Whitehorse, Yukon

Tuesday, May 17, 1994 - 1:30 p.m.

Page Number 2601

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.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Speaker:

Introductions of Visitors?

Are there any Returns or Documents for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Mr. Harding:

I have some documents for tabling.

Speaker:

Are there any Reports of Committees?

Are there any Petitions?

Are there any Introductions of Bills?

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

Are there any Notices of Motion?

Are there any Statements by Ministers?

This then brings us to the Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Question re: Business development fund, loans

Mr. McDonald:

About 15 years ago, Conservatives, many of whom are now Yukon Party members, proposed the first lender-of-last-resort programs to be administered by the government - the Department of Economic Development. Recently, the Yukon Party government undertook the first ever two-week advertising campaign to encourage applications for loan funding, and most recently, in the last couple of years the Yukon Party budgets have increased loan funding to be used by the small business sector.

I would like to ask the Minister responsible for Economic Development why the Minister has recently expressed the concern that he objects to government's involvement in the private sector marketplace through loan funding to the business sector.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

During debate on the Economic Development budget, I stated to the Member opposite that all programs in Economic Development are under review. I believe that there may be some changes required, and once the review is completed, I will be assessing it and coming forward with changes, if necessary.

Mr. McDonald:

We have an unresolved contradiction here, but I will move to another question. The Minister has stated that loan funding over the last decade or more had produced few success stories. I know that the Minister knows that there are hundreds of businesses that have been refused by the banks but have received loan funding from the government, and are continuing to operate and employ people. Can the Minister tell us whether or not he believes these businesses to be success stories?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I believe that if we were to go back to the debate we had in this House, I said that I felt there was a role for government to play in small business, but not necessarily in the field of lending money. I think the same thing can be accomplished through a loan guarantee program. The Member and I have had some exchanges about that, and that is what we are looking at.

Mr. McDonald:

The Minister did say that the government would prefer to entertain loan guarantees, rather than loan funding, but during the discussions concerning financial support for Curragh Inc. last year, the Government Leader repeatedly stressed that loan guarantees exposed the government to the same risks as loan funding. Can the Minister tell us why they have contradicted themselves on that point?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I do not believe we are contradicting ourselves at all. Had that loan been given by a bank, with our guarantee on it, I suspect they would have done a lot better job of getting some security for the loan.

Question re: Business development fund, loans

Mr. McDonald:

The issue is whether or not the government philosophically wants to intervene in the marketplace. Clearly, the answer is, they do and they do not. Speaking of the banks, the banks have been very generous in their financial support to the Yukon Party. Can the Minister tell us whether or not he has received any formal or informal representations from those banks to abandon the field of providing financial support to business?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I have not.

Mr. McDonald:

Okay, well, that is - I think - reassuring.

I have a question then. I would like to ask the Minister if he can tell us whether or not the financial support that was provided in the late 1980s and offered to Ostashek Outfitting three years in a row, totalling $25,000, was in the form of loans or grants.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

That was under the tourism marketing for international marketing.

Mr. McDonald:

I thank the Minister for that clarification. However, the Minister will remember that, on Thursday, he indicated that the government's philosophy and his philosophy was to object to grants, period. He said it exactly that way.

Can I ask the Minister if he and the government object to grants, why did he apply for and receive this funding for marketing as a private business person?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

The Member has answered his own question; I did not, the company did.

Question re: Gambling

Mr. Cable:

I have some questions for the Government Leader on gambling.

Some Hon. Member:

(Inaudible)

Mr. Cable:

Yes, something interesting.

I understand the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment will shortly be presenting its report to the government on gambling. The chair indicated that it would be ready in June. I assume the Government Leader will review it. Does he intend to accept the report, holus-bolus, whatever the recommendations?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

That is a purely hypothetical question, at this point. I have not even had a chance to see a draft of the report.

Mr. Cable:

Whether or not the Government Leader is going to accept the recommendations is not a hypothetical question. I was asking the Government Leader if he would accept them, whatever the recommendations. I presume the answer is no, so the question I have to ask the Government Leader is this: is the government doing any collateral research on the benefits of gambling?

There were some gambling promoters up here a few weeks ago, spreading around a lot of hype on the number of jobs that would be created - 150 people at $30,000 each and 100 social casualties. I think the number was reduced to a percentage on the balance sheet of life.

Is the government doing any collateral work on gambling?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

The Member should have asked that question a year ago. The Lotteries Commission was the first to

Page Number 2602

start gathering information on gambling and it has all been made available to the Council on the Economy and the Environment.

Mr. Cable:

The Council on the Economy and the Environment has spent approximately $14,000, judging from the legislative return provided to the Member for Whitehorse Centre. Does the Government Leader think that that sum of money is adequate for the council to review all the hype that has been coming out of the gambling promotion sector?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

The council must have felt it was adequate; they did not come back and ask for any more funding, so I believe that they have been able to accomplish the task within the funding that was available to them. There certainly were no requests for additional funding to complete the study.

Question re: Outfitting territories, foreign ownership

Mr. Harding:

I have a question for the Minister of Renewable Resources.

Given the proposal for discussion put forth by the lawyer for Mr. Mayr-Melnhof, as provided to the Minister yesterday, I would like to ask the Minister if he will now be calling a public inquiry to investigate whether any Yukoners decided to take Mr. Mayr-Melnhof up on similar offers in the three territories that he owns?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

I have been listening to this garbage for a couple of days now and felt perhaps as Minister of Justice I might get involved.

The extent to which Members opposite will go to taint the reputations of individuals in this House is becoming rather bizarre. Clearly, the policy has not changed since the previous administration was in office. A legal opinion was provided to the previous administration when they were in office with regard to the issue of whether or not the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applied and made it impossible for the Yukon government to enact laws that would prohibit landed immigrants from being treated in the same manner as Canadian citizens.

That is really what the issue is here. The Yukon has laws about the issue of ownership of concessions such as these, laws that are as strong as in the provinces. We feel that the current laws are adequate and, having reviewed the agreements, we really wonder what the issue is in the mind of the poser of the question, which he feels necessitates some kind of inquiry?

Mr. Harding:

We also feel that the laws in the Wildlife Act are adequate. The problem is that it seems that side agreements are reversing the intent and the obvious spirit of the legislation, which is designed to protect Yukon and Canadian citizenship ownership - that is what the laws are. Mr. Mayr-Melnhof now owns three territories, and the confidential proposal he made clearly violates the intent of the Wildlife Act, because it diminishes Yukon control and ownership of outfitting territories. This is set out very clearly in the law, which was done by the Members opposite when they were in government. How is the Minister sure that there are not side agreements in place, such as the one I gave him yesterday?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

It was this very issue on very similar agreements that was brought to the attention of the previous Cabinet, and the previous administration. On the basis of that information, legal opinions were obtained, which stated that landed immigrants were entitled to the same rights with respect to these issues as Canadian citizens. As a result of that information, the previous adminstration decided to do nothing about it. I am standing here to say that I do not think that their judgment was impaired at all. I think that the current laws are adequate, and that the intended results are occuring in Yukon. The rest of the innuendo and slant, with the greatest of respect, is simply meant as a scare tactic, and not really meant to deal with any relevant issue in this House.

Mr. Harding:

The issue is not the law of the Wildlife Act, because we also believe that the law is very good and very clear. The side agreements that take away Yukon control is the issue. The documents that I gave the Minister yesterday show a clear intent to reverse the law that is established in the Wildlife Act behind closed doors. They go to the Ministry of Renewable Resources and they say that everything is in order, now give them the concession licence. Then they go to a lawyer and they sign a side agreement that takes away all votes for the Canadian citizen to vote shareholder arrangements. How is the Minister sure that there are not side agreements in place such as the one I gave him yesterday?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

There he goes again. He talks about a Canadian citizen, and fails to make the distinction that a landed immigrant, under the Charter of Canada - the Charter of Rights and Freedoms - has all of the rights of a Canadian citizen. It is impossible to pass a law that denies those rights.

His second argument has to do with whether or not a Canadian citizen or resident should have some control over an investment made in the Yukon. Again, he is walking on very shaky ground, as I am sure his colleagues understood when they were in power. The whole issue of special rights for Yukon residents over Canadian residents is a very delicate issue indeed, under the Charter.

Question re: Outfitting territories, foreign ownership

Mr. Harding:

I am simply pointing out to the Minister of Renewable Resources, to whom I am asking these questions, what is actually in the letter of the law of the Wildlife Act - the letter of the law - which obviously does not mean much to the Minister of Justice. He has proven that in this House before.

Yesterday, we managed to obtain the share registry for Rogue River Outfitters, and I just tabled it. We discovered that a person who supposedly owned 51 percent of the voting shares for two years has his name appear on the draft copy of the management agreement referenced in Mr. Mayr-Melnhof's lawyer's proposal, given to the Minister yesterday. Will the Minister call an inquiry that establishes whether or not side shareholder agreements that signed away control existed in this case?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

It is a blatant and desperate attempt to try to raise a bogeyman where none exists. A landed immigrant has all the rights of a Canadian citizen - that is the first point. The second point is that these kinds of arrangements were drawn to the attention of the previous administration, which chose not to have an inquiry or even to do anything about it.

Some Hon. Member:

(Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

The documentation shows that.

The issue is whether or not, in a desperate attempt for cheap political -

Speaker:

Order please. Would the Member please conclude his remarks.

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

The Member wants to cast into doubt what is left with regard to preference for Yukon residents because, clearly, even that preference is subject to challenge under the Charter.

Mr. Harding:

Let us cut to the chase here. The Minister is going on about something that is totally incorrect. The previous Cabinet had no information like the Members opposite have been given - none whatsoever. I have asked the Members opposite to table their legal opinion; they have done nothing. The Minister has made broad accusations that he has no basis for. At least I have given the Members opposite a proposal for discussion on behalf of the foreign resident - some evidence of something else going on that is wrong.

Speaker:

Order please. I would like the Member to get to the

Page Number 2603

question.

Mr. Harding:

I would like to ask the Minister of Renewable Resources, not the lawyer for the Yukon Party, if he agrees with the principle that Yukon residents should own and control Yukon outfitting concessions.

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

The issue is very clear. Number one, the investigation was made back in the time that they were in power, and very clearly this person is a landed immigrant Canadian resident, and on that basis the sales went ahead. So, that is the first point.

The second point is just how far one can go with regard to preferential treatment of Yukon residents in an area such as this under the Charter. And again, that issue is a very serious one in law, and the recommendation that I would make is this: we have the strongest laws in Canada in that regard and we should not be doing things to jeopardize them.

Mr. Harding:

This is sounding more and more like a Yukon Party coverup. The issue here is side agreements. I would like to ask the question again, of the Minister of Renewable Resources. As a matter of policy, do they or do they not agree with the principle that Yukon residents should own and control Yukon outfitting concessions. Can I get an answer?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

Once again - and I am sure that the Member will have other questions to parrot to me in due course - the issue narrows down to this: Canadian residents and Canadian citizens have certain inalienable rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This jurisdiction does not have the power to overrule the Charter. The current law was in existence when the Members opposite were in power, the sales were made at the time that the Members opposite were in power, and agreements such as these surfaced, which led to the soliciting of the opinion. The side opposite went along with those sales at that time.

Question re: Outfitting territories, foreign ownership

Mr. Harding:

The Minister is going on about an absolute red herring. It is ridiculous. A year ago, in general debate, the Minister, the now Minister of Renewable Resources, told me how concerned he was about this foreign ownership. He told me that and he referred to Canadian citizenship. It is a red herring, so I want to ask him this question: from the share registry, we see that the share structures have changed under their administration. Does the Minister have any knowledge of shareholder arrangements and side agreements that affect share structure, ownership or control of Mr. Mayr-Melnhof's territories?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

The problem is that the folks on the other side and their investigators - the Inspector Clouseaus of this world - simply do not understand what they read half the time. The issues are very clear. It is not foreign ownership. It is a Canadian resident who has every right under the Charter to have ownership of the shares in question. That is the issue - it is not foreign ownership. The young fellow across the way really cannot - even if he were on this side - pass laws contrary to the Charter.

Mr. Harding:

If everything is so kosher under the Wildlife Act, why does this person, who the Minister claims is a Canadian resident, have a foreign address in Austria and secondly, why all the legal gymnastics for these side agreements?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

Now we are hearing from the side opposite that they did these investigations, that they found this person was a landed immigrant, and they allowed the sales to go through but now because it is politically attractive, politically sexy, they are suddenly deciding, "Oh, no. He was not and is not a landed immigrant after all." They should make up their minds and determine whether or not their findings, when they were in government, will be consistent with their findings now, or whether they are simply trying to create some kind of illusion in order to make some political points - possibly at the expense of the provisions in the act that do a lot to ensure that Yukon residents will be running the areas up here.

Mr. Harding:

What a coverup. If everything is kosher under the Wildlife Act, why does this person, whom he claims is a Canadian resident, have, on the share registry and the secret proposal, an Austrian address? I will ask the Minister again, because he did not answer the question.

Secondly, why all the legal gymnastics with these side agreements? We never had a side proposal like the one I gave to the Minister yesterday to give evidence that there was something going on here. This government now has it, and they should act on it.

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

That is incorrect. One of the outfitters who sold their outfit took some documents to the government during the time that administration was in power. For that reason, an opinion was obtained. That opinion went to these issues, including the most important one, that of the operation of the Charter, vis-a-vis the laws that would attempt to give preference to Yukoners over Canadians, and citizens over landed immigrants.

Question re: Outfitting territories, foreign ownership

Mr. Harding:

The question here is the side agreements. Given the secret proposal on behalf of the foreign resident we gave to the Minister yesterday, the Minister can go on about landed immigrants and Canadian citizens all he wants. I am talking about these side agreements, which is new information and raises a lot of questions.

In a letter of March 25, I asked the Government Leader a question he refused to answer. I will ask the Government Leader that question again today, so he can clear this up.

Yesterday, he said he was close to the deal among Mr. Mayr-Melnhof, his son-in-law and him. Does the Government Leader have any knowledge of the existence of shareholder arrangements affecting share structure, ownership and control of his former territory that are of a side nature and not provided to Renewable Resources?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

Once again, it is a scurrilous attempt on the part of the Member opposite to cast aspersions by innuendoes. The law is very clear. The application of the Charter is very clear, and the facts are that it was the existence of these kinds of arrangements that led to the opinion being sought by Renewable Resources in April 1992.

Mr. Harding:

When all else fails for this government, blame the previous administration. I will ask the question again.

Does the Government Leader have any knowledge of the existence of shareholder arrangements affecting share structure, ownership and control of his former territory that are of a side nature and not provided to Renewable Resources?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

Perhaps we are back to the ruling that, if someone is going to make an allegation with regard to the ethics of a Member in this House, do it in the form of a motion, and we will debate it. The Member should put his seat on the line. That is what we are getting to, and I challenge him to do it.

If he is alleging any kind of impropriety, let him come forward with a motion and put his seat on the line, and we will have a little fun.

Mr. Harding:

We are the ones who are calling for a public inquiry. We want to get to the bottom of this, because we do not have all of the proof or the facts, and the only way that information will come out is if some people are put under oath. Obviously, we cannot get any answers from the Members in government. They do not want to tell us anything, because they know what is going on here.

I will ask the Government Leader one more time. No allegations

Page Number 2604

are being made; all he has to do is answer the question.

Does the Government Leader have any knowledge of the existence of shareholder arrangements affecting share structure, ownership and control of his former territory that are of a side nature and not provided to Renewable Resources?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

Once again, I would ask the Member to make the allegation, because everything the Member opposite is attempting to do here leads to one thing: to cast aspersions on the character of a Member of this House by innuendo. So fly at it, young fellow.

Question re: Outfitting territories, foreign ownership

Mr. Penikett:

A year ago, the Minister responsible for Renewable Resources told this House during debate that he was concerned about foreign ownership of outfitting areas in the Yukon Territory and led us to believe that he shared the view, which in the past has been held on both sides of this House, that Yukon outfitting areas should be owned and controlled by Yukon residents - and, as the Wildlife Act says, by Canadian citizens.

When did the government's policy on this matter change? I ask the Minister of Renewable Resources.

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

Clearly, once again, we have the issue of foreign ownership. The policy of this government changed in view of the Charter and the application of the Charter. The government policy changed during its administration, because that is when the opinion was received.

Mr. Penikett:

We always know that the Member is in trouble when he starts shouting and when he refuses to answer questions in this House. I am asking a very simple question of policy. If the Minister of Renewable Resources will not answer it, let me ask the Government Leader.

When did the policy, expressed on both sides of this House and put into law that we should be trying to protect Yukon big game outfitting concessions for Yukon residents, change? When was that changed and why has the government not brought forward an amendment to the law if they believe the law on the books no longer applies?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

The law in place now is precisely the same as the law that was in place when the side opposite was in power.

Some Hon. Member:

(Inaudible)

Speaker:

Order. Allow the Member to speak.

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

It was the same opinion that we now have, as a result of similar agreements that were brought to the Department of Renewable Resources. They chose to leave the law as it is, and there is good reason for doing that, partly because to challenge the Charter by implementing new laws, which sounds so attractive, is to run the risk of having absolutely any preference over other Canadian citizens and residents erased by the Charter. Clearly, that is the reason.

Mr. Penikett:

Clearly, the entire Cabinet, except for the Minister of Justice, have been ordered to take the Fifth Amendment today.

I would like to ask the Minister of Justice today a very precise question of fact, since he is in possession of a legal opinion that I would say, for the record, I have never seen. What laws have lawyers opined are not enforceable with respect to big game outfitting concessions?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

The first law lawyers have opined are not enforceable is the law that one has to have a Canadian citizenship in order to hold a concession, or in order to hold shares in the company. That very clearly is against section 6 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Question re: Business development fund, loans outstanding

Mrs. Firth:

I want to go back to an issue another Member raised in Question Period dealing with grants and loans. When is a lawyer not a lawyer? When he is a consultant? When is a grant not a grant? When one's business applies for it, I guess.

I heard on the news this afternoon that Yukoners are owed over $2 million from clients who are in arrears in payment of their loans. In that news broadcast, we were told by Economic Development that they were going to be more diligent in trying to collect this money on behalf of Yukon taxpayers. Every year, in every budget debate, Members in this House raise, at least twice, the issue of loans that have not been repaid. The government Minister of the day always stands up and tells us that they are working on it.

My question for the new Minister of Economic Development is: why is it now that the department is going to be more diligent in collecting this money? What have they been doing for the last few years that we have been raising this issue? Why has it reached the point where it is now in excess of $2 million? What have they been doing for the last few years?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I know that since this government took office, the instructions to the department were to be more aggressive in their efforts to get the loans repaid or rescheduled. They were to work with the clients and try to recoup these losses.

It is, in some cases, not possible. Sometimes, the clients do not have the money and the loans are written off. They have been successful in getting some of the loans restructured and payments reduced.

The Member is absolutely right: there is a substantial amount of money outstanding. The department will continue to work aggressively to try and get it collected.

Mrs. Firth:

I will have to take issue with the Minister's claim that the department is going to have to work more aggressively. Also outstanding from the news report was the fact that the government had not made a decision whether or not they were going to publish names of clients who were in arrears. Why is it taking so long to make a decision about whether or not they are going to publish the names? Can the Minister tell us this afternoon whether or not a decision has been made with respect to that particular issue?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I would like to give the Member a little background to that particular news item. I think the Member will recall that was a resolution that was passed at a Yukon Party convention back in April. At this point, the government has not acted on the resolution. It is under consideration, but there has been no decision made at this point.

Mrs. Firth:

I was not at the Yukon Party convention. Thank goodness, I was not there. Could the Minister explain this to us then, since he is telling us that the direction over the last 18 months has been for the government to be agressive. The news report stated that some people claim they did not even understand the terms and conditions of the loan, and that they thought they were getting a grant from the government. If the department is being aggressive and diligent and explaining these things, I do not personally understand how that could even happen.

Perhaps the Minister could stand up and explain how that could happen. I know that when people apply for a loan or a grant, the two processes are entirely different. What has the department been doing under the direction of this government - being more diligent and agressive?

When is the decision going to be made with respect to publishing the names? I think that the Minister could stand up right now and announce that they are going to do it.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

If I were going to stand up and announce

Page Number 2605

that we are going to do it, I would be doing that entirely on my own. It has not yet gone to Cabinet.

Some Hon. Member:

(Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I agree, the party does want it, but Cabinet has not yet made the decision on it.

Speaker:

Order. Please allow the Member to answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

This is the happy coalition. We have to have government decisions made here, not only party decisions. I do not know how some people could get the impression that they got a grant. In some cases where people are behind, maybe it is an excuse that they are using - I do not know. I do know that there have to be some corrective measures taken, and we are taking them.

Question re: Business development fund, loans outstanding

Mr. Cable:

I have some further questions on the business development fund. The Minister has been agressively pursuing the public servants for $3 million. Just quite coincidentally, there are $3 million in loans in arrears in the business development fund. Now, I understand that several of these loans have been in arrears for greater than one year, and these loans involve several hundreds of thousands of dollars. Is it the Minister's view that the security taken has been inadequate? Is that the reason the loans have been outstanding for such a long time?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

There is a variety of reasons, and I guess that is one of the reasons I have asked for a complete review of the business development fund program. The issue here is that it was a lender of last resort, and sometimes they did not have good security - there is no doubt about that. The other issue is that some people - and I am not saying all people - do not tend to take a loan from government as seriously as they do a loan from the bank. They will prioritize their payments and the government will be the last one to be paid back.

So, there are a number of reasons why the loans are behind. The Member is absolutely right: the loans that are behind are more than a year behind. Most of the loans we are pursuing are two or three years behind. As I said, we are going to continue to do that.

Mr. Cable:

The Minister was on the radio this morning, as mentioned by the Member for Riverdale South, saying, as he just confirmed a moment ago, that people do not seem to take the government very seriously. Does the Government Leader have an explanation about why borrowers who receive money from the taxpayers do not take the loan seriously? Is it the lack of fortitude on the part of the politicians in foreclosing on the security?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I believe that in a small jurisdiction like the Yukon, the Member is absolutely right. He is absolutely right. As I say, some of these loans have been outstanding for a number of years. Some of them go back to the late 1980s. It is a political call as to whether government forecloses on some of these or not. I am sure the Members opposite had the same problem, because some of these outstanding loans go back to 1985 and 1986. That is why I do not believe government should be in the business of directly loaning money. I think we can help businesses through a program with the banks. They have the personnel, they have all the expertise in assessing the loans and they have the expertise in collecting delinquent accounts.

Mr. Cable:

It is difficult to perceive what the difference between a loan and a guarantee is. Eventually, if it goes into default, somebody has to collect, whether it be the guarantor or the original lender.

The Government Leader indicated in debate the other day, and he confirmed that today, that he would be reviewing the various programs. As part of that review, will the Minister indicate whether he is going to examine the lack of willingness on the part of the political leadership to move against delinquent accounts - before the programs themselves are scrapped?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

If the Member opposite is suggesting that, if we change the program, we are going to abandon collection of delinquent accounts, he is absolutely wrong. We are going to continue to try to collect these accounts.

Speaker:

The time for Question Period has now elapsed.

Notice of Opposition Private Members' Business

Mr. McDonald:

Pursuant to Standing Order 14.2(3), I would like to identify the order in which the items standing in the name of the Official Opposition are to be called on Wednesday, May 18. They are Motion No. 69, standing in the name of the Member for Faro; Motion No. 59, standing in the name of the Member for Whitehorse West; and Motion No. 68, standing in the name of the Member for Whitehorse Centre.

Speaker:

We will proceed now to Orders of the Day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

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

Speaker:

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

Motion agreed to

Speaker leaves the Chair

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Chair:

I will now call Committee of the Whole to order.

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

Some Hon. Members:

Agreed.

Chair:

We will take a brief recess.

Recess

Chair:

I will now call Committee of the Whole to order. We will be dealing with a number of bills this afternoon. The first one is Bill No. 50, An Act to Amend the Municipal Act (No. 2), put forward by Mr. Fisher.

Bill No. 50 - An Act to Amend the Municipal Act (No. 2)

Clerk:

Is there any general debate?

Ms. Moorcroft:

First of all, I would like to thank the Minister for providing me with a couple of briefings on this act. Perhaps the Minister could start by explaining An Act to Amend the Municipal Act (No. 1) and then An Act to Amend the Municipal Act (No. 2). I would like to know what changes were made, and what the difference is between the act I had a briefing on last session and the amending act, No. 2, that we went over last week.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

An Act to Amend the Municipal Act (No. 1) was brought forward to allow the sale of the excess heat from the power company in Watson Lake.

It is my understanding that as long as an amendment is brought forward in the same session of the Legislature, it receives a number. For instance, if we have another amendment in the fall and it is still the same session, it would be amendment No. 3.

Amendment No. 2 has been brought forward to deal with elections; amendment No. 1 was to deal with waste heat.

Ms. Moorcroft:

The Minister is aware of the concerns I raised during the debate at second reading. I would like to ask him

Page Number 2606

if he can provide some information, such as perhaps a copy of the actual resolution that was passed by the Association of Yukon Communities. On what did he base his decision to allow a municipality to pass a bylaw to dispense with the requirement of a list of electors for a municipal election?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

The original request to eliminate the voter list came from the City of Whitehorse, if I remember correctly, but it was agreed to by the Association of Yukon Communities. Then, when the original draft of the amendments was put together, there was a motion by the AYC. I have a copy of it here. It was moved by Councillor Connelly and seconded by Mayor Ravenhill, that the AYC accept in principle the proposed changes put forward by the Department of Community and Transportation Services to amend the elections portion of the Municipal Act with the amendments as discussed and subject to the approval of member councils.

The first draft went to the AYC in September at their fall general meeting, which was, I believe, in Watson Lake. They discussed it at that meeting. Then the draft was finalized into the form more or less the way it is seen here. It was then discussed again in February of this winter. That is when this resolution came about.

Ms. Moorcroft:

That is exactly why I was asking the Minister to clarify the difference between the Municipal Act amendments I was briefed on last session and those I was briefed on last week. Now, there is a clause to dispense with the requirments to dispense with the list of electors.

Could the Minister provide me with a copy of the AYC resolution? Perhaps then we can debate that in the discussion of the clause. We do not have a lot of problems with the other clauses.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I can certainly give the Member a copy of the resolution. I read it word for word; it is on the record.

Some Hon. Member:

(Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

You want me to read it again? I will ask one of the pages to get a copy for us.

Ms. Moorcroft:

The concern that I have is that there is some cutting and pasting here. It is not a good practice to have municipal elections sort of legislated as we go and to have elections being run by bylaw. The section that they want to add after section 50 allows municipalities to dispense with the requirement of a list of electors for an election, and then prescribes procedures and forms governing the conduct of elections otherwise consistent with the act.

As I stated yesterday, the list of electors is a basic working document for an election, and I really believe that we need one. There is only a municipal election every three years. The department provided me with some information that says that the smaller municipalities pay $4,000 to $5,000 to conduct an enumeration, and the last enumeration of the City of Whitehorse cost $17,000. Considering that the city spends millions of dollars annually, I do not think that it is an unreasonable expenditure, in order to be able to conduct a reasonable election.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I thank the Member for her comments. When this suggestion came in, I had some problems with it. I believe the Member opposite knows my background in municipal affairs. I thought about it quite a bit. There are a few points I would like to make here, one being that enumeration is expensive. There is no question about that. For a little municipality like Carmacks, it costs $4,000 to $5,000 to run an enumeration and create a list of voters. It can be expensive and, invariably, the enumeration happens in June. Yes, it does make people aware there is an election, but that election is not held until October. Previously, it was November.

Therefore, by the time the election comes around, the people who have been enumerated have probably forgotten they were enumerated in the first place. Why not use that $4,000 or $5,000 for a place the size of Carmacks, Teslin, or Mayo, to actually advertise the election closer to the election time.

Going through an enumeration to get a list of electors is costly, and I do not really see where a lot of good comes of it.

Both British Columbia and Alberta have dispensed with the necessity of having a list of electors. British Columbia has put a bit of a caveat on theirs, in that a municipality with a population of 5,000 or more must have a list of electors. Municipalities with less than that number are not required to. In Alberta, it is wide open and totally up to the municipality.

Both those provinces have gone through a municipal election. Our understanding is that there were no problems due to not having a list of electors. It does not appear that there were any more, or fewer, people showing up to vote. The argument that the list of electors brings attention to the election might not necessarily be true. If the municipality uses the money they save to advertise, they may actually get more people interested.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Well, there was a semblance of an argument there when the Minister said that he thought the money for an enumeration could be better spent on advertising an election closer to election time. However, we also have amendments in this legislation before us that reduces the number of places to post a voter list, if that is used, and eliminates the requirement to advertise in a newspaper for revision hearings, so he is not substantiating his argument there at all. I think we have to consider that there is a difference between enumeration and a list of electors. Of course, they are closely linked, but to just untangle it for a minute, the amendment is that a municipality, if it so desires, may by bylaw dispense with the requirement of a list of electors for an election - no list of electors.

If the enumeration is going to to cost too much money, there are other ways of looking at voter registration. They could, for example, be based on tax rolls initially. The Minister has said that other provinces, such as British Columbia, are cancelling provincial voter enumeration. Well, that may be true, but the deputy chief electoral officer in British Columbia has put out the press release I have here on what their voter registration activities are. They are initiating a computerized, continuous voter list, which is updated daily, and are advertising that they have the most accessible voter registration in the country. Voters can register or update their registration every business day of the year at any of the government agent offices around the province. During an election period, voters may register or update their registration at advance polls or on election day. In this legislation, we are reducing the number of hours of a revision poll. In addition, in order to improve the voter registration activities in British Columbia, they are expanding their voter outreach programs. They are conducting special registration drives during the fall at universities and colleges; they are targeting enumerations of long-term care facilities, prior to elections. In addition, the cancellation of the 1994 enumeration does not preclude that future enumerations will be held if required.

There is a concern that areas of high mobility, which I think we can argue the City of Whitehorse is, should have a strategy to allow them to maintain a current and accurate voter list. I find the idea of dispensing with a voter list to be frightening. It could lead to massive fraud.

At the briefing that was held, there was a note relating to the section 50 amendment. The note indicated that the Department of Justice was not in agreement with municipal discretion and recommended the retention of the requirement for a voter list.

Can the Minister explain why that concern was overridden?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I should make it clear at the outset that both the Department of Justice, the person who did the drafting for us, and Ms. Waugh, who is the territorial elections clerk, advised

Page Number 2607

against removing the requirement for a list of electors. It is my understanding, from reading some of the comments made by Ms. Waugh, that that is based on history. There is a long, long history of voter lists in Canada and I suspect that is what they were basing their argument on - that voter lists have always been part of an election.

There are a couple of other things I should mention in response to some of the comments the Member opposite made. One is the requirement for advertising in a newspaper. In the small communities - Mayo, for instance, and it used to happen in Watson Lake when I worked as a town manager there - an ad would be put in the paper, a very costly ad, and by the time the paper got to the community, got circulated and people read it, and so on, the date would be passed by. It was just another fairly major expense. There are much, much better ways of advertising than putting ads in a newspaper in a small community. In a place like Whitehorse, it may very well not be the case, but in Mayo, it is different - I do not know how often they get a paper but we had to be very careful in Watson Lake. When I was there, only one paper came to people's postboxes in Watson - I believe it was Wednesday's edition of the Yukon News - but it came on Saturday, or sometimes the following Monday. It is a little better now with the bus service, but in some places, such as Mayo, the paper is probably several days old before they ever get it. So why spend $180 or $240, or whatever, to put an ad in the paper, because the date that the ad stated had passed.

Getting back to a requirement for a voter list, as I said, I believe it is based on history and that is the reason the elections officer here has advised against discontinuing the voter list. We are allowing the municipality to make that choice. I think that is very important here. If a municipality decides that a voter list for that particular municipality is of little or no value, they can dispense with it. Even now, an enumeration is not required. In order to keep a voter list up to standard, you pretty well have to do an enumeration periodically. Even now, they do not have to do an enumeration.

Some of the voter lists in the territory are just awful. There are people listed who are deceased; people who have left the territory more than two years ago are still showing up on the voter list. There are other people who will not put their names forward. The enumerator will come and they will not allow them to take their name. This occurred within one of the small villages within the municipal boundary of Watson Lake, but outside the main part of town.

There was strong representation from the Association of Yukon Communities and each member municipality. I believe the only one we did not get a response from, and I will check with the director of community services, was Faro. While there were no written responses, they were phoned and they did not have any problem with it, so each member municipality, plus the Association of Yukon Communities, wants to have the ability to either have the voter list or not have the voter list.

Ms. Moorcroft:

I do not accept that because the voter lists are awful, we should get rid of them. I do not think that the argument of history is one that bears any weight. What is at issue here is the orderly conduct of elections and that we have fair and accessible democratic elections.

The municipal government is created by the senior government. I believe that we have some responsibility to ensure that we have reasonable, fair, democratic elections that are conducted in an orderly manner. If we do not have a voter list, people will not bother to vote if they have to line up to get sworn in at the polls.

The Minister has explained that it was the City of Whitehorse, and then the Association of Yukon Communities, that lobbied for this change. There are over 20,000 residents in the City of Whitehorse. Thousands of electors are not going to bother voting if they must stand in line at the poll to get their names on the voter list in order to vote. There is also the potential for massive fraud. A voter list can be used if there is a controvert, or it can be used to uphold an election. A voter list allows voters to be scrutinized ahead of time. If there is a list, we know who is eligible to vote.

Is the Minister prepared to withdraw this for further consideration? I believe it is really misguided.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

No, I am not willing to withdraw it. It has been discussed since last fall at an open forum - that being the regular meeting of the Association of Yukon Communities. This occurred in the fall and the spring. Aside from that, ads went out in the two local newspapers asking for public comment. It has been discussed. The municipalities do represent something like 80 percent of the territory's population. They feel very strongly that they want this ability either to have or not to have a voter list. Given that kind of representation, I feel that this is something that is wanted.

The municipalities do have the ability to continue with the voter list if that is what they choose to do. They may very well try it and decide that it is not workable. They might try not having one and find that it did not work as well as expected. If that is the case, they can go back to it for the next election; however, they do have the choice.

Ms. Moorcroft:

I think there are a lot more disadvantages than advantages to eliminating the requirement for a list of electors. How is the Minister prepared to deal with the concern that tenants of rental properties, new electors, and those who do not make use of mass media, such as radio and newspapers, are informed of elections?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

We would deal with it by posting a list of voters in three or four conspicuous places. I would think that a straight advertisement posted that way would bring the election to people's attention faster than just having a list of electors posted. I do not see that having that list posted is going to do as much as plain advertising would do.

Ms. Moorcroft:

I cannot believe the contradictions here. Exactly - by posting the list of voters. What voter list are they going to post? How are they going to bring attention to an election if there is no voter list posted? I know that people check their names on the posted voter list. When I worked in the college library, and they posted a voter list there, all kinds of people came in to check to see if their name was on the voter list, so that they would know whether or not they could vote. How are they going to post a voter list, when they are proposing an amendment to the legislation that allows municipalities to dispense with the requirement of having a list of electors?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I do not quite understand. What I am saying is that if they put an ad in a place where they would normally have put a list of electors, why would that not bring more attention, or every bit as much attention, to the election as an actual list of names? I do not understand what the Member is getting at.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Let us say for a minute that the Minister is right, and that putting an ad in the paper will get just as much attention as posting a list of electors. Although they have reduced the posting from four locations to three locations, in three locations they put out a full-sized newspaper ad that there is going to be a municipal election on October 24. Then, think for a minute about what happens.

If you want to vote, you have to line up and be put on the voter list, because there is no voter list prepared ahead of time. There is already a problem of there not being as high a voter turnout for municipal elections as for territorial or federal elections. Just think for a minute about the chaos, if you have hundreds or, in the case of the City of Whitehorse, thousands of voters having to go to the

Page Number 2608

different polling stations, swear in at the polls to put their name on a list - because there is no voter list - and then vote. It is going to really reduce participation in the democratic process of municipal elections. This is a problem.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I really do not see it as a problem. There may very well be an additional table at the poll, where you go to sign your name before going to the next table, where you pick up a ballot. Right now, you will stand there and wait anyway, like in a poll for Whitehorse. I have never seen an actual lineup in any of the other municipalities. There may be half a dozen people at lunch, on the way to work in the morning, or on their way home after work at 5:00. There may be half a dozen people or so then, but I have never seen a large lineup at any of the small municipalities.

Even in Whitehorse, I have not seen that large a crowd. The Member is indicating there may be thousands. I have never seen anywhere near that number lined up. It would really only mean one more table there, where you sign your name before getting your ballot. It might be slightly more costly for the municipality on polling day, because you would have to have another person or two at each poll.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Well, the Minister says that he has never seen a lineup before, but he has also never observed an election where there is no list of voters. Just having one more table is not going to do it. What I think is fairly safe to predict happening is that there will not be an orderly conduct of elections, in the event of an election with no voter list.

The other consequence of this really misguided amendment is that a lot more people will just not know about the elections and a lot more people will just not bother to vote.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I would like to make a couple of comments about that. First, yes, we have seen elections where there is no voter list. There is no list of eligible electors for school elections in the territory and they have been relatively successful.

I still firmly believe that with the money the municipalities save they can do a better job of advertising and, if anything, may very well end up with more people turning out at an election. The Member and I obviously disagree on that. So be it, I suppose.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Does the Minister agree that we should attempt to increase voter registration and to increase voter participation? I note that the Minister says that the school council elections are relatively successful, but there is typically a very low voter turn-out. Does the Minister agree that increasing voter participation is something that we should strive for?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

Yes, I certainly do. The Department of Community and Transportation Services usually - and I am not sure if it is going to happen this year; I guess I should have checked with my official first - produces a municipal awareness publication in election year. That publication tells all about the election, where the polls will be held, and so on. They try to get it out in September, or just before the municipal election.

I think voter awareness of council elections is very, very important. The department works with the municipalities. We very diligently try to get people to come out to vote. But, I think, across the territory, the average has been somewhere down around 60 percent. It is not good, for whatever reason, despite the efforts of Community and Transportation Services and the efforts of individual municipalities. Voter turn-out has not been all that wonderful.

Mr. Penikett:

I would like to express some comments on this subject. I will not make them in the form of questions to the Minister, but will just express my own views, since I am one of the people in this House who was formerly a municipal politician before I was demoted to the Legislature - or promoted, depending on one's point of view.

I know that AYC has successfully lobbied the government and the Legislature on a number of questions in the past about elections. Perhaps prior to these amendments, the most recent one was the election period or the three-year term for municipal councillors. I certainly respect their right to do this. I would even go so far as to say that I would understand it perfectly if small municipalities - Teslin, Mayo; communities of that size - were to argue on quite reasonable grounds that they do not need a voter list. The people who are going to be running the election know everybody who is likely to be eligible to vote and, if there is a dispute, things like affidavits and witnesses and so forth can be produced who can attest to the person's residency or otherwise.

I must say that the most discerning thing I heard the Minister say this afternoon was his comment that, while this came from AYC, it may have been initiated by the City of Whitehorse. As a former alderman of the City of Whitehorse, I want to say that that really bothers me, for many of the same reasons my colleague from Mount Lorne had.

If there is one municipality in this territory that absolutely ought to have a voter list for municipal elections, it is Whitehorse - for all sorts of reasons. I will not list all of the possible reasons but I want to mention the obvious ones.

In any terms, this is an extremely transient community. People come; people go. The fact that we have relatively low turn-outs in municipal elections, much lower than territorial or federal, ought to worry us. The fact that someone may remain on a list long after they have left the town or died is a problem, but the fact that we have not in the past had bad lists is not an argument for no lists at all.

In a town of this size, where we have an at-large election system, which I also think is a problem, we have had situations, I recall, where the margin between the candidates who were defeated - in other words, people who ran seventh, eighth or ninth in the ballot - was only a few hundred votes from someone who may have topped the poll. So, the potential for fraud or for people claiming to be eligible when they have only been here days or weeks, in the absence of a list or some other test, is high.

My colleague pointed out that there are a high number of tenants in town. When there is a high number of tenants - who did not always have the right to vote in this town; that was a reform that took place in the early 1970s, if I recall correctly - the proper democratic impulse is to encourage these people to vote, to get them on voter lists, to make those lists accessible to candidates, to encourage whatever advertising and canvassing may be done to reach those voters and to enable, in every way, citizens to participate.

If one does not take steps to encourage participation, the combination of a low turn-out and the power of incumbency could result in stagnation in municipal bodies. I am not arguing that that has happened, but I know, for example, that there are subtleties in election law that can have a powerful impact.

I will use one example. When I was a candidate for municipal office - which was quite a few years ago now and I concede that this rule has changed since - it used to be the standard that candidates were listed alphabetically on the ballot. I happen to have a surname that is in the second half of the alphabet. All of the people who were on council at the time I ran for office, or most of the candidates who were incumbents, had names that began with the first few letters of the alphabet.

You can argue that may have been accidental, but I do not think it was entirely accidentally, and maybe the margin was only one percent of the factor. I think what happened was that people tended to go into the voting booth, they start at the top of the list, which was alphabetical, they look for the names they knew, and perhaps approved of, and when they ran out of six ticks they stopped. The

Page Number 2609

people who were at the bottom half of the list tended to be disadvantaged in some way and it was my experience, or my view, that when I ran for city council and was elected to it, I had to campaign very hard to overcome that problem.

I am thinking not only in the terms of the incumbent, but someone who aspires to council. In a city where you have an at-large system - which I think is a problem in terms of accessibility and accountability - it is not only a problem in trying to conduct a campaign, but it is also a problem in a 10-day campaign for a candidate to reach 10,000-plus voters. The problem of being able to reach potential supporters when you do not have a list, or it is physically impossible to knock on 10,000 doors in 10 days, I think is something that we ought to be concerned about.

I would like to make the point that, in a democracy, advertising the fact there is an election is not enough. We ought to be, as people who are writing election law, facilitating and encouraging campaigns. We should be encouraging participation and debate, access to the voters and communication between candidates and voters. I think one of the basic tools in that arsenal is the voter list.

The Minister mentioned British Columbia, I think it was, or Alberta, that had a minimum rule that, if you were over 5,000 in population, you had to have a voter list. To state the obvious, there is only one community that meets that test in this territory and that is Whitehorse.

I think the point mentioned by my colleague, the Member for Mount Lorne, is a good one. I guess we really have not done municipal enumerations here; we have started off with a list and tried to update it with revisions. Some reform has happened in British Columbia in terms of provincial voter lists. I think the Minister will know that in decades past these lists have been something of a scandal in that province, because there was no active way of getting people on the lists, and political parties had to canvass to get people on the voter list, because the election administration was passive and did not encourage people to get on the lists.

The cause is very well established in studies of voting behaviour in Canada. The proclivity to vote increases with income. What we do if we do not have voter lists, revisions to voter lists and enumeration is that you tend to compound the problem of underparticipation by lower income people. This can have the effect of having councils, especially in mid-size municipalities, that are more sensitive to the needs of the more affluent areas in the community - homeowners - than to people who are tenants.

I would admit that it is quite proper for the AYC to make representations on this score. Obviously, municipal politicians have a huge interest in the question of election administration. However, they are not the only interested body. I hope the Minister will understand that what may be convenient for incumbent municipal politicians may not be so convenient for voters or people who want to challenge those incumbents. There is a question of fairness, accountability and access.

I think the problem of low turn-out at municipal elections is something that should bother us. I admit that it is, in fact, a bit better in the Yukon than in some parts of Canada, but anything that would tend to discourage potential voters from exercising their democratic right, particularly as municipal citizens, should not be done. Rather than discouraging voters, we should be encouraging them, especially in a town the size of Whitehorse. A voter list is one of the tools that facilitates campaigning and participation. It encourages candidates to contact voters. It gives them a chance to identify those voters and get them out.

In Canada, it is usually the case - although not always the case in the Yukon - that people are most inclined to vote for federal elections, they are quite inclined to vote for provincial elections, and they are least inclined to vote for municipal elections. I am sure there is a whole complex array of reasons why that is the case.

While admitting that we may not always be able to come to satisfactory conclusions about all the reasons for that, we should recognize that one of them may be that the municipal elections are just not a meaningful event for many citizens. They do not receive much in the way of literature or canvassing. They do not get an enumeration, and the whole machinery of elections that operates at the federal and territorial elections, and which tends to get people excited and involved, simply does not happen muncipally.

As a former municipal politician, I think, in many ways, what the city council does here is of just as much consequence as what we do in this Chamber. I think it is a pity that there are not more citizens involved.

It is my personal view that part of the reason for that is the absence of a ward system here. However, that is not the point we are talking about right now.

I would just like to make the pitch that I think it is a mistake to give the City of Whitehorse and the incumbent councillors the right to do away with the voter list. It would have the effect of making the election even more of an invisible event and will contribute to the prospect of incumbents being re-elected, which may or may not be a bad thing. However, it will happen because newcomers to town, tenants and others who do not live in established areas may be discouraged from voting or, just as bad, not encouraged to participate. I think that has the eventual effect of contributing to a democratic deficit.

I respectfully say to the Minister that I think it is a mistake. I am arguing only the case for Whitehorse on that point.

Mr. Cable:

The amending section states that the Executive Council Member, the Minister, would approve the bylaw that the municipality would enact to waive the voter list. What would be this Minister's terms of reference in deciding whether to approve or disapprove the bylaw?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I really do not know why that is in there - that village bylaws have to be approved by the Executive Council Member. I guess that it is just another check. Normally, when there is a case where the Executive Council Member is required to approve a municipal bylaw, the main reason is to ensure that the municipality has followed all of the legal processes. For example, in a zoning or an official community plan bylaw, there are several processes that need to be observed.

I am not exactly sure why the requirement is here. I would likely approve such a bylaw unless there was very strong representation from the electorate not to approve the bylaw. It would take very, very strong representation. I cannot even give you a number - perhaps something near 50 percent of the people; I am not sure. I really and truly do not see any need for the Executive Council Member to approve this, but it will be law.

Mr. Cable:

Of course, it will be law if we pass it, but it will not be law if we do not pass it.

I think the Minister indicated that the amendment is there for expense reasons. Did I hear the exchange correctly? Did he say that it is a matter of expense, and that this is why the Association of Yukon Communities is backing the amendment?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

To have a good voter list, you need an enumeration. Under the current Municipal Act, there is no requirement to do an enumeration but, if you do not do one, you have a very poor list of electors. The City of Whitehorse has always done an enumeration, as have some of the other municipalities. That is costly; there is no question about it. They have people running around, trying to find people, trying to get the names, and so on, for the list of electors, and that is expensive. I am not sure if that was one of the main motivations, or not.

Mr. Cable:

The Minister had indicated that, in British Columbia, there is a two-tiered system, whereby small

Page Number 2610

municipalities are exempt from the law, presumably because most people know each other. As the Leader of the Official Opposition has mentioned, we do have two different worlds here in the municipal area.

We have the City of Whitehorse, with over two-thirds of the Yukon's population, which is transient. We also have a number of small communities, only two or three of which are over 1,000, and all of which are less than 2,000.

The thing that troubles me, and this was briefly touched on, is that the voter list is useful to that other party in the equation, the candidate. If the Minister will recollect the last election, it would have been much more difficult for him to have campaigned in his large riding if he did not have a voter list to identify people who lived at the end of all these lanes.

Is the Minister prepared to codify the terms of reference he would use in determining whether to accept or reject the bylaw, in the sense that municipalities under 5,000, for example, can be exempted on their own instance, and municipalities over 5,000 either cannot absolutely or will have to receive the approval of the Minister according to certain rules?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I hear what the Members opposite are saying about the larger municipalities and the perceived necessity for a voter list. I would be willing to take that under advisement and maybe discuss it tomorrow, or some other time. I would like to get some more reasons from the City of Whitehorse than I have right now.

In regard to the smaller municipalities - I see the Member opposite has some comments he would like to make, too - and having helped at some of the elections in my previous job and my job previous to that - I was a town manager in a small municipality and, in fact, I was a municipal politician in a small municipality - a voter list really is not necessary. I would stick with the legislation in that respect, but I think the Member has made some good points on the need for a list of electors in the City of Whitehorse, and in that respect I would be willing to take it under advisement for a couple of days.

Mr. Penikett:

I think I heard the Minister say that the City of Whitehorse has always done enumerations. I do not think that is the case. I seem to recall elections in which they started with an established list and went through a revision process, but not an enumeration process. A revision process is, of course, cheaper, but it still necessitates setting up an office and inviting people to come down and add their names or delete names. What distracts me, let me say, about what elections officals in British Columbia are proposing to do there, in terms of the provincial election lists, which I think have been described as scandously inadequate in the past, is to have a permanent list and some system of daily updates about people moving in and out of the province, using, presumably, records that are available elsewhere - medicare lists and so forth.

I appreciate that the Minister has indicated that he would talk to the city council and take it under advisement. I commend the Minister for doing that, but in doing that, I wonder if he could ask the city council if they would look at this possibility. It seems to me that for tax reasons the city must have a list of all of the properties in town, and they must have a list of the property owners that is reasonably current. For similar reasons, the city must have a list - saving and except for illegal basement suites, which may exist - of which properties in town are rental properties. It seems to me that without having to do a very elaborate enumeration, if the city had on computer, and maybe they do, a list of all properties and a list of all rental properties, it would be a fairly simple thing to establish a list or revise a list by making phone calls to the address of the rental properties, or mailing them a letter asking if the person wants to be on the voter list, or some machinery like that, which is short of a full-scale and very expensive enumeration, but would meet the test of a voter list that would be continuously or periodically revised.

It certainly would need revision in the run-up to each election. I do not know whether that would work in mechanical terms because, while I was once a member of city council, I confess I knew practically nothing about the computer system or what their electronic files were like. The one thing the B.C. reform tells us is that technology is now making some things possible that would have been very difficult a couple of decades ago. Perhaps, given the problem of poor or inadequate voter lists, we may be moving in the wrong direction. Rather than have inadequate hard copies, perhaps there is a way with electronic files where we can actually have higher quality lists.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

Some of the municipalities actually have their list of electors on computer, and they attempt to keep it current, on a daily basis. I believe Watson Lake has theirs on computer now. I am not sure about the rest of them; I am not sure if Whitehorse has it on computer, but it may very well be that their hardware could allow that.

That would be part of the discussion we have with the city in the next day or so.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Does the Minister think that voters are well served by the accountability provided by politicians and candidates canvassing door to door?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I do not quite understand what the question is. If the Member opposite means do I feel that helps bring awareness of the election process, yes, I do believe it does bring awareness to the process.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Certainly, as politicians, all of us have some awareness of how to conduct campaigns, and the Minister is bound to have some opinions on how campaigns can work and what they can accomplish.

Does the Minister think that effective campaigns are a possibility without a voter list?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I certainly do.

Ms. Moorcroft:

How does the Minister think voters would react in the Laberge riding at being told, "Well, I am glad you support me. On October 19, go down to the polling station, register, get your name put on the voter list and vote." How does he think people would react to that?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

Well, I think if the people wanted to vote, they certainly would go and vote.

When you are campaigning, you tell them that voting day is October 19, or whatever day it may be. I do not see the relevance of the questioning.

Ms. Moorcroft:

I was trying to determine how the Minister thought campaigns could be effective without a voter list. However, the Minister has indicated that he is prepared to have further discussions with the City of Whitehorse and come back on the amendment about dispensing with the requirement of a list of electors.

Is the Minister then saying that we will go through it clause by clause, with the exception of clause 11, which is the amendment to section 50, and bring section 50 back tomorrow or on a subsequent day?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

That is what I would prefer to do. I believe the terminology is to stand this aside until a future date.

Mr. Penikett:

I think that would be a good idea, but let me join in expressing the thoughts of my colleague.

I know that the Minister is talking about going after the vote on October 19, a particularly memorable day for me, but we have a new situation as a result of the last election. If you think about it for a second, there are 10 MLAs covering most of the city and only seven city councillors covering the city.

Page Number 2611

In some sense - certainly, if we had a ward system - those councillors' constituency might be as big, or bigger, than the constituencies of the MLAs in this House. It would be ironic if we are required to have a voter list for all of the election machinery, but the municipal councillors are not.

I have one comment to make on the Minister's suggestion where you tell people to go down and vote.

I do not know what his experience is, and perhaps the people in the Laberge riding went flocking to the polls with a song in their heart, but it has been my experience that not every voter actually enters the polls with the same level of enthusiasm as the voters of Laberge. People who have to sometimes be sworn in, or discover that they are not on the list - I have had this perennial problem in one area of my riding - sometimes give up at the first sign of frustration and go home. I would not want to see that happen, if we could avoid it.

Deputy Chair:

Is there any further general debate?

Are we prepared to go clause-by-clause?

On Clause 1

Clause 1 agreed to

On Clause 2

Clause 2 agreed to

On Clause 3

Ms. Moorcroft:

Is this subsection 34(1)?

Deputy Chair:

Yes.

Ms. Moorcroft:

I would like to propose that Bill No. 50, entitled An Act to Amend the Municipal Act (No. 2), be amended in clause 34(1) at page 1 by ... sorry, it is 34(2) I wanted to amend.

Deputy Chair:

We are on clause 3.

Ms. Moorcroft:

You just said that was 34(1).

Deputy Chair:

Yes, the old clause was 34(1).

Clause 3 agreed to

On Clause 4

Clause 4 agreed to

On Clause 5

Amendment proposed

Ms. Moorcroft:

I would like to propose

THAT Bill No. 50, entitled An Act to Amend the Municipal Act (No. 2), be amended in clause 5 at page 2 in 34.1(5) by deleting (5) and substituting for it the following:

"(5) The leave of absence referred to in subsection (2) shall terminate 48 hours following the official declaration of the result of the election."

Deputy Chair:

It has been moved by the Member for Mount Lorne

THAT Bill No. 50, entitled Municipal Act (No. 2), be amended in clause 5, at page 2, in 34.1(5), by deleting (5) and substituting for it the following:

"(5) the leave of absence referred to in subsection (2) shall terminate 48 hours following the official declaration of the result of the election."

Ms. Moorcroft:

This is an amendment that I discussed with the Minister's executive assistant and the department officials during the briefing. There was no problem with it at that time. Unless the Minister has some objections - and I see they have been huddling on the benches - that he wants to make known, I will not speak to it.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

No, I am not sure if it is necessary. I understand that the actual declaration or proclamation of the election would be when the returning officer provides a statement to the clerk, which is within 24 hours of the closing of the polls.

Because the election is on a Thursday, the person would have until Monday morning, anyway. However, because there is some question, I have no problem with seeing the amendment go forward.

Amendment agreed to

Clause 5 agreed to as amended

On Clause 6

Clause 6 agreed to

On Clause 7

Clause 7 agreed to

On Clause 8

Clause 8 agreed to

On Clause 9

Clause 9 agreed to

On Clause 10

Clause 10 agreed to

On Clause 11

Ms. Moorcroft:

I move that clause 11 be stood aside.

Clause 11 stood over

On Clause 12

Clause 12 agreed to

On Clause 13

Clause 13 agreed to

On Clause 14

Clause 14 agreed to

On Clause 15

Clause 15 agreed to

On Clause 16

Clause 16 agreed to

On Clause 17

Clause 17 agreed to

On Clause 18

Ms. Moorcroft:

On clause 18, the amendment is to reduce the Board of Revision to not less than two hours and not more than twelve hours. Why was this reduced from a four-hour minimum to a two-hour minimum? Does the Minister think that that is adequate?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

Generally, the Board of Revision has very few people coming to it. Usually, the clerk of a municipality will take names and will provide those names to the Board of Revision. Essentially, the previous act, with the four-hours requirement, was redundant, especially in the small communities, where people would sit there for four hours, or whatever time it was, and no one would come.

Clause 18 agreed to

On Clause 19

Clause 19 agreed to

On Clause 20

Clause 20 agreed to

On Clause 21

Clause 21 agreed to

On Clause 22

Clause 22 agreed to

On Clause 23

Clause 23 agreed to

On Clause 24

Clause 24 agreed to

On Clause 25

Clause 25 agreed to

On Clause 26

Clause 26 agreed to

On Clause 27

Ms. Moorcroft:

I move that Clause 27 be set aside. Clauses 27, 28, 29 and 30 all refer to the municipalities that have decided to dispense with the list of electors, and so I would move that Clauses 27, 28, 29 and 30 be set aside.

Mr. Penikett:

I do not think it necessarily needs to be presented as a procedural motion. If the Minister would undertake to stand the clauses until he has done his consultation with the city,

Page Number 2612

that may satisfy the needs of this Committee on the bill.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I believe I indicated to the Members that I would certainly entertain discussion with the City of Whitehorse, but I was fairly adamant about keeping the smaller municipalities in. However, I can go along with having these stood aside until after those discussions.

Clause 27 stood over

On Clause 28

Clause 28 stood over

On Clause 29

Clause 29 stood over

On Clause 30

Clause 30 stood over

On Clause 31

Clause 31 agreed to

On Clause 32

Clause 32 agreed to

On Clause 33

Clause 33 agreed to

On Clause 34

Clause 34 agreed to

On Clause 35

Clause 35 agreed to

On Clause 36

Clause 36 agreed to

On Clause 37

Clause 37 agreed to

On Clause 38

Clause 38 agreed to

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

Mr. Deputy Chair, I move that you report progress on Bill No. 50, An Act to Amend the Municipal Act (No. 2).

Motion agreed to

Deputy Chair:

We will move on to Bill No. 26, entitled An Act to Amend the Public Printing Act.

Bill No. 26 - An Act to Amend the Public Printing Act

Deputy Chair:

Is there any general debate?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

I think the amendments to this bill speak for themselves. It is simply to allow us to make regulations pursuant to the act.

Mrs. Firth:

I noticed in the explanatory note that the government is now going to set prices for legislative publications. How much more money does the government anticipate raising with this initiative? I want to see why it is such a high priority that it has come before us. I am expecting that it is going to raise lots of money.

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

We do not need this provision to raise prices. We are doing this in any event and we will raise a considerable amount of money by increasing the prices. I do not have it right in front of me, but the new prices are already in effect. I can tell the Member that one of the largest increases occurs in the nine-volume binder set of Yukon Regulations. The previous price was $80.00; the new price is $550. Most of the other prices have not increased that much, but I can send the Member a copy of the old and new prices.

When we come to debate the detailed budget in the Department of Government Services, I think there is a figure as to how much extra we expect to recover from the Queen's Printer for publications.

Mrs. Firth:

Is it the government's intention to make this a paying operation?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

No, the intention was simply to recover our costs and not to become a profit-making venture.

Mr. Penikett:

I happen to know that this particular set of books has always been a bestseller. I know the Members opposite believe in market economics, so no doubt the sales for the book will decrease enormously with this quadrupling or quintupling of the price.

I am not asking the Minister to tell us now, but I wonder if he could indicate what the revenues were from sales of these books in the last year for which he has records - if he has it handy.

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

I do not have those figures handy, but I will bring that information back for the Member. I should say that, with respect to these bestsellers, we have a captive audience, so I hope that they will continue to require the books and use the books.

Chair:

Is there further general debate?

On Clause 1

Clause 1 agreed to

On Clause 2

Clause 2 agreed to

On Title

Title agreed to

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

Mr. Chair, I move that you report Bill No. 26 out of Committee without amendment.

Motion agreed to

Bill No. 60 - Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 1994

Chair:

We will move on to Bill No. 60. Is there any general debate?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

I shot my bolt during second reading, so I am prepared to answer questions.

Chair:

Is there any further general debate?

On Education Act

On Clause 1

Clause 1 agreed to

On Clause 2

Clause 2 agreed to

On Clause 3

Clause 3 agreed to

On Vital Statistics Act

On Clause 1

Clause 1 agreed to

On Title

Title agreed to

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

Mr. Chair, I move that you report Bill No. 60 out of Committee without amendment.

Motion agreed to

Bill No. 75 - An Act to Amend the Coroners Act

Chair:

Is there any general debate on the bill?

Mr. Penikett:

I indicated yesterday that one reader of the bill had asked me questions about designates. This person was concerned about the guarantees that we would have of the level of training or appropriateness of designates. The Minister mentioned that, in times of violent death, an accident or something else, it would most often be a police officer present at the scene. I wonder if he could say something that would provide some general satisfaction to anyone who might be concerned that people might be designated who were not qualified, sensitive or appropriate to deal with certain situations of violent death.

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

I am advised by my officials that in most circumstances where coroners are not available to view and take possession of the body, the designate will, in most circumstances, be an RCMP officer. The designates will only be acting on behalf of a trained and knowledgeable coroner and, once the designate has viewed and/or removed the body, a coroner will be directly involved in completing the investigation.

Page Number 2613

Mr. Penikett:

Is the Minister himself generally satisfied that there will not be situations in which people may be designated who are not, either by way of their training or by way of their character, unsuited to the somewhat sensitive tasks that they might have to carry out in these cases?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

That is correct. I feel that because the coroner will complete the investigation and do the reporting there is certainly an onus on that person to ensure that he is comfortable with the training of the person who in the first instance viewed and took possession of the body.

Ms. Commodore:

Why did the Minister feel it was necessary to bring this amendment to the House? Were there some problems in the past that might have caused this to happen in regard to other persons viewing the body?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

Technically, under the act it had to be the coroner, and there were some instances of deaths that occurred where the family, who were already under trauma, were forced to wait before something was done with the body until the coroner could be made available to perform the task. It is really simply a matter of the word "shall" in clause 6.(1) that was the problem.

Ms. Commodore:

It has been a long time since I was a JP and was aware of coroner training. Could I ask the Minister if he might tell us how extensive their training is and the qualifications necessary for them to take on this responsibility as part of their job as coroner?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

I would have to provide that kind of information to the Member; I really do not know.

Ms. Commodore:

If the Minister is not aware of the qualifications of the coroner, how can he be sure that a designate would also be qualified to view a body and make a decision?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

I guess that if the concern is that coroners are not appropriately trained for the job, that is certainly an issue, but it does not have much bearing on this piece of legislation. The issue of a designate being allowed to stand in the place of a coroner for certain, very limited tasks leaves the onus of responsibility still on the coroner who completes the investigation and files a report. It is certainly my view that the change in 6.(1) is not substantive regarding the issue of how much training a coroner has. Certainly, at this time the chief coroner is very well trained.

Ms. Commodore:

It certainly does have a bearing on this legislation. I am not saying that what is being proposed here should not be. What I would really like to know is the extent of a coroner's training. I know that at one time I did not feel that it was adequate, and I am wondering whether it is now. Are they trained for a certain period of time? Who does the training? How long is the training and what does it include before they can be appointed as coroners? It is a question of lack of knowledge. I am not criticizing what is happening. I would just like to have that information. It is something that I would like to know.

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

I am quite prepared to undertake to provide that information in a written repsonse to the Member.

Mr. Penikett:

I would just like to join that inquiry. I am aware, from other things I have looked at recently, that some provinces have, in the past, set very specific professional qualifications for a coroner. I am not sure that would be prudent in the Yukon. I think, in Ontario, the coroner had to be a medical practioner or something. In other places, he may have had to have specific training. I would like to ask a supplementary to the question asked by my colleague, Ms. Commodore. When the Minister brings back this answer, he might also provide us with some comment on whether the minimum training standards that have been in place heretofore are sufficient in his mind, for the 1990s and for the 21st century. The Minister is indicating he has not looked at this question seriously up until now. I wonder if this inquiry from my colleague might lead him to actually want to visit that issue just before we move on.

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

In my second reading speech, I advised that there has been an ongoing review and development of policy with regard to coroner services. The policy development has been done in consultation with individuals and groups directly involved in death investigations, which included physicians, nurses, health care administrators and the RCMP. The results of that review led to these rather modest amendments, and I am quite prepared to provide the policy developed by that process.

Deputy Chair:

Is there further general debate?

Mr. Penikett:

To make one final, additional point, in taking a look at the Coroners Act, there does not seem to be any section prescribing qualifications. I do not know if that is necessary or not, but obviously it is an attendant question.

Ms. Commodore:

Would the Minister let us know if there was anything in regulations that lists the qualifications of a coroner.

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

I will provide the entire policy and the result of the review to the Member.

On Clause 1

Clause 1 agreed to

On Clause 2

Ms. Commodore:

In clause 2, it gives a lot of leeway for a coroner to make a decision, and that is why I asked the question about the training and the qualifications of this person, because the person has to make a decision that may have a bearing on a lot of people. I need to know more information about the qualifications.

I know that at one time coroners were not trained to the extent that I felt they should be, and I would certainly hope that is improving. In the end, after an investigation, the coroner has to make a very serious decision.

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

I understand the Member's concern and I will certainly get the information to her. In cases where an inquest is not held, the coroner would issue a judgment of inquiry. That would provide a public record of the circumstances surrounding the death, the cause of the death and, in most cases, recommendations for prevention.

This means that the rather cumbersome procedures, where those procedures are not deemed to be necessary, will not be followed, but there will be an official document that comes out.

Certainly, the issue of training is one that we will get back to the Member about.

Clause 2 agreed to

On Clause 3

Clause 3 agreed to

On Title

Title agreed to

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

Mr. Chair, I move that you report Bill No. 75, entitled An Act to Amend The Coroners Act, out of Committee without amendment.

Motion agreed to

Bill No. 80 - An Act to Amend the Pharmacists Act

Deputy Chair:

Is there any general debate?

Mr. Penikett:

I have a couple of general questions. The Minister, in looking at this act, I am sure would have satisfied himself on a number of questions including the one of exactly how many pharmacists there were in the Yukon Territory and whether the application of this law might have any possible effects, such as restraint of trade or closing of markets, to which I know the Minister would be philosophically opposed.

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

The group that is the advocate body on behalf of the pharmacists has been consulted, and I am advised by the department that this is a section that has not been used but the

Page Number 2614

feeling is that, in order to be a pharmacist operating in the Yukon Territory, they ought to be qualified to be a pharmacist in another jurisdiction, which is fairly common for other professional groups.

Mr. Penikett:

I accept his comment regarding other professional groups and I understand that, as with other professions, this is a small group of pharmacists in this territory associated with a professional organization in southern jurisdictions. In times past, it was sometimes seen fit for northern jurisdictions to not want to have exactly the same kind of closed shop as there was in southern Canada, because we might have trouble attracting certain kinds of skills to our area, and we might be more receptive to having people who had qualifications from a country that might not be recognized by the jurisdiction immediately to the south of us.

I know this would never happen in the case of lawyers, for example, but the case was certainly made, I think, in some far northern communities with respect to medical qualifications for example, where people from some countries would not automatically be accepted by professional associations in British Columbia and Alberta. I also know of cases, for example in Inuvik, where they might have been willing to employ someone who clearly was qualified but not eligible for instant admission to a professional association in a province.

The point is only relevant in the Yukon because I suspect the only pharmacists we have here are in Whitehorse. I know there is a drug store in Dawson City, but I do not think there is a pharmacist associated with it. Perhaps there are pharmacists in Watson Lake.

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

In Watson Lake, there is a pharmacist who is also the doctor.

Mr. Penikett:

Could I just invite the Minister to comment if he even paused for a moment to think about whether there might be any difficulty attracting pharmacists and - notwithstanding the professional representations - any need to leave the door open to recognizing someone who might not be admissible to a professional association in British Columbia or Alberta?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

My understanding is that this was not intended to somehow or other close the door where there was a strong demand by people from other countries. The difficult issue is - were we to leave it as is - the kinds of standards that we would have to set here, should somebody come from another country with various degrees and demand to be licensed in this jurisdiction.

I have been through this only once in the case of a professional person. We got into a pretty bizarre legal court case and protracted negotiations regarding a physician who came here many years ago and had all kinds of degrees from Ireland, I believe it was. He was, in fact, a surgeon. It really placed quite an onus on the local medical profession.

In this case, I was on the other side of the fence, so to speak, advocating on behalf of this person who was ultimately licensed. To put it simply, it really means that we now have a policy vacuum with regard to what kind of criteria we look at and who would make those decisions. It was simply felt that, by deleting this clause - there has been no demand for its use - we avoid the necessity of setting up the policy that would be required, in the event that somebody were to make that type of application.

Mr. Penikett:

Not to belabour the point - in my family, I have a brother-in-law who is a cardiologist who, for a time, employed someone who was a physician from Poland as a lab technician, because the physician could not get his qualifications recognized here, but then subsequently went on to another place where the qualifications were recognized and he returned to his former profession as a medical specialist. The one question that I want to ask is a question of fact, which I began with. In this House, we sometimes talk about professional communities as if they are large. Are we talking about half a dozen pharmicists in the Yukon?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

I suspect the number would be between six and 10 at any given time.

Clause 1 agreed to

On Clause 2

Clause 2 agreed to

On Title

Title agreed to

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

I move that Bill No. 80 be reported out of Committee without amendment.

Motion agreed to

Chair:

We will take a brief recess at this time.

Recess

Second Appropriation Act, 1994-95 - continued

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 on Government Services. Government Services

Chair:

Is there any general debate?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

I do not have a long speech to introduce the budget for the Department of Government Services and all the wonderful things we are going to do and all the money we are going to spend. In essence, for this year, it will be business as usual. Our mandate has not changed to provide technical expertise, advice and assistance in acquisition, building and information services, which support departments and Crown corporations.

What we hope to do is just deliver a better service more efficiently for approximately the same amount of money as last year. The overall budget is down two percent from last year's forecast, from $24 million to approximately $23.5 million. The majority of our budget, of course, is in property management. There has been a reorganization of property management that we hope will deliver that service more efficiently and to the satisfaction of our clients.

With that, I would now like to correct some errors in my budget and refer Members to the statistics on page 137 of the main estimates.

That is with respect to owned and leased space. The title for the chart should read "owned and leased commercial space", rather than office space, because the figures include not only office space, but also airports, visitor reception centres and warehouse space.

The other error is in the Whitehorse region. The numbers for owned and leased office space are a little high. Apparently, when they were done, the complete inventory was not taken into account, so what I am doing is giving a more accurate figure than is there. So, Whitehorse region owned should read $33,152; leased should be $20,120. That is for 1994-95. For 1993-94, it should read $33,152 owned and $19,987 leased. For 1992-93, owned is $32,942, and leased is $19,311.

That changes the totals at the bottom. The total owned for 1994-95 should read $45,304, leased should be $21,699. The 1993-94 total owned should be $45,304, leased should be $21,566, and for 1992-93, owned should be $45,094, and leased should be $20,947.

The number of buildings has to be changed also. The number of buildings owned in 1994-95 is 37, leased is 39; for 1993-94, buildings owned is 37, leased is 41; and for 1992-93, buildings owned is 36 and leased is 49.

Mr. Harding:

Let me see if I can ease into this general debate. The Minister is an independent Member of the happy coalition of the Yukon Party Cabinet, so I would expect that he

Page Number 2615

can express his views freely on issues that come up in this Legislature - especially issues that he was not a part of in Cabinet. I would like to ask the Minister, now that we have a new Minister of Government Services, what his opinion was regarding the decision of the Yukon Party government on the Taga Ku project.

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

I was not in on the discussions as to what was done on the Taga Ku project, and I have not analyzed it. I do not know whether the Yukon Party's decision on that was right or wrong, or whether it should have been different, or if it was absolutely the right thing to do.

Mr. Harding:

Surely, the Minister has some knowledge - everyone in this Legislature has some knowledge about the decision. The arguments have been made in this Legislature in Hansard, and they have also been made in the media. I think it is not too much to ask for a general opinion, as we all have some knowledge of this issue. For example, with my knowledge of the issue, I think they made a very bad decision. I think it is fair to ask the Minister, given his general knowledge of it, for his cursory opinion on the issue.

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

I think that it is fair to ask, but I do not think that there is any clear answer. As far as I know, the matter is before the courts now, so there is obviously two sides to it. I would feel that I was being presumptuous if I came down on one side or the other, without having looked at the court documents and studied it. I did not do that.

Mr. Harding:

I am becoming accustomed to the independent Member sitting right in the middle. He is almost like that fellow from Riverside sometimes. I would like to ask the Minister this: now that we have a different Minister, and this matter is in court and the decision of the Yukon Party could conceivably cost the taxpayers of the Yukon a lot of money, would he initiate a review of the decision, as the new Minister, so that we could be clear that - at least in his opinion - the decision that was made by the Yukon government was a good decision, and was appropriate, given the circumstances. I think a lot of Yukon money is being placed in jeopardy in these legal proceedings. Would he review it?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

Yes, I can certainly give a general opinion on that. I think the Member is right, and one of my concerns as a Minister is the money that government spends on legal proceedings and legal suits. Even within the Government Services department, it is something that I want to look at, to see if these things can be resolved without huge legal fees being incurred.

I am not sure at what stage the Taga Ku is, where it is going and whether there is the will to carry on the legal suit, but I will look at it and see where it is and the potential cost to the government as a whole, because I am concerned about that. I will get back to the Member and talk to him about the Taga Ku case, the potential that it could be for the government, and what I can find out about the possibilities of settling it.

Mr. Harding:

I would like to have that in the form of a legislative return and, in that legislative return, could he provide me with the legal costs so far in that matter, with some forecasts for the legal costs, depending on how it proceeds?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

Yes, I will see what I can do in that regard.

Mr. Harding:

There is some careful wording there, but I will, for the record, take that as a commitment to provide me the information. I cannot see any reason why legal fees spent by the government would not be allowed to be released.

The second issue that I want to discuss, after I have eased into this debate, is the contract review. What is the status of the contract review, what kind of target dates are we looking at, and what stage is it at right now?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

The stage we are at now is that there has been a second draft of the input for the review. What we have done is printed essentially a roll-up of the comments, concerns and input from the interested parties and sent it back out for further input. We expect to hear back approximately June 3, which is our target date for input. Then, as a department, we will see if we can get some sense of direction and a sense of whether we can make a decision and deal with the issues that are brought up. I know that a lot of them have been conflicting, and we want to get a sense of that and, then, as a department, take something to Cabinet for a decision.

Mr. Harding:

Is that the problem? The original review was scheduled to be complete by now, I believe. Is the problem the conflicting input, or what is holding it up?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

I think the problem that we encounter is with setting target dates and goals. Apparently, the input from the first round was delayed for approximately three weeks. We left it over. In taking on my new responsibilities as Minister, I wanted to be brought up to date with where we were so I would be able to make a decision as to how we should continue.

It has been pushed back, and we had hoped to have something by late May. Now I hope to have something into Cabinet near the end of June.

Mr. Harding:

I know something of conflicting input on the issue of contract regulations. Is the Minister of Government Services at all familiar with the Yukon Party's four-year plan?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

Somewhat, but I am not absolutely familiar with the plan. I would say at the outset with respect to that plan, that it is not this Minister's goal to implement the exact provisions of the four-year plan.

I say that because I know that the Member's next question is going to be the conflict that has been discussed for a number of hours here, and that is the Yukon contractors issue, the bid preference issue versus reintroducing the principle that the low bidder would be awarded government contracts. That is a conflict that has been raised in the contract regulations review and one that has been wrestled with by this government and previous governments. I am not sure whether this Minister will be able to wrestle that to the ground or not, but let me say at the outset that I do not want to see a bid preference. I think that we tried that and got away from that preference with the business incentive policy. I hope that will solve the need for the bid preference.

Mr. Harding:

There are more than two things outlined in here. There are some very interesting things in the Yukon Party four-year plan. In the area of contracts and contracting out, there are some very conflicting statements. The Minister knows about them, as they have been debated. They are going to bring in a bid preference. They are going to reinstitute the practice of the low bidder. They will have some local-hire provisions and utilize local labour and services. There are mixed messages.

The Minister has just told me that he will fight the Yukon Party four-year plan policy document. The Member to his left, when he was a Minister, said that he intended to push ahead, and actually went so far as to put the four-year plan into the Government Services strategic plan. We knew then that it was a concrete document.

Will there be a ministerial statement coming from the Minister explaining how he found it impossible to implement the provisions of the Yukon Party's four-year plan, and that he will be establishing his own agenda with respect to contract review?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

No, I do not see a ministerial statement in that regard.

I think the Yukon Party was represented by the Government Leader in debate in the House. He said he was prepared to move away from some of the points outlined in the four-year plan, one

Page Number 2616

of which was the bid preference.

Mr. Harding:

I question that. Perhaps the Minister could provide me with some answer to substantiate the claim that he just made on behalf of the previous Minister.

There is an issue here. There was an election platform delivered. There were promises made and, apparently, promises are now going to be broken, because we have a new Minister who does not agree with the Yukon Party's four-year plan. However, we do have a Yukon Party government.

I believe that, when promises are broken, the public should be told. They should be told why they have been broken, and they should be left to judge whether or not the action of the government is appropriate.

Does the Minister agree that, when election promises are broken by the governing party, they have an obligation to explain to Yukoners why they are not living up to their commitments?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

Yes, but there is a whole area of definitions for broken promises. What may be a broken promise to one person may not be to another, and it would be very difficult to nail down any party's platform and hold them to it in detail.

Mr. Harding:

Let me put forth this definition: when one makes a promise in writing to the electorate and then does not carry through with it, that is a broken promise. That is clearly what we have here. I do not think there are too many definitions to the concept of broken promises when there is a written commitment and then a commitment entrenched in a well-circulated Government Services strategic plan that concretely meshed the department and the Minister together with the four-year plan. It created a bond with Yukoners, and if that bond is now going to be broken by the new independent Minister, Yukoners should be told clearly.

So, will the Minister tell the Yukon public clearly that he intends to break this bond?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

I am not sure exactly what bond the Member is speaking about. Perhaps he can provide me with detail on the list of promises that are being broken, so that we can deal with them. If the Member does that, then perhaps I can discuss with my colleagues, the Yukon Party members, a communication strategy to deal with what may appear to the Member for Faro to be the breaking of a promise.

Mr. Harding:

I will certainly do that for the Minister. I assume we will be in general debate, starting again tomorrow, and I will provide that to the Minister - the four-year plan, the strategic plan - so that he can take it up with his colleagues. I do believe that that government does need a communication strategy. I really believe that, and I think it is a critical element of any successful move on the Yukon Party's part to move away from, or break, their promises during the election campaign.

I want to ask some questions about the appointment of the new deputy minister. It is a very interesting issue. I had a lot of calls about it and talked to a lot of people about it. The selection was the buzz around town. Certainly, the ears of a lot of Yukoners perked up when the name of the successful candidate was announced.

The qualifications for the person were interesting, to say the least, and we are not quite sure if something was missing. Can the Minister run down the list of qualifications of the deputy minister who was appointed to the job?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

I do not have them in front of me, but in any event, it is a personnel matter and it is not something that I believe should be discussed on the floor of the House. I can talk to the Member about that sort of thing, but I do not want to get into the discussion where we examine the details of the qualifications of the new deputy minister and compare them to the qualifications of other applicants or people who did not apply, or a discussion as to whether we could have found someone from outside the territory that would have been better than any Yukoner.

I think it is suffice to say that a number of Yukoners applied. We interviewed a number of Yukoners; a number of Yukoners were qualified and we hired one of them. As the Minister of Government Services, I was pleased to be able to hire a deputy minister locally. It has not often been done.

Mr. Harding:

I do take some issue with the Minister's claim that this is a personnel matter that should not be discussed on the floor of the House. I mean, after all, there was reference to the qualifications put out in a press release from the government. So, I hardly think it is an off-bounds or off-limits topic. I do take issue with that statement by the Minister. This is an issue, I believe, that should be subjected to some public consideration. I do not think it is inappropriate to discuss matters such as qualifications for a deputy minister on the floor of the Legislature when they are a political appointment and do serve at pleasure. It is no secret; the Members have told us how they select deputy ministers and that it is a common practice for political involvement in the decisions; so, therefore it opens the door for questions in the Legislature. If the Minister is not prepared, because he does not have his qualifications at his fingertips, will he be prepared to discuss this issue tomorrow, when we continue on in general debate?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

No. Let me tell the Member for Faro that I am following the example and the lead of the Leader of the Official Opposition. I think that he was absolutely right in his comments when he hired a deputy minister to serve at pleasure. At the time, the Opposition asked about the hiring of that individual, because it caused some talk and concern about their qualifications.

The position of the Leader of the Official Opposition on that was to tell us, in the House, that they qualified one person, they interviewed one person and they hired one person. That was all we heard, and I think that was fair and right.

With respect to the hiring of this deputy minister, the House has heard much more about the hiring. In answer to questions, I have said that we did ask the Public Service Commission to assist us. The Public Service Commission did the advertising, they accepted the applications, reviewed them and discussed with us the candidates who were qualified. We chose the candidates who would be interviewed, and we interviewed them with the assistance of the Public Service Commission. There was a recommendation made to Cabinet, the Government Leader hired an individual, and that individual serves at pleasure.

Mr. Harding:

I am pleased to see the Minister saying that he wants to take the lead of the Leader of the Official Opposition. I think that is good and he should do it more often. He might not get into as much trouble, but this is a very different matter.

It does not equate or relate in any way. That is simply because the Minister put the qualifications out in a press release. The government said right then and there that they were prepared to discuss those issues - they made it public. Therefore, I am only asking a question about a public matter, that the government, by its own hand - the Cabinet communications advisor - wanted the qualifications up front and centre. They wanted people to know.

I am simply asking some questions about something that they themselves released. It might have been different if the government had never publicly referred to them in a press release.

I would guess, unless I can be proven wrong right now, that the Leader of the Official Opposition never did that in a press release. I may be wrong, but the Minister would have to produce some evidence of that.

The Minister, by his own hand, through the Cabinet, started this discussion, and opened up this debate, by putting the qualifications in a press release.

Page Number 2617

So, I will ask him again. Given that they opened up the door for discussing the qualifications of the deputy minister, would he now agree that, once he freshens up on it a bit, that we can discuss it when general debate resumes tomorrow?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

No. If the qualifications were put in the press release, then the Member has them. If I have opened a door that I should not have, then perhaps it should be closed right now.

Mr. Harding:

Why were the qualifications that were announced in the press release relevant to the position? Could he explain that to the House?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

No, I cannot.

Mr. Harding:

I find it quite funny - I seem to recall some reference in one of the qualifications - there were a number of things there - former President of the Yukon Chamber of Commerce, and that type of thing. I believe there was also a reference to a bachelor of administration or a bachelor of commerce. It was loaded by the government. It is funny that when the young Member for Faro stood up and made the mistake of mentioning once in this Legislature that he has a commerce degree, they have been getting up for a year now to say that it means nothing, and is absolutely irrelevant, and that with a commerce degree you are just a snot-nosed kid. I was pretty surprised when I saw the commerce degree listed as a qualification for a deputy minister. Not that I am pushing for the job, but it did puzzle me, because they seem to hiss at me with such vigour when I talk about any economic issue.

I made the mistake one time of mentioning a commerce degree. Since then, I have been hit with it by these guys every time they get a chance.

I really feel that it is important to discuss the qualifications of deputy ministers. When they are introduced to the public, the door is opened. I am not talking about all matters of personnel, but I am talking about matters that are introduced in the public by the government. Claims are made, and then, when we get into the Legislature, the government is not prepared to substantiate them through debate. That is a problem. I think it is incumbent upon the government, when they make a public announcement, to be prepared to be held accountable for it.

I would like to ask the Minister where he thinks the opportunity exists for the Opposition to challenge the statements made by the government in a press release, if he is not prepared to debate the subject matter in that release in the Legislature. Where are we supposed to do it, as an Opposition?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

I think the Opposition has done it very well and often with press releases of their own.

Let me say to the Member for Faro that I, too, have a bachelor of commerce degree. I think the Members on this side who belittle that degree are wrong. It is a valuable degree, and the Member for Faro is better off for having it. He will not hear me teasing or belittling the degree, or him, because he has it.

Mr. Harding:

I will pursue this. It is getting a little too drippy in here, but I will pursue this probably tomorrow, during general debate. The Minister has me confused with his responses.

I want to ask the Minister of Government Services about privatization. It was the subject of some debate, as the Member to his left will, I am sure, quickly remember.

The inside documents that we produced in this Legislature were about officials in the bureaucracy talking about the direction of privatization and looking at, studying or talking about - whatever word one wants to use - the matter of privatization. They were pursuing government directives in that area. I would like to know from the Minister what his feelings are about privatization. What area is his department looking at, studying, or talking about contracting out? Is there a specific area targeted?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

Yes, as the Member has pointed out, this issue was discussed previously in the House with the former Minister. My position on privatization and contracting out, specifically, is that it is an option for us to consider in delivering a service more efficiently, better than we have been delivering it. So, privatizing government is not something that I have my heart set on, as the Minister, but it is an option. The one area in Government Services that we are looking at at the present time with respect to contracting out is the education building. The Member for Mount Lorne asked me about that earlier in this sitting. I said that that matter was put on hold, but it is one that we are looking at.

Mr. Harding:

Have there been discussions with the employees and their representatives regarding the study of contracting out the education building?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

Yes, I understand there have been. I was not a party, personally, to any of the discussions, but I understand the department did discuss it with the janitorial staff who now clean the education building. The discussion, I believe, was with respect to moving them from the education building into this building so that we could maintain the standards we have had in the past in this building.

Mr. Harding:

I would suppose that those types of discussions with employees could be fairly traumatic. What were the concerns expressed by the employees and their representatives? Were they worried about job security? That would seem to me to be something that would be raised. Is the Minister concerned about that and is he going to make any attempts to ensure that we do not lose positions as a result of this and that people lose jobs?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

Yes, that was my concern, too. The staff were told that no positions would be lost. There would be no one laid off and no positions lost. What we would be doing would be moving them to this building to complement the staff who are here so that we can maintain a higher standard. I hope there was no concern over lost jobs.

Mr. Harding:

That is an extremely big concern. I assume what the Minister is talking about in terms of saying that he is going to move people is that if there is contracting out, there would be no loss of direct jobs and that he wants to see changes made through an attrition process. Is that what the Minister is saying?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

Yes. Even the attrition process would not be great, because at the present time I think that we are understaffed with respect to janitorial services in both this building and the education building.

Mr. Harding:

I would like to move on to another subject. I think the Minister realizes where we are coming from on the issue about janitorial services in both the education building and this building.

I would like to move on to some questions about the design department. Have there been recent changes in that department, and if there were changes, could the Minister tell me what the changes were and why they were made?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

Yes, there have been some changes. What we were trying to do was to bring more coordination into building development. We brought the design group into the building with building development, and we formed a technical support group.

Mr. Harding:

What has the response been from employees? Has there been any change in any way in their morale as a result of this? Do they enjoy the changes? What is their reponse?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

As far as I know, it has been positive.

Mr. Harding:

How does he know that?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

I have been informed of that by my department officials.

Mr. Harding:

How are they sure of that?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

I have been informed that the senior

Page Number 2618

members have had regular meetings with the staff, and that they were involved, to some extent, in the changes that were made.

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

If there is something specific that the Member knows about that that I do not, I would welcome him to tell me and I will look into it.

Mr. Harding:

I will remind the new Minister that in that position one has to ease into these things. He should know that from being a former Opposition Member - and a former Speaker, I might add, and a darn good one.

Mr. Chair, I would like to move that you report progress.

Motion agreed to

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

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. 50, An Act to Amend the Municipal Act (No. 2), and Bill No. 15, Second Appropriation Act, 1994-95, and directed me to report progress on them.

Further, the Committee has considered Bill No. 26, An Act to Amend the Public Printing Act, Bill No. 60, Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 1994, Bill No. 75, An Act to Amend the Coroners Act and Bill No. 80, An Act to Amend the Pharmacists Act, and directed me to report them without amendment.

Speaker:

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

Some Hon. Members:

Agreed.

Some Hon. Members:

Disagreed.

Speaker:

I believe the agreeds have it. I declare the report carried.

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

I move that the House do now adjourn.

Speaker:

It has been moved by the Minister of Government Services that the House do now adjourn.

Some Hon. Members:

Agreed.

Some Hon. Members:

Disagreed.

Motion agreed to

Speaker:

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

The House adjourned at 5:25 p.m.

The following Sessional Papers were tabled May 17, 1994:

94-1-126

Ruby Range Outfitters (1989) Ltd.: list of shareholders and shares held (Harding)

94-1-127

Rogue River Outfitters Ltd.: list of shareholders and shares held (Harding)