wage decrease - not two percent: five percent.

We have cut various programs, we have reduced the number of administrative personnel in the Department of Education, while trying to leave the public school system alone.

We have a budget here that is virtually intact from the year before, other than the minor two-percent rollback of the wages in this budget for payroll.

This is not a significant rollback.

What was and is significant is the 19-percent increase three years ago, when governments all across this country were either holding the line or agreeing to one or two percent. The government workers in the territory took the 19-percent increase - and when you add on the fringe benefits, it was over 24 or 25 percent - in a three-year period, put it in their pockets and said nothing. They said nothing. That contributed to our debt and the federal debt.

We have to realize that every time we spend that kind of money we are associated with Ottawa. That is our money. We receive 80 cents from every dollar we spend in the territory from Ottawa. We only raise 20 cents out of every dollar in the territory. That is our money. That is our children's money we are spending. We have to get our house in order. We have to be responsible. We are not asking for the world; we are asking for a minor sacrifice for most people.

We realize that there are some inconsistencies or some concerns that teachers have about the younger teachers and I respect that concern. I hope that the issue can be resolved at the table. There may be other ways to resolve that, but, heavens to goodness we are not firing a whole bunch of people, and we are not taking 20 percent out of their pockets like other jurisdictions are having to do because they have not addressed their debt. We are trying to address the issue before we get a debt. Where is the responsibility, not only as a Yukoner, but as a Canadian, for crying out loud? That debt is your debt, whether you like it or not.

Chair:

Order please. I would remind the Member not to use the word "you" to other Members of the House.

Mr. Harding:

That was an amazing tirade by the Minister of Education. It contained not one factual statement about the finances of this territory, as usual.

This government has not indicated that they are going to be sending a cheque to the federal Minister of Finance for the savings that they take from their government employees and educators in this territory. It is absolutely ridiculous.

Some Hon. Member:

(Inaudible)

Mr. Harding:

The Minister says he is going to spend it building schools. Prove it. The Minister has had two budgets and has not built one thing yet.

Some Hon. Member:

(Inaudible)

Chair:

Order please.

Mr. Harding:

We know that the Yukon Party government have been doing everything possible to try to tell people that they have no money. Why is this? It is because if they tell people they have money, people will ask for things. They will ask for schools, roads and things like that.

The figure the Minister continually spouts out is $64 million. Most Yukoners realize that this government wrote off everything but the kitchen sink to try and get the surplus down as much as they could, in order to get the deficit to sound as large as possible. Despite all that work and all the write-offs they have conjured up since then, whether they be loans to Faro Real Estate - while Faro

Page Number 2453

2453

Real Estate is still paying back, I might add - or the extended care facility, their tactics will not work. At some future time, when they have run out of write-offs, we will see a line item for the kitchen sink - it will be an allowance for bad debts. They wrote off the extended care facility in one year. If most Yukoners paid off their mortgages in one year, they would run a deficit for the year, too. The government is still collecting revenue on that money.

Statistics Canada proved that the Yukon has no debt - absolutely none. We need only look at the budget the Minister tabled. It is on page 3. If the Minister looks at it, he will realize that if the money not spent last year - called a lapse - is put toward what the Members opposite call the accumulated deficit, there will be a surplus. They have admitted that in this Legislature.

Let us get back to the impact on education. The Minister indicated that his mandate, right at the opening, was that he would accept zero increase. The Yukon government, this year, is going to spend more money than ever before. For all the rhetoric and speeches about how the federal debt is my debt, and for all the sanctimonious talk, this government last year brought in a record budget. They spent more than the NDP ever spent. They had more money to spend than the NDP ever received. They are now bringing in another budget. If they spend their slush fund, which consists of their $4.5 million on the Alaska Highway and their $2 million set up for - get this - contingency funding, they will spend even more than they spent last year.

While I appreciate the concern about the federal debt, I do not find it all that sincere coming from the Minister of Education - not sincere at all, because they are spending more money than ever before in this territory. What the Minister has lost the point of is that this whole debate is not about the two percent; it is about respect for the collective bargaining process and respect for educators in the territory. He has lost that whole point. Why did they do it this way? The federal Minister has already said he would be prepared to accept a zero increase, so why did they not go to the collective bargaining table, as they did last year, and negotiate on that premise with the teachers and with their other government employees? Why did they announce legislation?

I do not know within what parameters they might want to negotiate, but they know we have some broad idea of what the feds want. My point is, they did not have to do what they did. There is a very, very serious problem here in terms of communication and respect.

I never fail to be amazed by the Members opposite standing up and defending what they have done when everybody has shown them that it is wrong, absolutely wrong.

I want to ask the Minister this: if he does not want to talk about issues that relate to the morale of educators based on some of the actions taken by this government, let me ask him about an issue from last year that I really have not been able to get a handle on from the Minister. The last collective bargaining agreement, I believe, negotiated some prep time reductions and there was a lot of talk that, because of the time allotment for prep time cutbacks, that would in effect cause some reduction in staffing. Was there any reduction in staffing as a result of the prep time cutbacks and, if there was, what was it?

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

I can get back to the Member on the number of staffing reductions associated with that.

The Member comments on the Government of the Yukon's financial position, but what he neglected to tell us was that, sure we have a large budget, but he neglects to say that we have the new hospital being built in that budget, which is federal dollars, we have the Alaska Highway money, and all kinds of other federal money, specific to projects, which adds to that budget.

I would like to give the Member an example of what has happened in the Department of Education. In 1990-91, our budget in the public schools branch was $41,565,053. In 1993-94, our budget was $54,735,000. That is a $13.2 million increase from 1991 to 1993.

On the surface, when you look at that, you would say that is great; we are increasing the public schools budget, and that should really benefit the students in the public school system. However, when it is analyzed, 88 percent of that budget was the increase in wages, and that is significant. That is part of the dilemma we are facing. We are now looking at a minor adjustment to that to try and have everybody share some of the burden of getting our finances back in order.

I do not apologize for a minute that, in a year from now, we may wipe out our deficit, because that is what we should be trying to do in government. We should be trying to wipe out our deficits. We should not be proud that we have one of the biggest deficits in the country, or that we are building a deficit. We should be proud of the fact that we can balance our budget, that we do not have a deficit, and that, if we achieve some savings through reducing the cost of government, we can build infrastructure like schools and attractions, and improve our roads - which I know the Members opposite are not very fond of doing - so we can increase our economy, so more people will come to the Yukon, make a living here, raise their children and have them go to school here, and have a healthy environment for all Yukoners. That is all we are looking at doing; we are trying to balance our budget.

If that is a crime, then we are guilty. We are trying to balance our budget. That is pretty hard for the other side to understand, because they did not have a concept of balancing budgets. The Auditor General's report showed a $64 million deficit, and they are still in denial of that. They told everyone to wait until the Auditor General's report came out, because it would be the gospel truth. Then, when it came out, guess what? Perhaps that was not it at all. Perhaps there was some other figure they could find somewhere that says we do not really have a debt. Now, they are suggesting we dip into the workers' compensation fund and use all these other funds to pay off our debt. They tried to get at that one when they were in government, but we are not going to let them do that.

Chair:

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

Some Hon. Members:

Agreed.

Some Hon. Members:

Disagreed.

Chair:

We will go until 4:30 p.m.

Mr. McDonald:

If the Minister would check back in Hansard with the Finance Minister, he would discover that, on the first day of Committee debate, it was established that, with lapses, there is no debt as of March 31, 1994. That was a month ago. I would appeal to him to go back and look at Hansard, because we will then not need to debate it again with this Minister. It was hard enough with the previous Minister.

The Minister has made some comment about the NDP government having no concept of balancing budgets and, in some respects, that it true. For five of the seven years that we were in government, we generated surpluses in each of those five years. The last year, there was an accumulated surplus of $50 million. The very last year was shared for six months with the Yukon Party, when they were writing off everything they could think of writing off, even including things that are still being repaid to the government. For example, the extended care facility, which was written off all in one year, is still going to be repaid to the Yukon government over years to come.

If one wants to write off every single thing, then they can drive that deficit up as high as they want. The important point is that, at most reasonable people's urgings, it would be wise to enter the negotiating year with the federal government without having to sit

Page Number 2454

2454

on a $50 million net surplus.

Some Hon. Member:

(Inaudible)

Mr. McDonald:

That is part of the reason.

I would like to ask the Minister a very simple question. Can the Minister tell us what percentage of the total net spending of government has been dedicated to Education? Can he tell us whether or not that has gone down or up since he has been Minister?

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

I will have to bring that back to the Member. I want to make a couple of other points. The Member accused us of having the biggest spending budget in the history of the Yukon. That may very well be true. However, there are three projects in that budget that are fully recoverable. It is non-discretionary funding - money that comes from Ottawa and other sources.

One is the new hospital, and I mentioned that. The other is the Shakwak project, which is American money that they give us to fix the highway. I guess we have a choice about that - we could say no, and not get the American dollars and not fix the highway, and not create jobs for Yukoners. The other one is the Alaska Highway project.

The Member for Faro talks about writing off loans. I would like to know how much the Member for Faro would give us for that $5 million loan for Curragh, because it is not worth anything. We are finding out that the vulture-finders out there, the people who buy these kinds of debts, are offering to pay half a cent on the dollar for those types of loans.

The other issue that was raised by the Member for Faro was the extended care facility and the write-off for it. The extended care facility was booked exactly the way the Auditor General told us to book it. That is what the Auditor General told us to do, and that is why it was booked that way.

Chair:

Order, please. We will take a brief recess at this time.

Recess

Chair:

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

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

Before the break, the former Minister of Education asked me a question about total Department of Education spending in relation to the overall operation and maintenance budget.

The total budget for 1993-94 was $75,346,000. If one is to be fair and reasonable about that and $2,400,000, is deducted, which is the training trust fund, you will arrive at $72,946,000 in the actual operation and maintenance spending in education. You then divide that into $352,723,000, which is the overall budget of the government, you get 20.68 percent.

If you look at today's operation and maintenance budget of $72,156,000 and divide that into $346,210,000, you arrive at 20.84 percent, so it is up marginally from last year.

Mr. Penikett:

Did the Minister, in making these comparisons, take into account the capital spending on new schools, between old administrations and new?

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

No, we did not take in the capital spending, because capital spending varies each year. Some schools are starting and some schools are finishing.

Capital, as the Member knows, depends upon demand and when you are building schools, so it varies from year to year. We are talking about the operation and maintenance spending of the government and not the capital.

Mr. Penikett:

Would the Minister agree that the commitment to capital programming and education is an indication of government priorities and also construction of new schools would - if you like - be a concrete demonstration of the commitment to education?

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

I do not think one should go out and build a school to demonstrate one's commitment to education. I think one should look at the demonstrated need in the various areas.

When we build schools, there are a lot of decisions to be made and processes to be followed. We get representations made to us on an ongoing basis from school councils, teachers, principals, community leaders and others, demanding either a new school or other additions to the educational infrastructure in the community. We have to sit down and weigh these issues. Decisions are not always easy and we have to prioritize them.

We are hampered somewhat by other things that are going on, such as the grade reorganization and so on. It would be silly to jump in and make decisions to build schools, knowing that figures could change in the near future. Decisions have to be made in a reasonable and responsible way, so that the school that we build will actually be in the right location and be full. We do not want to end up with overcrowded schools or half-full schools because we have not done our homework. We have to take the time to evaluate all those factors when we decide where and when to build new facilities.

We are going through a process of gathering that information. It would be folly for us to run out and build a new school and then discover, six or eight months from now, that we did not need it or that it should have been built somewhere else. We have to take the time to consider these variables.

Mr. Penikett:

I do not have another question; I just want to make a comment. Earlier today, the Minister gave us a long list of demands for new schools, school reconstructions or school additions that all lead to evidence of very significant demand for new educational facilities. The Minister also conceded, earlier today, that his government has not built any and does not intend to build any. I guess this is a demonstration of their commitment and a statement about where such facilities place on the government's priority list.

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

It is not true to say that we are not building anything. He was in the House - unless he forgot - when the capital budget went through. There is an addition planned for an existing school that is presently overcrowded. There are several others in the planning process. He knows full well that there is some construction going on; however, as I said before, we are currently hampered by some of the other things that are happening, such as the grade reorganization. We have to get some idea of where we are going and whether we are going to need one high school or two high schools and so on. We need to get some input from the general public, constituents, parents and teachers, rather than just foolishly go out and start construction on something we may not need.

Mr. Penikett:

Following the Minister's comment, I do have a question. I wonder if he could come back to us in writing with a combined operation and maintenance and capital figures for the percentage of the total budget being spent on Education in this proposed budget, as well as the previous five or six years'.

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

I can gather those figures, but the fact of the matter is that capital budgets rise and fall over many years. Previous to the NDP government, there were very few dollars around. We had very small budgets in the territory, and there were not as many schools being built. When the NDP inherited the government, we had a very lucrative formula financing agreement, and we had quite a bit of money. We had the demands that we have out there now - similar demands from all over the place for new schools. They had the opportunity - with the extra money they had - to go out and build some of these schools.

As I said before, the planning for these things does take time. We know we have to build several schools over the next five years,

Page Number 2455

2455

and we are working toward that goal. However, the first thing we have to do is get our budget in order, so that we have sufficient funds in the budget to actually spend on infrastructure, such as schools.

Mr. McDonald:

I would just like to ask one question and cut through all the rhetoric about whether or not the government is showing support for education. I would just like to ask a simple question, and the Minister can get back in his own time, I hope not too far in the future. What is the percentage of total net spending, combined operations and capital, for the last few years and for the current budget years? A reflection of government's commitment to something is whether or not they apply money to it.

On the capital side, we know already that Grey Mountain school has been planned and designed, and that there was a demonstrated need to replace those old trailers. We have heard other needs expressed by other Members for school construction projects. We have also heard the Minister's own claims of needs for school construction, whether it be additions or renovations, or whatever.

Certainly, money talks, and it would be interesting to know whether the percentage of net budget, for combined operations and capital, has gone up or down. It does not matter how big the budget is - the budget could be only $100 million, or it could be $800 million. The point is, how much of the budget, as a percentage, is being dedicated toward education spending. If the Minister can demonstrate that the combined operations and capital have gone up, then he can say money talks. If the combined total of operations and capital for education, as a percentage of net spending, has gone down, then that is also a reflection of the government's commitment to education.

Given that we have already discussed many different needs and we have differing senses of what the priorities are, I would just like to ask that very simple question and get an answer as to whether the percentages are going up or down.

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

I will get that information and bring it back to the House.

Mrs. Firth:

I want to ask the Minister some questions about process and I would like to get some facts about how decisions were made. The subjects I want to get the facts on about how decisions are made are with respect to the rollback legislation that I, as a Member of this House, am going to be asked to vote on, should it come before the House.

I want to talk about the rollback legislation specifically with respect to the Yukon Teachers Association.

My first question to the Minister of Education is: I would like to know who made the decision to include the teachers in the wage restraint legislation initiative that the government took on?

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

Cabinet.

Mrs. Firth:

Would the Minister tell us why they decided to include the teachers in the wage restraint legislation?

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

Because, like other government workers, teachers are a major part of the payroll of government and if we were going to reduce overall costs in government it was one area we thought we had to address.

Mrs. Firth:

So, the Minister is saying they did it to cut costs. As I understand from having had discussions with the Government Leader with respect to union positions and teachers' positions, I was told by the Government Leader that the teachers had negotiated in good faith in their previous contract and had made concessions and that the Government Leader had held them up as an example to the other union. So I was surprised when the teachers were included. I could understand the dispute with the Yukon Employees Union, but I was concerned about why they had included the teachers.

When the teachers had been held up as a good example, why did they make the decision just to include them instead of sitting down and negotiating with them? Could the Minister answer that?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

Perhaps I can answer that as the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission and the one who will be bringing forward legislation if it is necessary.

This discussion was held last night, too. Perhaps the Member for Riverdale South was not listening. I invite her to read Hansard in detail. It has never been denied that the teachers did make a sacrifice and did hold their wages in their last agreement. That is not in dispute. What I explained last night, and I will try and explain briefly again for the Member for Riverdale South, is that we, as a government, are not only responsible for the Yukon Teachers Association and their wages but also the PSAC employees of the government and management. What we wanted to do is be fair to all employee groups. That was what we hoped to do by our proposal.

I will remind the Member for Riverdale South that we are talking with the teachers right now, trying to work out a fair and equitable way of achieving savings. We are trying to even up the burden among all employee groups and, in that sense, we have to include all groups, so their contributions are almost the same.

At this point in time, the teachers have contributed more per capita than the PSAC employees. We would like to even that up. That is what our proposal does. I am sure the Member has heard this from me in this House before - the proposed freeze for the teachers comes off before the PSAC agreement. With respect to PSAC, the proposal is that they take three days off without pay, which did not affect the teachers. We wanted to even out the burden among all employee groups, including the MLAs and management. We felt our proposals did that.

We were prepared to listen. In March, we came forward so people in the groups would know what our proposal was, so we could have input from all groups and it would be fair. We came forward at the earliest possible time. We are listening now, and we are waiting to hear from the Yukon Employees Union. We want to be fair to all the employees, so we share the burden.

Again, there is no denying that the teachers were, in my opinion, the most responsible of the groups and should be given credit for that; however, we have to achieve an overall saving.

Mrs. Firth:

I will try to be as generous as I can with my comments. First of all, I do not want the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission to stand up in this House and patronize me, or make condescending remarks to me. I am fully aware of what is going on. I want to get the facts on behalf of the people who are in the public gallery, who are listening at home, and for the people I represent. I do not want to be told by the Minister that he has told us this before, and that I should have been listening yesterday. I have a right to ask the questions in my own way, and the Minister has a responsibility to answer them. I did not invite that Minister to answer, but he has chosen to stand up again and answer the questions. Now, I will put my further questions to the Minister of Education. If he wants to answer, that is fine. If the other Member wants to answer, that is fine too, but he better not respond to my questions condescendingly and patronizingly.

I think that I have been calm and generous compared to what I am feeling inside.

I have listened to the comments from government about not denying that the teachers made concessions and negotiated in good faith. I understand that, and the teachers understand that. The thing that puzzles me about this whole issue is that, if the teachers acted responsibly, why did the government not treat them in a responsible way? Why did the government just lump them in the wage restraint legislation with the Yukon Employees Union, if they had acted responsibly and in good faith? That is what people want to

Page Number 2456

2456

know. Why were they just lumped in?

Now, the government has changed its position, because they are now sitting down and negotiating with the teachers. Why did they not do that in the first place? It is not a complex question. That is all that we want to know. Even if the Cabinet made a mistake, they could stand up and admit that they made a mistake and should have negotiated with them in the first place. Now, they have seen the error of their ways, and that is why they are at the table negotiating with them. Let us be honest about this. Why did this happen? Was it an oversight? Was it a mistake? Were they unaware of what they were doing? Was it intentional? Why did it happen?

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

The Member addressed the question to me, and I will try to answer it.

In March of this year, we signalled our intent to achieve some savings through payroll. That was an announced intent and, since that time, the parties have met and are now at the negotiating table, negotiating. I am optimistic that we can reach an agreement and achieve the savings at that negotiating table.

The announcement in March was an intent, and now we are sitting down and negotiating.

If the Member wants to go back over it again and again, that is fine, but I think the fact of the matter is that collective bargaining is now going on. I hope that it will be productive and that we will achieve the savings that we need to achieve, and that we will not have to go to legislation in the future.

Mrs. Firth:

That is where people find it very confusing and accuse the government of changing its mind. I understood that the intention, when the announcement was made in March, was that there would be no negotiations. We were told that there were not going to be any negotiations.

Then something happened - I could speculate what happened: Question Period is what some of the Members are saying happened - and Cabinet changed its mind and decided to negotiate with the teachers.

I realize that we are probably never going to get an answer from the government as to why they did this. Two Ministers have been speaking about it, the Government Leader has been speaking about it, and we are never going to find the real answer as to why they changed their mind. I think that it was probably a mistake. Perhaps they were not fully aware of what they were doing, perhaps the decision was made hastily, but the decision was made.

The Minister of Education indicated this afternoon that he was concerned about one particular impact the legislation was going to have on new teachers. There was just the one impact discussed, but there may be others.

When this legislation was discussed in Cabinet, and when the decision was made to include the teachers in the wage-rollback legislation, did the Minister of Education point out to his Cabinet colleagues the unfairness and inequity that was going to be created by this legislation for new teachers? Did he make that representation at the Cabinet table at the time the Cabinet Members were making the decision with respect to this legislation?

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

I can tell the Member that I have always continued to carry the message, as best as I can, regarding the teachers' concerns and how it will affect them. I have taken the message into Cabinet through the letters I have received from teachers and through representations that have been made to me.

Mrs. Firth:

I am not trying to nail jello to the wall. I want something very specific. I am not talking about messages that have come since. I want to know when the decision was made.

Did the Minister, at the Cabinet table, say that this particular aspect of this legislation will have this inequitable, unfair impact on new teachers? Did he make that representation at the time that the whole process and the legislation was being discussed as to whether or not he would be including the teachers in the overall wage-rollback legislation? Did he make that representation on their behalf?

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

Yes, I raised that issue.

Mrs. Firth:

In what context did he raise it?

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

The Member may not have been listening, but she asked me if I made the representation to my Cabinet colleagues. I said yes, that I have raised the issue.

Mrs. Firth:

I heard the Minister say earlier, when he was questioned about this particular issue, that this was of great concern to him. He felt that they had to check into it more and find out exactly what the impact was going to be. If he has to check into it more, what representation did he make to Cabinet about the impact of this legislation?

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

We are at the bargaining table right now. I do not know how long the Member wants to go on about this, but I have been consistent in my message and the concerns I have heard from the teachers since the beginning. I will continue to be consistent.

Mrs. Firth:

I could probably stand here for two and one-half days citing inconsistencies from this particular Minister. The Minister knows that.

I am not asking the Minister to reveal any specifics or details of the negotiations. I am asking about the whole process and why we are where we are. I want to know what representation the Minister made with respect to this legislation before they even decided to include the teachers.

Frankly, I was quite concerned when the Minister stood up this afternoon and said that he had to do further research into the initiative of the unfairness and inequity this legislation creates for new teachers. I would have expected that the Minister would have been in the Cabinet room, pointing out all of the specifics and trying his best to discourage his colleagues from proceeding in that direction. So, of course, I get very concerned when the Minister stands up and gives all of us the impression he still has to figure out what it is all about.

I want to ask the Minister if there are any other concerns that he has about that legislation that he is going to follow up on and make representation about to have removed from the legislation.

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

This Member, as well, is trying to put words into the mouths of Members on this side. I said that I had received letters from teachers, after the announcement, which expressed concerns about the younger teachers, and I think they were valid concerns. Those concerns have been expressed by me, not only then, but before. All along, I have been expressing the concern that it should be fair and equitable - the best way it can be fair and equitable. We asked for suggestions from teachers and the Public Service Alliance of Canada and got a lot of suggestions from teachers and PSAC. At the current time, we are at the negotiating table and there is a media blackout on it, and I am not going to talk about this issue any longer. I would like to talk about the issues that are in this book - the budget - and let us get on with doing our job.

Mrs. Firth:

Let us go back again to that consistency. If this government was being consistent, if they were being open and honest with their statements, if people really knew where they stood with respect to these issues, we would not have to ask these questions. The Ministers get up and give a different answer every time they are asked a question. It is very unnerving for the public because they want to understand this issue, too - particularly the teachers who are so closely involved in the issue.

When the Minister made his representation, did he think it was fair and equitable to include that particular clause in the rollback legislation?

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

The announcement of the legislation was

Page Number 2457

2457

a Cabinet decision. It came out of Cabinet. I am not going to comment on a Cabinet decision. I support the Cabinet decision to announce their intent to achieve some savings by way of a rollback. I still support that position and I strongly support the fact that we are at the collective bargaining table now, and I am hopeful we will achieve our savings through that collective bargaining process.

Mrs. Firth:

I would like to ask the Minister, then, in light of that comment he has just made - when the decision was made with respect to including the teachers in the wage-rollback legislation, did the Minister of Education make the representation at the table at that time that he thought they should be negotiating with the teachers first as opposed to just including them in the wage-rollback legislation?

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

I am not going to comment on Cabinet activities. I find the questioning rather puzzling because I know that Member opposite, in the last session, was prepared to support wage restraint for government employees and now she seems to be taking a different approach.

Mrs. Firth:

If there is one thing the electorate and those people know about me, it is that I am consistent, I am honest, and I do not change my position. I have never publicly said that I was opposed to the two-percent wage legislation.

Some Hon. Member:

(Inaudible)

Mrs. Firth:

Not publicly? I went to the teachers' meeting - the one that the Minister hid out from and would not attend - and told them what my position was when they asked me. I have told them I would have been prepared to support a five-percent rollback. I have been consistent.

I was also the one who stood up concerning the 19-percent pay increase and spoke out about that. I did not come in here and throw it in people's faces after I had won the next election.

We had a little comment here this afternoon about building schools - how you do not just go around promising to build schools. I well remember that Member's campaign literature. I remember very well that Grey Mountain Primary School was one of the top promises in that Member's campaign literature. I did not see a thing there about the 19-percent wage rollback that he has stood up and given speeches about ad nauseum for the last two days in this House.

These people know where I stand. I have not changed my position. I still support the wage rollback. I know that this government is going to bring in an all-encompassing bill, and I am going to be asked to support some other things. I do not know if I am going to be able to support those. I want to get the facts so that, when I vote on a piece of legislation, I know what I am voting for.

Some Hon. Member:

(Inaudible)

Mrs. Firth:

The Minister responsible for the public service says that it will come.

I just want to be able to make a responsible decision. The public information that has come forth from this government does not give anybody the ability to make a responsible decision, because they keep changing their minds.

I cannot find out today why they made the decision, other than they want to save some money, other than they want to treat it as a cost savings and that everyone had to do one's part for the Canadian cause - even out the burden. The teachers had shown that they were prepared to do that, but that was not recognized.

I am not going to pursue this line of questioning much longer, because I know that we are not going to get any satisfactory answers. All of the questions that I wanted to put forward I thought I knew the answers to. Obviously I did, but I thought it was important to get those answers on the public record.

I want to know what the Minister of Education is doing with respect to dealing with this issue. There were debates in the House about morale and I do not want to get into those debates. I think it is obvious that there is some satisfaction with what has happened, to be generous. There are probably some people who are very angry and very dissatisfied.

I want to know from the Minister of Education what he is going to do to try to gain back the confidence - well, maybe I should not use the word back - of the teachers who are a very large group within his Education portfolio, in light of the obviously weak representation that he made at the Cabinet table on this legislation, and particularly the clause about the new teachers. How is the Minister going to work to try to gain their confidence and respect?

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

I think we are already making moves to do just that in several areas. One example of this is the current education review. The response from the teachers has been phenomenal. They feel like they are very involved and that they have a say. There are a lot of teachers out there who have very good recommendations about how we can improve our educational system in the Yukon. We are going to listen very closely to what they have to say in the education review.

Another area where we are going to bring teachers more into the decision-making area is to second a teacher back into the Department of Education. We hope to do this even more in the future, where we would rotate them into the department and get their ideas. There have been concerns in the past that the administration has not been out in the schools often enough to understand what is going on. When it comes to developing and delivering curriculum, sometimes teachers need more cooperation from the department. There should be cooperation between the administrative branch and the teachers on the front line, who know what the problems are in the delivering of that curriculum. I would like to see a closer relationship there.

I would like to see the superintendent spending more time in the schools and classrooms, working with the teachers, finding out what the concerns and problems are and how we can solve them. I think the teachers have some outstanding ideas about how we can improve the Yukon education system. We have a very small jurisdiction.

We have the opportunity to involve the teachers in the decision making. We are also taking the opportunity to devolve some of the responsibility of budgeting down to the school-base level - to the principal level - so that we have better accountability in the schools regarding how the school budget is spent. I think that, too, will build people's confidence in the education system.

A lot of things are happening in education right now - a lot of changes are happening all across this country - and it would be folly for us not to involve the teachers.

It would be important to involve the teachers in the decision making and in the processes, and that is what we are trying to do.

Mr. Harding:

In view of the time, I move that the Chair reports progress.

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

Page Number 2458

2458

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. Monday next.

The House adjourned at 5:26 p.m.

The following Legislative Return was tabled May 5, 1994:

94-1-349

Highway maintenance: no studies undertaken concerning privatization; review of operational methods and costs of adjacent jurisdictions to be completed June 1994. (Fisher)

Written Question No. 47, dated April 19, 1994, by Ms. Moorcroft.