Whitehorse, Yukon

Thursday, May 19, 1994 - 1:30 p.m.

Page Number 2653

Speaker:

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

Prayers

DAILY ROUTINE

Speaker:

We will proceed at this time with the Order Paper.

Introduction of Visitors.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

I would like to introduce Suromitra Sanatani. Suromitra is the director for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. She is based in Vancouver.

Ms. Sanatani is a British Columbia resident who attended law school in Ottawa. She was called to the British Columbia bar in 1989. She practised law there for three years and then joined the B.C. Marine Employers to work with them with respect to the Workers' Compensation Board.

She joined the CFIB in January of this year and is visiting the Yukon to meet with the government. She has met with several of us as Members of the Legislative Assembly, and I think she has another Member to meet with tomorrow.

The CFIB has over 300 members in the Yukon, and she is touring and talking with those members.

She stopped in today to see the Legislative Assembly in action, and I would like all Members to welcome her today.

Speaker:

Are there any Returns or Documents for tabling?

Are there any Reports of Committees?

Petitions.

PETITIONS

Petition No. 8

Ms. Moorcroft:

I have for tabling a petition to the Yukon Legislative Assembly asking it to provide government funding over a three-year period to increase wages and benefits equivalent to educational assistance in the schools for child care professionals. This petition has over 300 signatures on it.

Speaker:

Are there any Introduction of Bills?

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

Notices of Motion.

NOTICES OF MOTION

Mr. Millar:

As a small tribute to a former Speaker, Mr. Don Taylor, I would like to give notice of the following motion:

THAT as the Yukon Territory was created by the Yukon Territory Act on June 13, 1898, this House officially recognize June 13 as the Yukon's birthday.

Speaker:

Are there any Statements by Ministers?

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Social Assistance Reform

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

I rise today to inform the House about further reforms to the Yukon's social assistance program that will provide support and encouragement to social assistance recipients to seek independence from government support programs and address the dramatically increasing costs of the program.

For several years now, we have all been aware that social assistance costs were rising significantly. Since 1989, social assistance expenditures have continued to increase. To put it in real terms, in 1989-90, our expenditure on social assistance was $2.8 million. With projected expenditures for 1994-95 at an estimated $10.9 million, our costs have risen by 290 percent. Not only has the volume of social assistance cases been increasing but the length of time that people are remaining on social assistance has also been increasing.

Shortly after this government was elected in the fall of 1992, we accelerated the work being done by the interdepartmental committee on social assistance. The report this group produced provided valuable insights into understanding the recent trends in social assistance.

What this report showed was that our social assistance program was out of balance. There were disincentives in the system, there was a lack of services aimed at increasing employability and there were no incentives to earn income while on social assistance.

Since that report was released, the department and the interdepartmental committee have been vigorously involved in formulating changes to the program, changes that will curb costs and at the same time provide support to the people who most need it - changes that will create a balanced program.

Over the past year, a number of reform initiatives have already been implemented. They include, for example, the signing of three agreements with the federal government - the social assistance recipients agreement, the assignment of benefits agreement and the information sharing agreement - the implementation of the LISA automated information system - a file management system for social assistance clients - and increased efforts to address issues of fraud and abuse.

Our reform efforts have two primary goals: to get people back into the workforce and off social assistance, and to reduce the rate of growth in social assistance expenditures.

Through our reform initiatives, we will be making every effort to help people become independent of government assistance.

A number of new initiatives will focus on increasing the employability of clients. The Yukon opportunities program has been replaced with employment training services, a more comprehensive program that will provide individual counselling to clients on training, employment and self-sufficiency.

All new social assistance applicants will attend information workshops to familiarize themselves with opportunities to become self-sufficient and, in conjunction with their social worker, will complete a self-sufficiency plan.

The department will continue to fund workshops on job search skills, resume writing and career planning and will expand the workshop list to provide more opportunities for clients to increase their employability skills.

Under the social assistance recipients agreement with the federal government, the Headstart on-the-job training and wage subsidy program will be expanded to accommodate 45 clients in the coming year. Yukon funding will be increased by 50 percent and this increased contribution will be matched by the federal government for a combined total of $600,000. In addition, the Trades Related Opportunities program and the Peopleworks program, also funded under the SAR agreement with the federal government, provide training, skill development, job readiness and job placement opportunities, specifically for social assistance clients.

The department policies that provide short-term aid to assist transients will be formalized in regulation and the department will look at the feasibility of establishing a hostel to provide shelter assistance to transients.

Eligibility for supplementary/special needs will be limited to

Page Number 2654

those clients who have been on social assistance for longer than six months for such things as furniture, travel, laundry and special clothing. Seniors, children and the disabled will not be affected by this change.

Another reform initiative that I am announcing today concerns employability. This government will change its regulation to define a parent as employable when the youngest child reaches the age of two years rather than six years as is the current policy. Those parents will now be expected to pursue employment or training. This will not apply to parents of disabled children and the availability of employment, education, training and child care opportunities will be taken into consideration in the application of this initiative.

Employment and career counselling and job readiness programs are being designed specifically for those parents to improve their attachment to the workforce. Specifically, this includes an eight-week, pre-upgrading program at Yukon College, academic upgrading, education and training courses, and employment readiness programs. Increased demand for child care subsidies to support the efforts of parents returning to employment training will be met.

All these steps are being taken to help people achieve self-sufficiency. Additional changes will provide incentives that will assist individuals to move toward full employment and independence.

I am pleased to announce that a flat-rate income exemption of $50 per month for singles and $100 per month for families will be introduced this summer. This change will provide a financial benefit to social assistance clients who have a source of income, such as maintenance support payments, pension payments, training allowances and employment income, and so on.

In addition to the income exemption, an earnings exemption, at the rate of 25 percent, would become effective three months after a client has been on social assistance. This will provide an additional incentive for long-term recipients to earn income and move off the welfare system.

I am pleased to announce that we will be increasing the territorial supplementary allowance to the disabled from $70 per month to $125 per month.

These initiatives highlight some of the reforms that will be implemented in the near future. The social assistance program provides valuable and necessary services when it is required by persons in need. If we continue the way we have been headed, we will not be able to afford this important social safety net. We must take steps now to protect that net for those who need it most. At the same time, we need to encourage and provide opportunities for people to improve their skill levels and employability through training and incentives. These reforms will help us accomplish that goal as we continue to refocus and reframe this valuable program.

While these initiatives highlight some of the reforms that will be implemented in the near future, our reform efforts will continue toward refining our supports and toward ensuring an effective and affordable social assistance program in the Yukon.

Ms. Commodore:

A lot of people in the territory were waiting for this statement today with bated breath, wondering what the Minister was going to do. He indicated in this House that he would be making an announcement about making drastic changes and certainly that is exactly what he has done. He talks about his reforms and how he is going to provide support and encouragement to social assistance recipients seeking independence from government support programs. It all sounds well and good, and is certainly a good initiative. He talks about the high cost of social assistance expenditures and how they have gone up, and nobody disagrees that that is the case. They certainly have risen by millions of dollars.

He also mentions that the volume has gone up and that people are staying on social assistance longer, and that it is increasing all the time. That is no secret. It is no secret at all because the Yukon right now is in an economic slump and what else are these people supposed to do? The unemployment rate is very high right now; there are no jobs, and these people somehow have to live. They have to eat and they have to pay their rent. In many cases, unemployment insurance has run out and they have had to go on social assistance.

We are not disagreeing that this is the case but we see a reason why it is happening. He talks about the social assistance program being out of balance and that there were no incentives to earn income while on social assistance.

He has made an awful lot of statements about why people are on social assistance. He has certainly insulted many people and many people have been very unforgiving of him.

He has introduced a new fraud squad. He has made social assistance recipients feel as if they were worth nothing to the Yukon. In many of these cases, these people do not have any choices. We have a lot of people on social assistance right now who are quite willing and able to go back to work and who have all of the skills that he will be offering to these people.

He talks about curbing costs while at the same time providing support to the people who need it. He then goes on to list a number of initiatives. I am not being very negative about those initiatives, I think some of them are good, but we have to remember why many of these people are on social assistance. Two primary goals he lists are to get people back into the workforce and off social assistance, and to reduce the rate of growth in social assistance expenditures.

I think we all agree that those are two good goals, but it is the manner in which he is doing it that is pretty darn scary. We wonder how far he is going to go. People are applying for unemployment insurance who have been in the workforce for many years. They have all of the skills that they need to find employment, if the employment was there. That appears to be the problem that we are facing.

I have some problems with regard to the manner in which they are changing things. For instance, the eligibility for supplementary/special needs and the limitation to that eligibility.

I really have a problem with the new initiative to define a parent as employable when the youngest child reaches the age of two years, rather than six years.

There are not a lot of women who wait until their child is six years old to go to work. Many of them return to work before that, but I think that they should have the option to stay home with that young child and care for them.

Speaker:

Order. The Member has 30 seconds.

Ms. Commodore:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be asking further questions about this. I just want to say that if this government had provided an economic reform, maybe we would not be standing here thinking about the social assistance reforms that the Minister has announced today.

Mr. Cable:

I have to say that social security net reform is occupying the attention of governments everywhere in Canada: federally, provincially and territorially. I think the Minister has to be commended for accelerating the examination of the social assistance programs.

Having said that, I have a serious concern about the ad hoc nature of what is going on. There seems to be a lack of a blueprint. What we have so far is a four-page community consultation document, which sets up, on the back page - and I counted the lines; there are 36 lines, including headings - social assistance

Page Number 2655

reform. That, so far, is what appears to be the blueprint. That concerns me.

It sets out what the Minister has heard from the people, philosophically and with respect to specific issues. I would suggest to the Minister that it is now time for the people to hear from the Minister about his basic philosophical thrust. We need to have some idea of how he wants to integrate the various elements of reform of the Yukon social security safety net.

I would also like to draw to the Minister's attention that, in this social assistance reform document - this community consultation document - the main point made under social assistance reform is the need for jobs. While it is a very good first step to update and train people, the necessity to find jobs after they are trained, of course, is paramount, as I believe the Member for Whitehorse Centre just mentioned. It is not to be expected that the Minister, all by himself, is going to create jobs in the Yukon economy, but the social assistance reform has to be linked to economic reform and job creation.

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

The NDP critic talks about the current economic slump being the problem, and what are people supposed to do?

In fact, the program was out of control long before the mine shut down, and long before we took office. During the so-called golden years of the previous administration, the costs of the program were increasing at between 30 percent and 40 percent per year, going up from $2.9 million to a little over $9 million the year before this last one we were in.

Since then, the costs have leveled off. The increase in growth has leveled off substantially, despite the fact that the two mines have shut down and we have more people in the Yukon now than we had before those two mines shut down. Those are facts.

She goes on about the fraud squad. Let me briefly refer to her colleagues in Ontario. Maclean's magazine, April 11, "Welfare Crackdown. The Ontario government will hire 270 workers to review each of the province's 690,000 welfare cases in a bid to snare people who are cheating the system. Social Services Minister Tony Silipo estimated that the welfare crackdown will save the province $150 million over the next two years."

There is another news release, dated May 3, "Ontario Health Minister, Ruth Grier, today announced a new photo health card for Ontario." She goes on to say, "It's time to get tough on fraud. Any amount of fraud is unacceptable ...", and so on.

B.C. has cracked down on fraud, and anyone who has been paying attention knows how tough they have been.

I am not going to apologize to anyone for the modest changes we have introduced here to try to ensure this important program is not abused. I am absolutely shocked that Members of the local NDP would be at complete odds with their brothers and sisters in Ontario and B.C.

With regard to the Liberal Leader's comment, he keeps referring to a document that summarized community consultations. Why does he not read the thick document that was tabled here last year, which was the result of a lot of hard work by the interdepartmental committee on the issue of social assistance reform? That is the blueprint that was followed. That is the document he ought to be looking at. I have asked him several times in this House to please read the document. It seems to me that, during debate about a year ago, he finally promised he would. Perhaps he could get back to me and tell me if he has had time to read it and give me his comments.

Speaker:

This then brings us to the Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Question re: Social assistance reform

Ms. Commodore:

Since I did not have an awful lot of time in response to the ministerial statement, I do have some questions.

Once of the initiatives announced today was the eligibility for supplementary/special needs, as I mentioned, and that it will be limited to those clients who have been on social assistance for six months. One of my concerns is in regard to women and children, who, in many cases, have had to leave a violent situation with nothing but the clothes on their backs. They could possibly be on social assistance. I would wonder if the Minister could tell me if there will be any special provision for cases such as those under his new initiative.

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

Yes. Children, the disabled and the elderly will still be eligible for the supplementary assistance, without serving any waiting period.

Ms. Commodore:

One of the other things that I am also concerned about is the impact of another cost-cutting measure - that is changing the definition of when a parent on income assistance will be expected to find employment. It has been lowered to when children are only two years of age. My question is this: how will the increased demand for child care for these parents be provided, given that this government has frozen the direct operating grants to child care centres?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

We will be defending our budget shortly in the House. But, we estimate the increased cost of child care to be in the order of $400,000 a year, as a result of this initiative, and we will be meeting that need.

Ms. Commodore:

My next question is in regard to that exact thing. Since he is going to be forcing mothers of these young children to go back to work and possibly subsidizing the child care, I would like to have the Minister table a cost analysis of this next initiative and the cost saving to the government.

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

There is no net saving of that particular initiative. The cost of child care is estimated to be as much as $400,000, which we will meet. On the savings side, in the first year it will be $210,000. We feel it is important to get these people into training and into looking for work as soon as possible. We are willing to take that loss, because in the long term it is going to bode well for Yukoners.

Question re: Student loan exemptions

Ms. Commodore:

If there are no jobs out there, this training is not going to do any good, and there certainly are no jobs. One of the other things that I would like to ask is in regard to a question for which I never got an answer. It is in regard to income sources such as maintenance payments and training allowances being included in the flat rate income exemption. He has already indicated that will be the case. I want to ask if student loans will also fall within that exemption. I have asked some of these questions before, and it is not indicated in his ministerial statement.

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

I thank her for the question, which I will answer. First I have to deal with the preamble. If it is really their philosophy on the other side that we should just give up on training because it will not do any good anyway, no wonder the system was in such shambles when we took over.

With regard to the flat rate income exemption, for a single person it is going to be $50. That will apply to student loans and, in the case of families, such things as maintenance payments.

Ms. Commodore:

I would like to ask the Minister how this policy of deducting student loans from social assistance payments fits in with this government's principle of helping people become self-sufficient. It appears that there is no incentive for these people to train when they have to pay back their student loans. As a matter

Page Number 2656

of fact, it would appear that they have to pay them back twice.

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

That simply speaks to a complete misconception about the safety net that is in place and what it is designed to do. Our position now will be that they will get an increase of $50 per month for training, and in addition, for a single person, the $50 flat-rate exemption will apply, so it puts them $100 ahead of where they would be were they taking training. With respect to a student loan, one has to look at social assistance for what it is. It is a safety net. It is designed to ensure that people have at least a certain amount of income on which to live. It is not there to do anything more than that, and the policy that we put in place maintains the integrity of the system, and at the same time does provide incentive.

Ms. Commodore:

So that I can pass this information on to my constituent, is the Minister saying that student loans falls into the category of income sources for social assistance?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

That is correct.

Question re: Social assistance reform

Mr. Cable:

My questions are for the same Minister, on his social assistance reform package. He indicated a few moments ago that the package is being driven by the document he presented to the Members some time ago. Could I ask the Minister this: if that is the basic plan, what was the purpose of the community consultation exercise?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

The purpose of the community consultation exercise was to talk to people throughout the Yukon about the situation we find ourselves in with regard to social assistance and the kinds of areas that were revealed in the comprehensive study that was completed a year ago and contained in that large book, and to get their feedback on the kinds of things we ought to do regarding the recommendations of what ought to be looked at from the comprehensive study.

Mr. Cable:

Is the Minister saying, then, that the document he has tabled some time ago is in fact the blueprint? If he is saying this, what are the next areas of thrust that he is going to examine?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

The main thrust with regard to social assistance from here on in will be directed at the provincial ministers meetings and federal-provincial ministers meetings with regard to the federal initiative. That is our biggest concern. We have taken these steps. They may only be interim steps toward what the final package that comes out of Ottawa will bring - we do not know that, but our policy people are working on a pilot project that we will be discussing with Minister Axworthy in the near future. We have already had some preliminary discussions with him. They are interested in a pilot project of the nature of the one we are going to discuss with him, and that will be the next step. That project has to do with disabled people on social assistance - looking at a flat rate payment scheme and so on. I am not in a position now to reveal the details of it but I will reveal those details, I hope, before we meet with our colleagues and the federal minister.

Mr. Cable:

The Minister has led us to believe that he, in fact, does have a blueprint. The Government Leader, in his budget speech, has led us to believe that there will be substantial savings.

Would the Minister indicate to this House, when this reform is all finished, what sort of savings we are looking at? Is it $1 million, $5 million, $10 million or $20 million? What is going to come out of this complete social assistance reform and health services reform package?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

With regard to the social services reform package announced today, our preliminary figures would show that there would be an increase in costs, totalling about $1.1 million and an increase in savings totalling about $2.14 million for a potential net savings of a little over $1 million per year. That is in social services.

Question re: Child care workers

Ms. Moorcroft:

I have a question for the Minister of Social Services. I tabled a petition today that notes child care workers, through their traditionally low wages, have been subsidizing society's obligation to care for children, and that these workers deserve wages and benefits that reflect the true value of their work for the community.

What does the Minister think is important about the work that child care workers do?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

I am not sure if this is high school essay time or what. If the Member is asking whether this government should be directly paying the wages of child care workers, our position is clearly no, we do not.

We subsidize and offer operating grants to child care societies and private businesses.

Ms. Moorcroft:

I suppose that I should not be surprised by this Minister's attitude. Last year, I accepted the challenge to work at a day care for a day, as did the Liberal Member for Riverside. The Minister of Health and Social Services declined the invitation to see first hand the diversity of the children who attend child care centres, and to gain an understanding of the commitment, education and energy required to perform that job, especially when it is done at a very low wage.

Is the Minister prepared to increase funding to child care facilities to allow them to increase the wages and benefits to child care workers?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

We provide money to the child care industry through a program that was established before we took office. We are increasing the money that is going into that program. It has gone up in this budget some $300,000 and will go up even more in order to try and meet the increased demand that our reform measures are going to bring with them.

With regard to our getting involved in the employer/employee relationship that exists between the societies and their workers, no, we do not intend to do that.

Ms. Moorcroft:

By his announcement today that single mothers will be cut off social assistance when their children turn two, rather than six, as in the former policy, the government is creating a greater demand for child care spaces. Child care facilities do not have a lot of vacancies. How does he expect parents to find the additional child care spaces that will be required as a result of this new policy?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

As I said, we will be putting more money into child care to meet that need. We estimate that the cost every year, initially at least, will be $400,000.

Question re: Day care grants

Ms. Moorcroft:

I want to ask the Minister responsible for social services about the moratorium on grants for day care spaces. As the Minister is aware, the Playcare Centre was undergoing renovations with the assistance of Economic Development. They were made subject to the moratorium, even though they were undergoing renovations at the time. Given that the Playcare Centre was licensed for 53 spaces, and that the Minister was aware of their plans to expand and move into a new location, which they have now done, why was the centre made subject to this moratorium? Is the Minister prepared to lift it in this case?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

I can tell the Member opposite that that issue will be under review. I will have to get back to her.

Ms. Moorcroft:

I wonder why the government put a moratorium on grants for new child care spaces when there is increased demand. Does the Minister not think that he should support the expansion of child care spaces to meet the demand?

Page Number 2657

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

We are trying to ensure that the money we have in our budget for Health and Social Services is used efficiently and effectively. We do not simply throw money at issues, because one group happens to be noisier than another. We sit down and discuss the issues with the advisors available to me, from government and from the industry, and assess what we feel is needed.

Ms. Moorcroft:

I do not know about what they are trying to do, but what they are doing is creating a greater demand for child care spaces by the initiatives the Minister has just announced today.

Will the Minister lift the moratorium on direct operating grants for spaces licensed after September 1993, so the parents they legitimately want to see be able to get training, go out into the workforce and get jobs, can have somewhere for their children to go to day care?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

We have said we will take steps to ensure the increased demand, as a result of this change in policy regarding social assistance reform, will be met. We are anticipating a cost of $400,000. The way in which we will go about designing the program and the expenditure of that money, to ensure it is met in an effective and efficient manner, is not something that is going to come out of the blue on the floor of this House. It is going to be as a result of policies developed by the department and by the experts who are there to advise the department. Those experts are from the industry.

Question re: Outfitting territories, foreign ownership

Mr. Harding:

On June 3, the Minister of Renewable Resources said, "... we are in the position where 51 percent of the shares must be held by a Yukon outfitter under the Charter of Rights." The Charter was okay then. "At the present time, we do not seem to be able to stop the other 40-some percent from going to them. We are now working with the Yukon Outfitters Association to see if there is some way they can help us rectify this."

They were enforcing the Wildlife Act that says 51 percent of outfitting concessions must be owned and controlled by Yukon residents. Now, the Minister of Justice is saying they will not enforce the Yukon residency and control provisions.

Which is the policy, and did they change their minds?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

We have been over this a lot of times. No matter how many times the question is asked, the same answer will be forthcoming. I am sure he will not be happy with it, but that is what the facts are. The policy was not changed by this administration with regard to that very issue.

Mr. Harding:

The government now has evidence that there may be side deals that negotiate away 51 percent Yukon ownership and control by a Yukon resident. That is totally new evidence and the law says that Yukon residency and control of 51 percent of the territory is mandatory. Is the policy going to be to enforce the law or not?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

The supposed new evidence is the same evidence that was presented to the department and the Minister prior to the actual sales of the three outfits in question being concluded and finalized. The unsigned agreements are exactly the same, and there is not really anything new. We have reviewed the decision taken by the previous government and we are continuing with it.

Mr. Harding:

The Minister is putting up a smokescreen to cover things up and he is talking absolute nonsense. The government has new evidence and it is doing nothing about it. Let me ask him this: as a matter of policy, would a citizen of Montreal - whether he was a landed immigrant or Canadian citizen who lives in Montreal - be able to go to the game branch and now get a concession and certificate licence for 100 percent control and ownership of a Yukon outfitting concession?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

During a lengthy debate yesterday, I tabled documents that would show that, yes, that person could go to B.C. and get the whole package, he could go to Alberta and get the whole package, he could go to Saskatchewan and get the whole package, he could go to Manitoba and get the whole package, he could go to Ontario and get the whole package, but, no, he could not get the concession here, because he would not be a resident of the Yukon.

Mr. Harding:

That is exactly the point, exactly the point. We have produced evidence that this person owns 100 percent through a back-door side deal. But the day before yesterday, outside the Legislature, he said that these side deals maybe were not such a bad thing. He is sending up very mixed signals. He is saying that people from outside this territory should be able to negotiate back-door deals. What is the policy of this government? Is it going to enforce the laws or not?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

We are carrying on under exactly the same policy with exactly the same information the previous government had. I know that it is not intentional but, on the one hand, the Member is talking about the company and the shareholder agreements, which is one thing, and goes to the yearly certificate; then he asked me the question about the concession.

Mr. Harding:

That is ridiculous. The concession holder who gets the certificate has to be 51-percent owner. By definition, they have to be a Yukon resident, residing habitually in the Yukon, and the law says they have to be a Canadian citizen. We are not even talking the landed immigrant versus Canadian citizen debate. We are asking if this government is going to investigate whether or not there are side deals that have been struck in Yukon outfitting territories that take away the provision that protects Yukon ownership and Yukon control for Yukon residents. Will they do that?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

This was thoroughly investigated with regard to the law, and the policy was set during the previous government, in view of the evidence they had that was brought to them by an outfitter. They chose to do nothing about it. Those are the facts.

Some Hon. Member:

(Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

Well, it is true. I can bring in the document.

The issue, though, of ownership of a company that can hold a certificate is different from the person, under section 89, who holds the concession. It is the concession that is of value here.

Mr. Harding:

The Minister is continuing to spread falsehoods. I do not think that Yukoners are missing the point that, on the same day the Government Leader refused to answer questions about side deals involving his former territory and his son-in-law, the Minister of Justice was saying that side deals that reverse the law on Yukon residency, ownership and control provisions are not a bad thing.

What is the position of the Minister on side deals? Is it a bad thing or a good thing?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

I take the position that, because of the operation of the Charter, it is a good thing if Canadians are allowed to invest in outfitting concessions in the Yukon. I think that it is important that the outfitter - the person who runs the operation - be a Yukon resident, and that is the situation as it is today.

Question re: Outfitting territories, foreign ownership

Mr. Harding:

This is an obvious coverup. The Yukon Party Cabinet is too close to this one. We produced evidence that shows that there is some evidence that these Yukon residents do not actually own and control 51 percent. The position is not the same as with the previous administration, and the Members opposite are standing there doing absolutely nothing about it.

The Minister talked about side deals outside the Legislature.

Page Number 2658

Inside the Legislature, will he tell us, does he think these side deals that negotiate away Yukon control should be allowed, or not?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

The side deals that the Member refers to are side deals that were made with the full knowledge of the previous government. There is nothing different. They were discussed and legal opinions prepared on the basis of them. I reviewed the evidence and I have talked to the people involved. There is nothing new - nothing.

Mr. Harding:

The side deal that I presented to the government as some form of evidence was dated April 30, 1993. They are talking about a totally different issue - it is a red herring.

Will they answer this simple question: do they think that these side deals that negotiate away Yukon control - take it away forever - are a good thing or a bad thing?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

The side deal that was identical to the one that he came into possession of was presented to the department prior to April 1, 1992, and led to the deliberate policy decision to not pierce the corporate veil and to allow the practice to continue. That was a decision made by the previous government.

Mr. Harding:

The Minister is absolutely dead wrong. He is trying to cover everything up and is doing a very ineffective job of it. The Minister said yesterday, in an interview with the Yukon News, that he did not think that the 51-percent ownership and control clause contained in the Wildlife Act should be used in the Yukon. He wants to open the door to allow anybody to buy up all of the Yukon Territory outfitting concessions. This is a new idea that we do not support, and we do not support side deals.

Will the Minister of Justice now tell us whether or not he is going to act to investigate whether or not these side deals exist so we can find out if there is really Yukon ownership and control in the Yukon of Yukon outfitting territories?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

It is pathetic. I did not say - even in the newspaper article - what the Member opposite alleges that I said.

My personal opinion, not one of the government, is that I do not have a problem with Canadians owning outfitting areas in Canada. I feel that we currently have a situation where a person who operates and holds a concession has to be a Yukon resident. That is the situation right now.

The shareholder agreements regarding a corporation that is allowed to only hold the yearly certificate is a body of very little value. The value is in the concession that is held by the Yukon resident.

Question re: Outfitting territories, foreign ownership

Mr. Harding:

Now we get the truth from the Minister. He wants to open up all outfitting territories to anyone in the country. Under his new policy, a person who lives in Montreal or Newfoundland could conceivably own 100 percent of all the outfitting concessions in this territory. I heard the president of the Yukon Outfitters Association on the radio this morning; he said he believes the laws saying that 51 percent ownership and control of outfitting territories by Yukon residents should be upheld. Does the Minister intend to ask Yukoners if they agree with that? - because we do.

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

The law under section 89 is that a Yukon resident has to hold the concession. That is the law. That is what the value is. The value of the outfitting area is the concession. We go around and around and around about a company that is entitled to have the yearly certificate to hunt there, and whether or not the owner of the concession has an option to purchase shares or an option about voting rights or whatever has much bearing on the situation. The answer is that it does not have much bearing on the situation.

When they were in power, they knew that the individual they have been naming in this House time after time after time had purchased the three areas in question. They were approached by Mr. Neufeld with regard to him operating one of the areas. They were approached by another of the outfitters with the same blank agreements that he suddenly feels is new evidence. The government decided, after getting legal opinions, to proceed and allow it to go.

Mr. Harding:

We have been consistently refused answers to questions regarding side deals involving Members of the Yukon Party Cabinet. We have been told by the government that it does not support 51-percent ownership of Yukon outfitting territories. When they are cornered and their feet are put to the fire, they say they do support it. We cannot get to the answer on this. The Minister of Justice has more positions than a yogi instructor.

Will he be bringing in new laws to change the Wildlife Act to reflect his new position that he does not want Yukon ownership of outfitting territories?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

First of all, I would like to know from the Member, is it their position that they want us to change their policy, which was to allow the three outfitters with the agreements - which they were aware of at the time - to continue to operate in the Yukon as they have been - since they allowed it?

Mr. Harding:

The Minister has not produced any concrete evidence to substantiate that. We have produced for them proof that these agreements with Yukon residents are being backed up by backroom side deals, which negotiate away ownership and control for Yukon residents. They refuse to do anything about it. They have been given a document dated April 30, 1993, to give some evidence that that is happening. But now, with their feet to the fire, they are saying they do not agree with Yukon ownership any more. Sometimes - it depends on which answer they feel like giving.

I ask him again: is he planning to bring in new laws to support his new position that Yukoners should not own 51 percent of all outfitting concessions?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

Let me put a question to the side opposite. If there is documentation in existence, which shows that these issues were put to Cabinet Members and signed off by the previous Minister, would they consent to it being tabled in the House?

Some Hon. Member:

(Inaudible)

Speaker:

Order. Please allow the Member for Riverdale South to ask her question.

Question re: Social assistance reform

Mrs. Firth:

I do not even know which question to ask, there are so many. I think I will take a safe one. Instead of going the outfitting route, I will give the Minister a break and take him back to social assistance.

In the Minister's announcement today about looking at reducing the costs of social assistance, I would like to say at the outset that I do support the concept. I support the idea of looking at further education, self-sufficiency and the other honourable things the Minister referred to in his statement. What I am concerned about with this government and its track record is how the people who are involved in these changes and reforms are going to be treated.

I understand, from the Minister's announcement, that this program is going to be mandatory. What I would like to ask the Minister is this: what happens if people on social assistance do not agree to participate in the Minister's new reform initiative? Are they just going to be cut off social assistance? How is this whole process going to work?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

It will take me a second to gather my thoughts. I am so dumbfounded and basking in the glow right now of being called honourable by that Member. If I am able to gather myself together, I will attempt to answer the question.

Page Number 2659

With respect to people being required to take training or look for employment, they would be treated in the same manner as other people who are on social assistance are treated now, which is that they must look for work and show evidence, which is usually a list for employers to sign, or take training, or face the probability of losing the payment.

Mrs. Firth:

Just so the Minister does not think I have had a change of heart, I was referring to the initiatives as being honourable. I do not believe I referred specifically to the Member as being honourable. I would not want to overstate myself. I would not refer to him in a dishonourable way, either, just so we keep everything on a level field.

So, the Minister is saying that if clients who are recipients of the social assistance program do not want to participate in learning how to become more self-sufficient or getting some extra skills training so they can get a job, there will be a threat of their losing the benefit.

How is that whole process going to take place? How long are they going to be given to look at voluntary participation? What kind of services are going to be provided to them?

My concern is that the person is not called in and told that if they do not participate they are off social assistance and must find their own way in life. Does the Minister have a plan in place about how this is going to proceed? Can he give us some policy to reassure people that the recipients are going to at least be treated in a fair way?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

I know how the baby felt when I took the candy away from it - now that I am not honourable any more.

Really, the situation is one where, currently, if one is on social assistance and not under the single-parent policy, and that person is not looking for work or seeking training, then the sanction is to withhold the social assistance payments. However, there is a hardship policy and, of course, that would intervene and would, as I understand it, provide the basics of life in any event. In other words, we cannot simply have people starve to death because they do not qualify for some reason.

Mrs. Firth:

I have some concerns about this initiative to provide a hostel for shelter assistance to transients, but I can discuss that with the Minister when we get into the budget debate.

The last question I think should be asked, and there has been no mention made of it today, concerns the expected $10.9 million we are going to be spending on social assistance with the Minister's new initiatives. How much money is the government planning to save through these new reforms?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

The anticipated net saving is about $1,040,000 per year, but a lot of this has been factored into the budget mains - the estimates that we will be debating.

Question re: Immigration policy

Mr. Penikett:

The Minister is looking a little fragile today, so maybe I can give him an easy question.

The other day, I asked him about the problems that two of his constituents are having with the Department of Immigration, and that department's policies that prohibit same-sex partner sponsorships of immigration.

As a representative of the Government of Yukon, or as an MLA, has the Minister taken any steps to inform the Minister of Immigration of the law in this territory and, therefore, I am sure, the policy of this government, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

I have not but, if the hon. Member opposite wishes to have me join him with respect to that type of representation, I would be interested in supporting that representation.

Mr. Penikett:

I have already made representation. The other day, when I asked the Minister if he would make representation as the Minister of Justice, he said that he would have to inquire into the appropriateness of doing so. Has he now made those inquiries and concluded that it would be appropriate for him to support his constituents in this matter?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

There are two issues here. One has to do with the issue pertaining to the law of the Yukon, and of there not being that type of discrimination. I have no problem in making that point. I would appreciate receiving a copy of the Member's correspondence, so I can do something in that regard.

With respect to the issue, as Minister, of supporting someone on the issue of character reference, and that sort of thing - no matter what it is - before a tribunal, I do not think that is appropriate in any circumstance.

Mr. Penikett:

Let me ask the Minister a very specific question. Is he prepared, as a representative of the Government of the Yukon, to write directly to the Minister of Immigration, joining the representation that others have made about the perception of discrimination, particularly in light of the new policy announcements just made by the national governing party in the last few days?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

I have no problem making that type of representation. I hope - and I think he does - that the Honorable Member understands where I have to draw the line, and that is that I cannot get into the substantive issue of the character or work ethics, et cetera, of people involved before the tribunals.

Speaker:

The time for Question Period has now elapsed. We will proceed with 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:

I has been moved by the Acting Government House Leader that the Speaker do now leave the Chair and 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 wishes of the Members to take a brief recess?

Some Hon. Members:

Agreed.

Chair:

We will take a brief recess at this time.

Recess

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE -continued

Chair:

I will now call Committee of the Whole to order.

We are dealing with Bill No. 50.

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

Chair:

You guys get me mixed up sometimes.

There are some clauses that have been stood aside. Is there any debate on the five clauses?

On Clause 11 - previously stood over

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

During the line-by-line debate the other day on clause 11, I asked that certain amendments to the act be stood aside until I had consulted further with the Association of Yukon Communities and with municipalities. In light of the arguments from the Opposition Members, I wanted to have a further look at that. I have completed this consultation and I have decided to bring forward an amendment that will effect a requirement for cities, as defined by the Municipal Act, to continue to

Page Number 2660

provide a list of electors as provided for in the Municipal Act.

Amendment proposed

If I may, I move

THAT Bill No. 50, entitled An Act to Amend the Municipal Act (No. 2), be amended in Clause 11 at page 4 by: replacing the expression "municipality" where it appears in the English text of Section 50.1 with the expression "town or village".

Chair:

It has been moved by the Hon. Mr. Fisher

THAT Bill No. 50, entitled An Act to Amend the Municipal Act (No. 2), be amended in Clause 11 at page 4 by: replacing the expression "municipality" where it appears in the English text of Section 50.1 with the expression "town or village".

Ms. Moorcroft:

I appreciate the Minister coming forward with this amendment after some discussions, both in this House and outside it, on the concerns the Opposition had with the initial amendment.

Does the Minister think that any towns or villages will take advantage of the provisions of this act to dispense with the requirement of a list of electors?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I have not been told that specifically, but I strongly suspect that the smaller ones will dispense with the requirement for a voter list.

As everyone is aware, there will be a municipal election this fall, and I suspect that at least some of them will try it for this election to see how it works - to do an analysis of voter awareness, voter turn-out, and that sort of thing. If it works well, then I expect they will keep it up. If it does not go well, they may very well go back to having a voter list. One of the good things about the act is the fact that they can do it either way, so I expect there will be some of them that will do it this fall.

Ms. Moorcroft:

I am not sure if anyone other than the City of Whitehorse wanted this amendment. The Minister has not indicated that is the case.

I know that the Minister says he strongly suspects that town or villages will decide to dispense with a requirement for a voter list, but will his department be either encouraging or discouraging towns and villages regarding this?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

The Member disappeared there for a minute; I wondered where she had gone.

I think that what the department will do is tell them how it can be done. The department does put out a booklet each election year that describes the procedures for an election. Both methods will be included in that booklet and the department will neither encourage, nor discourage, them from doing it. It is their choice. There has been a lot of debate at the AYC meetings about this. It was a unanimous decision by the AYC that they go forward with it, so they are requesting it. It is not that some have or have not requested it; they all have requested it.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Could the Minister provide me with a short version of what those arguments were in favour of the amendment?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

Similar to what I had stated the other day, there is a cost both in money and time to put out a voter list, and that is a concern from all municipalities. The smaller municipalities have said that they really do not feel that the voter list is of any value to them. In my own experience, I recall in Watson Lake that the voter list became a fairly popular list. In a small community like Watson Lake, there are no street addresses. Because it contained people's addresses - post office box numbers or general delivery - the voter list used to be stolen off the wall of the post office by people who wanted them for use in their own home. We used to replace these lists quite often.

The municipalities have argued that there is a cost and that it does not make awareness of the election any greater than not having it. An enumeration does make people aware that there is an election; however, it is usually done so far in advance of the election that people forget about it. Those are the general arguments that I have heard.

Ms. Moorcroft:

I will briefly itemize some of the arguments opposing the elimination of a voter list. The cost of an enumeration for the City of Whitehorse last time they held one was $17,000. Their annual budget is $44,073,784. I do not think that the cost factor has enough value to justify eliminating the voter list.

The Minister dismissed the objections of the Chief Electoral Officer because, "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." History is important, but what is significant about voter lists is not just the fact that they have been used throughout history, but with a voter list, you have orderly conduct of an election. The Minister just referred to voter lists being popular in Watson Lake because they had people's mailing addresses. One of the ways that you can ensure that elections are run well is by verifying people's addresses. If you had an election where everyone had to swear in at the polls, and then they come and give a box number, you do not know whether they live outside or inside of the city limits.

I was going to ask the Minister whether he anticipated trying to bring this forward again in another amendment to have the provision extend to municipalities, or if he is satisfied that there are legitimate arguments for voter lists.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

We certainly would not be bringing anything forward in the very near future. We will see how it is received and used in the election this fall. If if works very well and if the municipalities that do use it take the savings and use it for advertising and end up with a bigger turn-out, there very well may be some merit in it. We would consult with the Association of Yukon Communities further, two or three years from now. I cannot say that we will never bring it forward again, but we certainly will not bring it forward in this term of our mandate.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Could the Minister tell us what objections the Department of Justice raised to the initial amendment to eliminate the voter list?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

The Department of Justice seemed to share the same concerns the Member opposite expressed the other day, that it may have the effect of disenfranchising someone. That was their concern with the proposed change.

Ms. Moorcroft:

I would like to thank the Minister for bringing forward this amendment, which does address the concerns we had that a city - which, under the act, is defined as a municipality with populations over 2,500 - will not have the option of eliminating their voter list. I would have preferred that the amendment now before us - to have the elimination of voter lists only apply to villages and towns - only applied to villages. However, I am prepared to let this go forward.

Mr. Cable:

I would like to also get on the record as being supportive of the amendment. I have a question that does not bear directly on the bill, but it bears on the substance of the discussion we have had.

What is the Minister's position with respect to the preparation of voter lists for hamlets, both with respect to elections and to the formation of a hamlet?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I am going by memory here, as I do not have the portion of the act in front of me. My recollection is that the Executive Council Member sets up the process to be followed for hamlet elections. In the past, it has been set up very similar to a municipality, where they did have to post a list of electors, and so on. I would expect that we would again consult with the hamlet council and allow them to use the same process that is in the act. Either they could have a list of electors, or they may choose to

Page Number 2661

have registration instead, or just the sign-in at the polls.

Regarding the formation of a new hamlet, I would prefer to see an initial list of electors. However, again, that is a personal opinion, and we would consult with the people in the proposed hamlet area before we made a final decision. It would be my preference to see a list of electors for the first election.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Before we clear Clause 11, I would just like to confirm that the Minister has also prepared and brought in the necessary amendments for Clauses 27, 28, 29 and 30 to replace the word "municipality", where it appears in the English text, with the expression "town or village".

Chair:

Order please. I think maybe we should clear clause 11 first and then we will move on to the other clauses that are stood aside.

Does the amendment carry?

Clause 11 agreed to as amended

Chair:

Now we will move on to clause 27 through to clause 30. Is there any more debate on the clauses? We will deal with Clause 27 first.

On Clause 27 - previously stood over

Amendment proposed

Ms. Moorcroft:

I move that Bill No. 50, entitled An Act to Amend the Municipal Act (No. 2), be amended in Clause 27 at page 10, by: replacing the expression "municipality" where it appears in the English text of paragraph 79(a), with the expression "town or village".

Chair:

I would ask the Members to just be patient with the Chair. We are going to write this out.

It has been moved by Ms. Moorcroft

THAT Bill No. 50, entitled An Act to Amend the Municipal Act (No. 2), be amended in clause 27 at page 10 by: replacing the expression "municipality" where it appears in the English text of paragraph 79(a), with the expression "town or village".

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

We do not really need the amendment. We have changed clause 11, so the only municipality that can do it is a town or village. We do not need to repeat that in clauses 27 through 30.

Ms. Moorcroft:

I certainly recognize the point the Minister is making, that municipalities are defined in the Municipal Act and that clause 11, dispensing with the requirement for a list of electors, has now been amended so that it only applies to a town or a village and not to a city. However, I would like to also have a legal opinion on it to ensure that it does not mean that a city can dispense with the requirement for a list of electors.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

Rather than hold the bill up, waiting for a legal opinion, if the Member wants to change the clauses all the way through, it can be done, but it is redundant. If one reads clause 50.1, where it says that only towns and villages can change the process, then it would not matter. I would sooner see us leave it, but if the Member insists we could change it.

Ms. Moorcroft:

I would be satisfied if the Minister would just undertake to provide a legal opinion for me on it, and we can leave it at "municipality" throughout the clauses in question that we are still dealing with. If there is a problem, I will get back to the Minister.

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

That is agreed.

Chair:

Is there unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment?

All Hon. Members:

Agreed.

Amendment to Clause 27 withdrawn

Clause 27 agreed to

On Clause 28

Clause 28 agreed to

On Clause 29

Clause 29 agreed to

On Clause 30

Clause 30 agreed to

On Title

Title agreed to

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

Mr. Chair, I move that you report Bill No. 50, entitled An Act to Amend the Municipal Act (No. 2), out of Committee with amendment.

Motion agreed to

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

Department of Renewable Resources - continued

Chair:

We will move on to Bill No. 15, entitled Second Appropriation Act, 1994-95. We are on the Department of Renewable Resources.

Mr. Harding:

I have a lot of questions for Renewable Resources general debate. I intend to get to the bottom of the issue that we were discussing today in Question Period - from a Renewable Resources' point of view. I hope it does not take too long, but I certainly want to make sure that we are clear about the position of this government.

I would like to know what the position of the Yukon Party is regarding section 89 of the Wildlife Act, concerning certificates, which states that 51-percent ownership must be held by a Yukon natural resident. Is it their position still that this is the law and will be enforced, or is it not?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

Yes.

Mr. Harding:

Let me read the story from yesterday's newspaper. It reads, "Outside the Legislature, Phelps was more forthcoming with reporters. He says even if there are Yukoners acting as fronts for people, like Mayr-Melnhof, he is not sure it is a bad thing. The Wildlife Act says that the concessions have to be owned by Yukoners, but Phelps says that it does not say there cannot be side deals that give Canadians overall control. From a policy perspective, it is something that the government will probably discuss. From where I sit, as an individual Minister, I do not think it is a big issue."

I want to ask the Minister of Renewable Resources if he agrees with side deals that negotiate away section 89 and the certificate provisions of the Wildlife Act?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

It has not been negotiated away.

Let me try to explain it this way, because there is certainly something wrong with the way we are all thinking here. I do not understand it.

Rogue River Outfitters, which the Member opposite is talking about, was originally owned by Mr. Drinnan. He then transferred the certificate to Mr. Neufeld. Mr. Neufeld then transferred the certificate to Mr. Hanna. All three of those gentleman are Yukon residents. They always have been. There was no indication that the concession was transferred to someone living outside of the Yukon at all.

I have tried and tried to understand what the Member opposite is getting at, but I cannot seem to get it through my head. That is the way, quite frankly, that government - I hate to go back and say the former government - okayed the same agreements as we did.

The side opposite keeps referring to a 1993 agreement. It is not true that it started with an agreement in 1993; the concession was transferred long before 1993, with only one transfer taking place in 1993, and that was the third transfer of the same concession.

Mr. Harding:

The Minister is making arguments of convenience. He could sure as heck see what I was getting at when I debated this with him on May 6 and on June 3. I have read what he said in Hansard. He should know that he agreed with me that there was a problem.

Page Number 2662

The Minister said that he wanted to see 51-percent ownership. We have given him, right in his hands, the documents that show that there are trust declarations for concession licences that could be being signed in this territory. Concession licences that are property of the Yukon Territory may be having trust declarations signed that cause the person holding them - at least in the trust declaration, if it is carried through as intended - to transfer the obligation and the legal interest held by the person who the government gave the concession licence to.

I will ask the Minister this: will he table his documents, on the record? Let us find out what they have here, because I want to get to the bottom of this. I really do not think it matters anyway, but I want to get to the bottom of this, as a new Member of this Legislature. So, let us table this and find out if the previous Minister was handed the document they are claiming he was handed - the document that shows that there could be evidence that these agreements are being signed behind closed doors. Can he table it?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

I cannot table those unless the Opposition agrees to it.

Mr. Harding:

The Opposition agrees.

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

It has to be the former Cabinet.

Mr. McDonald:

As a former Cabinet Member, I would agree to have that tabled.

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

Okay, I will table them. We do not have them here right now.

Mr. Harding:

We will get on with the debate.

The Minister knows full well what the problem is here. I am amazed at what he is saying right now. What he told me a year ago, and just last week, was that we had to have 51-percent ownership by Yukoners. I know they are being managed by Yukoners, but that is not the point. The law says one thing, and agreements are being signed for trust declarations of licences given by the Yukon Territory. We have side agreements for share provisions, option provisions, and control provisions that the Ministry is not privy to - not clearly. I think that is wrong, and I think there are a lot of Yukoners who think that is wrong, too. Why does the Minister think that these side deals are okay? The law does not say "managed", it says "controlled and owned", by Yukoners.

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

The certificates and the concessions are the things that are important, and they are issued to Canadians. I would like to read out a legal opinion from British Columbia, in which the situation is much the same as has happened here. "The plaintiff for German citizens and residents who had purchased a guiding and outfitting business in northern British Columbia... Part of the agreement purported to transfer to the plaintiffs a trapping licence and registered trapline. The plaintiff hired the defendant, and it was agreed that he would hold the licence and registration as their nominee, and in trust for their benefit. Both parties knew that the Wildlife Act prohibited non-Canadian residents or citizens from being licensed or registered but believed the plaintiff could be a beneficial owner because wildlife officials were aware of the arrangement. When the defendant's employment was terminated by the plaintiff, he refused to transfer the licence. The plaintiff brought an action for declaration, and the action was dismissed."

I will table this, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Harding:

I will look into that but, on the face of it, it hardly sounds like an analogous situation, given the Wildlife Act of the Yukon Territory.

We operate under different laws from British Columbia. The Ministers have established that. They tabled some very brief and inconclusive but, nonetheless, indicative documents of what is going on in some jurisdictions in Canada. It is important to point out that the Yukon has different rules in law that have not been challenged. That is the first point.

The second point is that nobody is preventing this person, Mr. Mayr-Melnhof, from earning a living. He can have legal interests, if the landed immigrant definition is the same as a Canadian citizen, in 49 percent of as many territories as he wants, by our laws that stand right now. The problem is when he goes further and wants 100 percent. You can have landed immigrant investment, if you accept the definition for which they are now saying they have legal justification. If you accept that, then he can have 49 percent in as many territories as he wants. However, when he signs a side agreement to take away, in law, through confidential agreements, the other 51 percent, so that he owns 100 percent, then he is violating the intent of the law, and everybody knows that. Are we going to allow that to happen?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

I am rising, because the document just tabled is extremely important and pertinent. Under section 89, ownership of the concession is vested in - owned by - in each case, a Yukon resident, as the Minister has said.

If there is some kind of a trust document signed, that document will not stand up. There is no security in the non-resident investor that stands up with regard to the concession.

The Member opposite goes over and over again about the 49 percent in a company that holds the certificate to -

Some Hon. Member:

(Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

That is not the concession. The certificate is not worth very much money if you do not have the concession. With the certificate document, the letter of the law is being followed. The 51-percent owner is the person who owns the shares.

The fact is, as the law is very clear, a declaration of trust with regard to who owns the concession is not worth anything. It is not worth the paper it is written on.

Mr. Harding:

Funny, how the Minister of Justice throws these legal opinions around and produces very little to substantiate, always, what he claims to be is the case. But, when we say, "There is a problem here", like with the trust declaration, he says, "Aw, come on, guys. That is not going to stand up. He is taking a chance."

What the Minister should be saying is, "Listen, this is a serious issue. People are trying to get around the spirit of the law by signing trust declarations for outfitting concessions. We had better investigate this. We had better find out what is happening. Now." That is what the Minister of Justice should be saying. I think people in the Yukon would want him to say that. But, now he is saying, "Let us take a chance." I just do not think that is right.

He does not have a clue what he is talking about when it comes to the certificates and the concessions. The concession has to be a person who is a resident - makes his home here, habitually lives here and is a Canadian citizen. Or, if one accepts the definition that they say we used, and they use, he could be a landed immigrant.

He then goes on to say if the certificate is issued to a corporation -

Some Hon. Member:

(Inaudible)

Mr. Harding:

The Minister is right. If a concession holder wants, through a corporation, to get a certificate, then the concession holder must own 51 percent of they voting shares. Now, we have signed agreements that say the do not own the concession licence. They have an option for the 51 shares, that say the person can buy them back for one dollar at any time. They have an agreement in there that shares must be voted accordingly. Now, if these agreements exist, there is no 51-percent ownership by a Yukoner. Why is the government, with this evidence, letting it happen?

Page Number 2663

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

Let me try to explain. I am getting really frustrated with this, because I just do not understand what the point is.

Number one, the concession and the certificate belong to the Yukon resident. If that individual took that over, it is up to the Yukon government to re-issue those things - and they would not do it because he is not a Yukon resident. To me, it is very plain. He could take the whole thing over but he would not have a concession and he would not be able to get a certificate, because the Yukon government would make that decision by the laws that the Opposition Members followed and I follow.

Mr. Harding:

Today, the Minister of Justice said he does not care if there is a Yukon resident involved in the concession or certificate at all. That is what he said. He said that yesterday, too. The "me-too" Member for Klondike. We hear him in the back bench. He should not say anything. He was so embarrassing yesterday in the debate - my goodness. He was embarrassing - he had everyone on the whole bloody side of this House laughing their heads off on the way out the door and most of the Members on that side, too. I know they went over to console him after, but good luck.

Chair:

Order. Mr. Harding.

Mr. Harding:

Today, the Minister said on the radio that his personal opinion was that he does not care if there are side agreements. He does not care if there are back-door agreements that negotiate away Yukon ownership and control. As far as he is concerned, anyone who lives anywhere can be in 100 percent ownership.

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

(Inaudible)

Mr. Harding:

The Minister is absolutely wrong about it, as he echoes over there. But he has said that, and that is a major policy shift from the previous government. We will wait to see those documents. We will analyze them and see what the Minister is talking about. We have asked him to table them and we are looking forward to receiving them.

The Minister is giving some cockamamy argument now that this has not been going on for some time - that somehow there would be some trigger in the government that would stop this. Yet, it has been flipped. The 51 percent common shares have been flipped and flipped and flipped. Obviously what is happening is that new people are signing over the concession licences. New people are taking over 51 percent, but how do they know there are not these side shareholder agreements for the trust declaration and the share structures?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

All I can come back to is that the certificate and the concession belong to the Yukon government and the Yukon government will not issue that to anyone who is not a bona fide Yukon resident. I cannot make what I am trying to say any plainer. I can understand what he is saying. They could buy the whole thing - buy those outfitters out - but they could not operate that concession or get a certificate because the law would not allow it. I cannot understand why the Member cannot see that.

Mr. Harding:

It is very simple. The law wants the Yukon resident to own and control. What we have here is a situation where the appearance of control is established because of the side agreement. So, yes, the manager lives in the Yukon Territory. Yes, that is one part of the law, but the person holding the shares through the intent of the act is to have control. They are supposed to be the owners of 51 percent, so the certificate continues to be granted because the people do live in the Yukon who own 51 percent, but they do not control it. Their shares have to be voted another way by someone who does not live here, so they do not control it.

Can the Minister not see that? Why can he not see that?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

The law says that they must be 51-percent owned. The concessions are issued by the Department of Renewable Resources, as is the certificate. They are the only ones that can do it. It does not matter what kind of an agreement they have over there, the law states one thing; all we can do is follow it.

I cannot see the problem. To me, it is plain. I do not understand what all this ruckus is about.

Mr. Harding:

The Minister just hit the nail right on the head: the law says that the concession must be 51-percent owned by a Yukon resident. The side agreements say that the Yukon resident does not really own the concession. However, because the department does not have these documents, as they are not filed with them since they are under a business corporation shareholder agreement that is confidential at present, the department does not know that. It that not a problem?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

No, it is not a problem. We have done what the letter of the law requires. We issued the certificate and the concession to Yukon people. They stated that they had 51 percent of it. That is what the law requires and that is what the department did.

Mr. Harding:

The Yukon residents said to the department that they had 51 percent? Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

Yes, that is correct.

Mr. Harding:

The Minister just said that that is correct, that the residents owned 51 percent.

When they got the last certificate renewals for these three territories, did they make any mention of side agreements that existed in any of them?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

No, they did not. We cannot ask them that. We cannot go to every business that has shareholders, snooping around and asking them this and that. Is that what we should do?

While I am up here, I would like to ask why Mr. Wiens was brought in as a manager from Alberta, had managed an outfit under that government - if the Member wants to start slinging mud.

Mr. Harding:

The outfitting business is not every business. We have a Wildlife Act that sets out criteria for Yukon ownership. I would like to make that point perfectly clear. This is a business that utilizes scarce - and getting scarcer - public resources. It has ramifications when we try to make resource management policy in this territory among residents, First Nations and outfitters. There are going to be problems. We have to have some control over this scarce resource. When there is evidence that people have violated the spirit of the Wildlife Act, then yes, you ask them if they have side shareholder agreements that do just that. Is that not correct?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

So far, we do not have the evidence.

I will also explain something else to the Member. Right now we are trying throughout the whole Yukon to get a quota system so that First Nations, residents hunters and outfitters can all share under our quota system with the First Nations receiving, in the case of moose and caribou, a guaranteed 75-percent harvest. We are working on that system now and doing our best.

I also said that when the umbrella final agreement becomes legislation, the whole law will have to be changed and we are starting work on that. I can go no further.

Mr. Harding:

When you have evidence -

Some Hon. Member:

(Inaudible)

Mr. Harding:

The Minister says he has none. Well, what does he have? What did I give him? It was a draft document for discussion setting the parameters of an agreement presented to a Yukon resident to establish a front - what the heck was it if it was not that?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

I did not even see a Yukon resident's name on it; the names were blanked out by someone.

Page Number 2664

Mr. Harding:

We are starting to see just how far the Members opposite will go to keep this under wraps. It does not matter what the name was, it was the intent of the agreement. It was signed by a lawyer on behalf of his client, Mr. Mayr-Melnhof, and it was presented to a Yukoner for discussion of an agreement.

One could only assume that the Yukoner could have signed the agreement, and if it had been signed, the intent of the Wildlife Act has been violated. Does the Minister not agree with that?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

We have gone over this and over this. I have said that I am not going to get into a legal argument. I am not a lawyer. The Member continues to come back with the same questions and he continues to twist words. I have no more to say on this.

Mr. Harding:

It is going to be a long afternoon, because I am going to keep asking and I am going to get to the bottom of this, because the Members opposite will not call a public inquiry. They say they have no evidence. When I tell them they have evidence, they say they are not going to get into a legal argument. Those are totally arguments of convenience.

My goodness, last year the Minister said to me "As long as he is a Canadian citizen, we cannot stop them. I did not make those laws. I have much the same problem with it as the Member. I also have a problem with one person being able to own two or three outfits. It is the right of any Canadian or anyone who lives in Canada to do these things. They can only own 49 percent here, we do have that." But we are trying to prove to you that they do not have 49 percent; they have 100 percent.

Will the Minister investigate this on the evidence that we have put before him?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

I have said time and time again that we are in the process of getting ready to review it. As soon as the umbrella final agreement is signed, we will review it and be bringing it back to the House. In all probability, that situation will be reviewed.

Mr. Harding:

I do not want to go on another wild goose chase like we went on with the conflict-of-interest legislation and the employment standards legislation. I am not going to wait for another review, so hear that loud and clear. I am not going to go for that deke.

This is an issue we have presented to this government. We have given the best evidence available to us. We know it is not conclusive. We freely admit that, but it does raise serious questions. I am shocked at the attitude of the Members opposite and their attempt to cover this up.

The Government Leader stood up in this Legislature and said he did not know what the Member for Faro was getting worried about; when he was involved in the sale with Mr. Mayr-Melnof and his son-in-law, everything was above-board; they met with the game branch.

When I asked him if he had shown the game branch the side agreements, if there were any - I asked him if there were any that existed, or if he knew of any - four times he refused to answer that question.

I smell a rat. Nobody is doing anything to discredit this government. They are discrediting themselves. This does not have to be a huge issue. I know there are people in the outfitting industry, to whom I have talked, who do not like what is going on here. They do not want to touch it because, when the papers and the media get wind of this, it looks bad for the whole industry, and that is a shame. The vast majority of outfitters follow the letter and the spirit of the law.

This person - landed immigrant, foreign resident, I am not sure. We got the documents yesterday, and we are still trying to analyze them. They are so blurry, you cannot even read them. The landed immigrant status is dated 1991. A lot of this stuff has gone on since then. We do not know, with the Austrian addresses on the updated share registry, if he is still a landed immigrant or not. We cannot get that information. The government could, but we cannot.

We are Inspector Clouseau investigators. We have no other choice. We have to stumble around, trying to find things. Every now and then, we do find something, like the documents we gave to the Members opposite, and they say they are nothing. They refuse to answer questions about side agreements, after they were first introduced into the legislative debate.

I abhor the behaviour. The Minister of Justice and I have a heart-to-heart debate, then he turns around and says I do not know what I am talking about, a year later, when he shared the same sentiments that I had. Who is playing politics here? Who is on the record? He is, and I am, but the record continues to change. It is a moving target.

After I asked the Government Leader about the side deals, the Minister of Justice went outside the Legislature and said that perhaps side deals are okay, to try to make it sound like it is retroactively all right to have these side deals in place.

I want to be clear for the record; I do not know they exist. I do not have conclusive proof. All I have is what I gave the Minister. I am shocked we cannot get to the bottom of this. By their definition, a person can have 49 percent, and perhaps by the previous government's definition - they granted the licence. I am looking forward to seeing this information.

Now, the whole issue has switched. We now have a government saying it might be wide open - to protect the Government Leader, who will not answer questions - and that we should not have Yukon residency requirements at all.

I will bet, if the Member polled Yukoners, there would be 70 percent, if not more, who would say we should have Yukon residency requirements because we want to ensure we have control here in the Yukon. We are establishing things like resource councils here. We want to have owners at the table of outfits. We do not want to have conglomerates from Toronto, or Montreal, or Newfoundland, or Austria maybe, saying what is going on in the territory. We want to have people who live here, who share the resource with us. It is about local control.

Now, we have a government, in its attempt to cover things up, saying that it is going to avoid local control because of some Charter challenge that it may or may not have. I am surprised, with all the debate that has gone on, we have only had two cases put before us. That is it. With all the legal resources the Members opposite have, they have put forth two cases of precedent. I would argue that the one about the Law Society is totally irrelevant. Why? Because 49 percent of three areas, by the definition of law, is being allowed to be covered by the Members opposite - to be invested in by Mr. Mayr-Melnhof. I hardly think we are preventing him from gaining a living.

Then there is the question of whether buying shares is considered to be gaining a living under the definition of the Charter. These arguments go on and on. I know the government has the Perry Mason wannabe over there, who gets up and answers all the questions for the Minister of Renewable Resources, but this is the Yukon Legislative Assembly. We do not have all the facts; we cannot put people under oath. We just hope they are honourable and answer questions, and a lot of people have not been doing that lately.

I am sure the First Nations people in this territory - because I have talked to a few of them - are very concerned about this and the implications on the umbrella final agreement - that the Justice Minister would somehow, when the Yukon Party feet are put to the fire, would say that they might get a challenge to the Charter, so they are no longer going to have local Yukon residency requirements; if there are side deals that take that away, perhaps

Page Number 2665

that is not a bad thing.

That is what he said. That is what the news report said; some of it is not quoted, but that must have been the general drift of what he was going to say. He did say, from a policy perspective, that it was something the government would probably discuss. They had better discuss it, because they have not discussed it with Yukoners. When are they going to discuss this as policy? When are they going to discuss it with Yukoners?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

The policy has not changed. The department has done its best to investigate everybody. We have had four legal opinions on this situation, and nothing has changed, as far as we are concerned.

I also have to point out that I have already said we will be looking at it when we open up the umbrella final agreement. When it is signed, we will be looking at that clause, as well as all the others. Now, what else I can say I do not know.

However, I find it very strange that, when we sat on that side and asked for a public inquiry when millions and millions of dollars were spent, we could not get it. Now, we are going over a document that one person has signed, the other one is blanked out, and the Opposition wants the taxpayers of the Yukon to legislate to spend millions of dollars. I find that very strange.

Mr. Harding:

The Minister wants to deflect the argument to the cost of a public inquiry. What different proposals are they going to put forth to this House to investigate this matter - to find out if there are side shareholder agreements? What less expensive ways can we do it?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

If we work on the legislation, we will not be investigating the legislation, we will be trying to introduce better legislation. We would also be going to the people with the proposed legislation.

Mr. Harding:

We have heard this legislation red herring before. We have seen it with conflict of interest: we have seen it with employment standards. There are about five things - the Heritage Act - the list goes on and on about legislation this government intends to bring in each session. Then it is the next session, and the next.

There are problems out there right now. The concerns are out there right now. The Government Leader is not answering questions right now. Let us find out what the real story is right now.

Outfitting is not just any business. Outfitting cuts to the core of what I believe Yukoners care about: local control of a scarce public resource. They had to feel that way. Otherwise the Conservative government, in 1981, would not have brought forward the provisions that a certificate holder must have to own and control 51 percent of the shares and be the concession holder.

Now, the government - dangerously - is saying that they are going to open up the doors. We cannot be sure, from one question to the next, what the policy of this government is. All we know is that they will not answer questions and they refuse to investigate.

I would like to ask the Minister if he can propose, in the next little while, a way to thoroughly investigate what is happening with side shareholder agreements that clear away the spirit and the intent of the Wildlife Act. Can he suggest a quicker, more efficient and less expensive way than a public inquiry to investigate this matter? We are prepared to listen to options.

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

I cannot possibly answer that. I am not sure we can even get all this information from a private company. That is a legal question, and I cannot get into a legal argument about it.

Mr. Harding:

Yes, but the Minister can sure stand up in Question Period and say that he has investigated this thoroughly. He said that to me.

However, he says that the department, which can issue concession licences and certificates, cannot investigate whether or not there are side shareholder agreements? With all due respect, that is poppycock. He has powers, under the Wildlife Act, to immediately send this to a board for review. Pending that, he has the power to revoke and suspend concession certificates if he feels it is in the public interest. If they do not provide these shareholder agreements, the Minister can stand up and say that he has some evidence that there may be something going on here that violates the spirit of the act. He can tell them he wants to see what is going on behind closed doors with these agreements. If they do not provide it, then I believe it is in the public interest of Yukoners' resources to not allow them to have concession licences and certificates.

Under the Wildlife Act, can the Minister not take any of the aforementioned actions?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

The department investigated just as they did during the former government. They came to the conclusion that the certificates and concessions were issued to Yukoners who held 51-percent interest.

Mr. Harding:

They were offered to Yukoners who they believed had 51 percent. What we have established, inconclusively, is that there are side deals that take away that 51 percent. The illusion of ownership is created. That is the problem, and it is a problem.

I had one woman anonymously phone me and ask, "What is the problem? They are managed by Yukoners." That is not the law. That is the problem. It is as simple as that. The law was established for a reason. This is a public resource. We want to have control over it.

Why on earth is the Yukon Party saying that a person who lives in any place anywhere in Canada cannot even live here and own 100 percent of our areas? Why?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

I guess I had better ask the question of that side why Mr. Wiens was brought in to manage an outfit where Mr. Babala held the certificate?

Mr. Harding:

I will go for the deke. I would assume that the previous government thought that whoever held the concession licence was a natural resident of the Yukon, who made his home in the Yukon and was habitually present in the Yukon as a Canadian citizen. I would assume that they thought the concession holder was just that.

Some Hon. Member:

(Inaudible)

Mr. Harding:

Exactly, but I would also assume that they thought that 51 percent of the issued share capital belonged to that Yukoner and that they had voting control over it and that they had ownership, and that they had no trust declaration signing away the concession licence.

What I provided to the Minister is some evidence that that is not the case - that there is a backroom deal. That is why the previous government may have done what the Minister alleges now. Is that fair?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

All we are doing is going around in circles. Number one, both governments acted in good faith. The department, in both cases, acted in good faith. I ask the Member to just bring me a document that has one name on it and say that the other one was signed. I did not see any signature. I ask the Member to bring the evidence to me - concrete evidence - and then we will look at it.

Mr. Penikett:

Let me try and come at this from a different direction for the Minister. First of all, even though I was absurdly misquoted by the Member for Klondike yesterday in saying that I had recommended that all outfitters be shut down, which is of course not what I said and anybody who was listening even slightly carefully would have known that was not what I said. I was predicting the consequences of a negative result from a Charter challenge - which is an entirely different subject.

As the Minister knows, I am not a big game hunter. I have never

Page Number 2666

been a big game outfitter. I have a spouse who worked in the industry at one time so I have declared my interest. I have no particular hostility to the industry, but I do believe passionately and strongly that this is an industry that should be owned and controlled by Yukon residents. That is why the nonsense of the Minister of Justice that our previous Cabinet considered some other arrangements is just crap. I can tell him for a fact, and I hope the Minister will accept my word for it as it is true: we never ever discussed such an option at the Cabinet table, ever.

Of course, I do not know what discussions may have gone on in the Department of Renewable Resources or what discussions may have been had by previous officials or previous Ministers, although we have taken the trouble to interview them on the subject - so, at some appropriate point, if we get challenged on this question, we may want to introduce the perspective of people who actually remember the events and who were part of them.

I want to come at it from this point. Let me explain to the Minister the issue as I see it from the point of view of constituents in my riding. For a long time - I admit going back to the time we were in government - there were rumours that there was something going on with respect to the outfitting industry in the Yukon: a new development. But what was happening was that, through some kind of transactions that nobody understood, there was someone - and I had never heard of the person until this legislative session - I mean, I did not know the name - somebody was moving in, trying to buy up Yukon outfits and getting control of them, who was not a resident.

In the last few months, the rumours, the complaints, the whispering on the street, has been that it was not just in the case of one outfit, but several, and that the 51-percent rule was being violated and that effective ownership and control of not one but several outfits was now in the hands of someone - notwithstanding what the Minister said yesterday - someone who does not live here, is not a Canadian citizen and is not a resident of the Yukon.

The Minister said yesterday that this person had a phone number and an address here. I looked in the phone book last night but could not find him - but I could be wrong.

I talked to people who worked for him who said that he would not meet the 183 day rule that the Minister of Justice wanted to impose on people for medicare yesterday. In fact, he is someone who visits every summer, to visit his businesses, but lives, for all intents and purposes, in Europe.

Why is that relevant? It is relevant for me because, some years ago, the people of the Yukon, through their representatives in this Legislature, decided that this was an industry that should be regulated by the government, and that the right to operate in this business should be restricted to people who are residents of this territory.

As the Minister knows, we have had lots of complaints in the last few years about the fact that not only are the outfits not owned by people who live here any more, but a lot of the people who work in it do not even live here.

I have had complaints about people coming up from the Peace River area, the Fort St. John area, and I have had one complaint about people being brought in from Europe on some kind of funny holiday deal to work in the outfits.

These are all things that bother Yukoners a great deal. I do not think they bother just long-term residents; they bother short-term residents as well, people who have come here for a different lifestyle and who place a great value on the wilderness and the wildlife.

I want to ask the Minister a question - not a legal question, as I am not competent to argue legal issues. I want to ask him a political question.

The Minister has just said that, in the face of all of this, he wants to go out and do some consultation and perhaps change the act. I just heard him say something like that a few minutes ago.

What bothers me is that we have the Minister of Justice saying that, in his opinion - I do not believe it is supported by the Supreme Court, or that it is an absolutely clear case in case law - the Charter of Rights and Freedoms became part of the Canadian Constitution in 1982, and it would make the kind of arrangements that we now have in the Wildlife Act ultra vires, or unconstitutional.

I say this with no personal offence, but I am not prepared to accept the Minister of Justice's word.

I would say, if I were in government and this proposition had ever been put to me while I was in government - and I hope that the Minister will accept my word for this - I would have said that we have to seriously look at taking on this Charter case, because I think that the people of the Yukon do not want the outfitting industry controlled by non-residents.

Maybe I am wrong about that, maybe the political judgment of the Minister of Justice is better than mine. That may be possible, but I am telling you honestly what my judgment is.

The Minister of Renewable Resources has the advice of the Minister of Justice that the Charter makes our current owner resident rules unconstitutional - he says that he thinks they are.

I want to ask the Minister this: in drafting law, which he is going to take out for consultation with the people, whose advice is he going to take? Is he going to take the advice of a lawyer who says the Charter requires one thing - a wide-open policy, in terms of ownership-of-outfits rules - or is he going to listen to the people of the Yukon who, I am absolutely certain, notwithstanding a legal opinion, will insist, if given a chance to express themselves, that the outfitting industry be controlled by residents of this territory?

Which way is the Minister going to go on that? If he is going to draft a new law, he has to start somewhere. He has to start with the presumption that one lawyer's opinion about the Charter is one thing, or with another presumption, which is that the people of the Yukon have a democratic right to express their will in law; namely, that this is one industry that should be controlled by residents and regulated by the government.

Which direction is the Minister going to go in? There is a fundamental conflict between the two ideas.

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

In the first place, I would like to correct a few things. There was legal advice from four other lawyers, not just the Minister of Justice. They all concluded the same thing. I must also point out, and I think the Leader of the Official Opposition will agree, that the Wildlife Act was made before the Charter of Rights came in.

Some Hon. Member:

(Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

Nevertheless, it was before. This has never been challenged; that is right. However, if this is challenged, and you ask which way I am going to go, if the people of the Yukon said it was all going to be Yukon residents, and the Charter of Rights and the federal government tell me that is illegal, then where do I stand?

People in Canada have to obey the laws, and the Charter of Rights, as I understand it - and I am not a lawyer - supersedes any other laws we have. Perhaps I am wrong.

There are people in lots of places in Canada who do not like one thing or another, but if the law states one thing, they do it.

If that is challenged, what about the other things that are happening up here that people are trying to protect - such as trapping? If it is challenged successfully and any Canadian can come in anywhere in Canada, then what happens? Do we lose all the things we have?

Mr. Penikett:

That is the point. The problem we have with

Page Number 2667

the Minister is this passive response - this roll-over-and-play-dead, because some lawyers say the Charter might apply. I am not a lawyer, but I do not think you can look at the Charter in isolation. We have passed in this Legislature, and we are about to see adopted in the Parliament of Canada, an umbrella final agreement and self-government agreements that say something quite different from that interpretation of the Charter. They say that the people who shall have first claim on the wildlife resources of this territory are aboriginal people. The people who should have second claim are the other residents. The third and last claim shall come to commercial users.

In fact, I have that wrong. The first claim in the treaty is for conservation, the second is aboriginal people, and so on.

That land claims agreement is about to become part of the Constitution of Canada, just as much as the Charter. I do not believe lawyers are going to say that one prevails over the other. People have talked about the Charter applying to the land claim. Well, the Charter applies to the agreements we have negotiated - the self-government agreements - in respect to the rights of women, the equality provisions, and things like that. It seems to me that if you look to the Supreme Court, you have to look at the Sparrow decision, and at other decisions. I have trouble believing that the Supreme Court is going to say, willy-nilly, that all the constitutional traditions about control of wildlife - and let us face it, we have been schizophrenic about this subject since the day the territory was created, because we have one section of the Yukon Act that says aboriginal people can fish for food on what is called unoccupied Crown land - aboriginal people have a different perspective about who owned it - and there is another section that says the territorial government can manage game. Obviously those two ideas were in conflict from day one. There are lots of conflicts; we have always had to live with that. I have a problem with the fact that every time we have a conflict, we run and hide. We collapse our cards. If we have a problem with big game hunting in the Charter - surely we have a problem, as the Minister says, with residency rules for trapping, residency rules for hunting, residency rules for fishing.

Why do we have the outfitting industry? We have the outfitting industry because this Legislature said that if someone from somewhere else wants to come and hunt here, they have to be guided by someone local. Consider the absurdity of a situation where somebody from Europe wants to come and hunt and they have to be guided by someone local - that is what the law says - but in fact, they are going to be guided by someone local, but who is employed by a European. Some people would say that is an absurd arrangement. The whole purpose of the thing - which was presumably to have somebody who had local knowledge or knew what they were doing out on the land, guiding some American or some European with a gun around the back woods of the Yukon - if there was any rationale to it at all - was the idea that we needed someone local who would be a guardian of the resource. In fact, as I understand it, the law used to specify that big game outfitters or guides were also game guardians.

Some people might think that is a bit like having Colonel Sanders look after the chickens, but that is the way it used to be.

The problem I have is that the government is not acting on behalf of the public interest - protecting the resource, protecting Yukon control, protecting Yukon ownership and protecting Yukon management of game guides - but seems to be collapsing its hand when evidence has been given that someone, in fact, has tried to construct a legal arrangement that gets around our law. The evidence of that is absolutely clear in the 1993 documents, even though that contract was not concluded. Since that person is in business elsewhere in the territory, it raises reasonable questions about what arrangements that person has with other outfitters in the territory.

When we have asked questions about that, reasonable questions - the citizens out on the street are all asking them - we are told by the government "we will not answer them". There is one of two reasons why they will not answer them. They may not know, which is fair enough, in which case, we, as Members of the Legislature, are arguing that they ought to find out.

The other possible, less salutary reason, is that they know, but they will not tell us, which leads inevitably, if one is a Member of the Legislature, to ask "why will they not?"

The Minister must understand this. He is sensitive to this. He expressed it yesterday - as a former outfitter, as a Member of the government which has another outfitter in the Cabinet. Obviously people are going to ask questions such as "What is going on here, why will they not look into it?"

Why will they not check it out? One of the Ministers said that we knew about this all the time. Talking to the executive assistant of the former Minister, he said yes, there were rumours, but there was absolutely no way to check them out. We now have more than rumours; we have a document - handed to the Minister - that is evidence that an attempt was made by someone and their lawyers here to get around the law.

I am not alleging a criminal act. I am not even alleging motives, as I said yesterday. It may be that they were doing that through an abundance of caution because their lawyers felt that the Charter was not clear and a decision might come down from the Minister that they were not entitled to own the outfit, and, therefore, should not be allowed to operate it, so they created a legal fiction that made it appear that someone else was the actual outfitter - the decision maker, manager and owner.

I am sure the Minister is a plain, commonsense person. If a person tried to construct some kind of an elaborate arrangement like that if he was involved in a real estate deal with them, or even if he was involved in trying to sell an outfit, he would certainly wonder what was going on, and why. Those are exactly the questions we are asking.

I am not making allegations. I have a lot of questions. The more we get stonewalled, the more questions I have. The point about politicians is that we are not supposed to be lawyers or legal experts. We are here to give voice to the views and feelings of our constituents.

We have a variety of views and a variety of voices in here. Our constituents have told us time and time again that they wanted Yukon control of this industry. The Minister is right; the last time we amended the Wildlife Act was, I think, in 1981 or 1982 - 1981, I gather. It was around that time, but it was at exactly the same time as the Charter was being written and I remember that process because it was one of the last times when the legislators really got their hands on a bill, much to the fury of the Department of Renewable Resources, as I recall, because they had made one draft and the legislators, none of whom are still Members, made 101 amendments to the department's draft. In doing that, they were quite clearly expressing the will of their constituents.

The Minister is right - the Charter came in shortly after. It has been tested. There have been a lot of court cases on the Charter, but I am profoundly nervous about a government that acts simply on the basis of a legal opinion that says the Charter will apply rather than asking what is the public interest, who should they be protecting, who should they be fighting for, even if it means fighting in court?

I do not recommend fighting in court - I have discovered that it is a hell of a way to spend a lot of money - but I am really nervous about us losing control of this industry, surrendering control of this industry, without a fight, to people who do not live here.

Page Number 2668

If we are going to give up this battle - the Minister commented on trapping or hunting or whatever - and if we are going to collapse on those fights, what is the point of having a territory? What is the point of having a community? What is the point of having a Legislature?

We are here not only to obey legal opinions from someone about a law we did not write. We are hear to listen to our constituents and try and frame the wishes of our community in law. Of course we want to behave constitutionally and obey the law, but I do not think this is a simple either/or type of proposition; it is not black or white. I think that, within the context of the Canadian Constitution, we want to do what our constituents want.

Our constituents do not want what those lawyers are saying; our constituents want something else. That is why I was asking the Minister, whether he is going to listen to the people as a democratic legislator should and try and find a way to do what we want, or are we going to give up and say, "I am sorry, the lawyers have told us something else, and there is no point in even trying"?

That is the problem and, if the Minister takes the attitude that he is not even going to try and fight this, is not even going to go to bat for Yukoners on this, that adds to the concern on the street about what is happening, and why it is happening.

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

We have already said and conceded that, when the umbrella final agreement is signed, we have to turn around and change the legislation. We have admitted that, and we have admitted that we will go to the people.

I have talked to people, and I have travelled around to quota meetings to a number of places, and it was quite apparent that outfitters are not hated quite as badly as some people would like to think - just a minute, let me finish; you had your say.

In fact, at one of the meetings, a couple of First Nations people stood up and stated that they did not want to get rid of the outfitters. They simply want a quota, they want to go under what the umbrella final agreement says, that 75 percent of the game harvests will be allocated to First Nations, as long as the game is up, and the outfitters will be on a quota system. That is what we have been trying to do. Whether we will succeed or not, I do not know, but I have listened to both sides. I have heard both sides of the argument, and I have never, in the years that I have lived in the Yukon, done anything to hurt any Yukon people against any other thing. A law happens to be in place, and the Department of Renewable Resources has done everything they can within that law, and that is the way it stands.

If the Member on the side opposite is so sure of the document he has, then why does he not get a legal opinion and bring it back to the Legislature?

Deputy Chair:

The time being 4:30 p.m., we will take a brief recess.

Mr. Harding:

It is not 4:30, but anyway -

Deputy Chair:

If Members what to continue -

Some Hon. Member:

(Inaudible)

Deputy Chair:

We will take a break.

Recess

Chair:

I would like to call the Committee of the Whole to order.

Is there any further debate?

Mr. Penikett:

The Minister made some interesting comments just now. Unfortunately, he did not answer my question.

I am really interested in what the Minister is going to do if we have the people of the Yukon wanting to go in one direction and the lawyers wanting to go in the other direction.

I am not at all clear yet on what the Minister or the department's view is on this Charter matter, or whether it is the view of the Minister or the department that a 51-percent rule is sustainable or whether no rule is sustainable. The more I think about it, as a commonsense case, if someone can own 49 percent of three different outfits, it is pretty hard to claim that they are being denied the right to earn an income just because they cannot have 51 percent. I want to know what the department's view is, even in the light of these court cases.

Can I put it in these plain English terms that the Minister likes? If I walked into the Minister's office, or Mr. McWilliam's office, tomorrow and said "I want to buy an outfit. I want to know what the rules are," what would I get told?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

They would simply be told, if they were not a Yukon resident, that they would have to go in partnership with someone who could control the concession.

I have a great deal of respect for the Leader of the Official Opposition sometimes, though not all the time. He is the same way with me; we are even on that.

Perhaps something is not right up here - that happens quite often - but can he not see that, when we control the concession, and the certificates are issued by the deputy minister and the Department of Renewable Resources, when someone from outside comes here, the certificate would not be issued in his name? He would have to have a partner who is a Yukoner with 51 percent of the shares. Why can people not understand that?

If that individual decided that he was going to take over all the shares, he still could not get the certificate or the concession, because only the government has the right to issue it. If the person does not have a Yukon resident with him, he is out.

I wonder what the document the Members opposite have is worth to a lawyer. I see a lawyer in the House smiling, and I know I am getting into the wrong business, but I really do wonder about that. The outsider would not get the area. The concession and certificate have to be in the name of a person who has 51 percent of the shares. He has to be a Yukon resident.

I do not understand why the Members cannot see that.

Mr. Penikett:

Apart from the fact that that is not what Mr. Phelps appears to be telling us, the whole point of the arrangement that has been tabled in the House for the Minister is that the person is not a partner; he is an employee.

The agreement says not that they are a partner, but that you do exactly what the outside gentleman tells you to do. You are under absolute instructions - it is not a partnership. This arrangement makes him an indentured servant of the outsider. He gets paid a salary; he must do exactly what he is told by the outsider, and there is no meaningful ownership or control by the person. What I do not understand is, when the Minister is faced with that arrangement, which is clearly not a partnership arrangement - it is clearly designed to get around the 51-percent rule - and I have never been Minister of Renewable Resources and I am not a lawyer - but if I saw that agreement, if it had come to light - we never saw that agreement or anything like it when we were in government, even though we heard rumours about them - I would have said, "Somebody is doing something pretty suspicious here." One of the best arguments against the Charter argument that is being made by the Minister of Justice seems to be that the lawyer for the Austrian gentleman believes that the case could easily go the other way. They are not going to court on the Charter. They are manufacturing an agreement that makes it look like there is a partnership, that makes it look like a Yukoner has control, that makes it look like the Yukoner is the person who really is running the outfit, that makes it look like the Yukoner is a proprietor - a partner, or manager - when the truth is that the Yukoner was simply a vassal - a servant - a flunky.

Some Hon. Member:

(Inaudible)

Mr. Penikett:

Vassal is good, especially in the European

Page Number 2669

context. I talked about cultural memory yesterday. A lot of people in this country did not like landed aristocracies, and did not like the idea of living in a world where some people who did not even live in the neighbourhood controlled huge estates. They controlled what happened to game - I know the Minister is saying he has control because of the concession and the certificate.

Also, it is not in the non-resident's name - assuming the gentleman is a foreign person - but that does not matter if the person whose name it is in is under a legal obligation to obey the instructions of someone else. That is not a partnership; it is not a business arrangement; it is indentured servitude. What bothers me about it is that it looks like a deliberate, flagrant effort to get around the law. That bothers me. I am troubled that it does not bother the Minister.

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

If they brought some definite evidence of something signed by the outfitters and a few others, then the whole thing would bother me. I find the Leader of the Official Opposition's statement very interesting when he said they had heard rumours about these things. Why did he not investigate it at that time before this whole thing started? Why, all of a sudden, does it fall on us?

I am asking simply, if they had heard rumours, why did they not investigate? All I got was rumours from the Member over there. I do not even know where he got that document.

Let me put a case in front of the Members. Supposing that individual, just the same as in that B.C. case, got up and told the Austrian to pack up and go, what could the Austrian do to get that concession? He has to get the certificate, and it has to be issued by Renewable Resources. I do not want to get too deep into the legal aspect because I do not know it, but the law states very plainly that it has to be a Yukon resident with 51 percent.

He mimics over there. Everybody keeps quiet when he talks. I wish the Member for Faro would keep quiet a little bit, too.

Mr. Penikett:

What do we do when we have rumours? I have talked to people who have said they tried to get the information. They asked the Department of Justice to look into it, and they were told, under the Access to Information Act, they were basically stonewalled. Nobody would volunteer the documents.

The fact is the first evidence that anybody on this side ever saw, a paper that suggested and gave us a real sense of what might be going on, was this side-deal document.

We have asked in the House, but we have not received an answer. We have asked a very simple question.

Let me ask the Minister now. Has the Minister asked the direct question of any of the people involved in these other outfits where there is foreign investment? Have they asked if there are any side deals? Have they asked for a statutory declaration on anything about the shareholder arrangements, or agreements, that are different from the claim on the face of it that there is 51 percent Yukon ownership? Have they even asked that question?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

No, I have not asked that question, because they are getting ready for the outfitting season, and I have been stalled in this Legislature for the last six or seven weeks. They do not all live around me in Whitehorse. In fact, I have not seen any of the outfitters for two weeks to a month. I had a phone call from one person on another matter, and that is all. I have not even had a phone call on this subject.

Mr. Penikett:

I know it is not the Minister's job to be an official, but let me ask him if he could find out from his deputy minister if any questions have been asked, with respect to the other outfitting areas where there is evidence of foreign investment, of the investor or the local resident who is purporting to be the majority shareholder by officials of the department, as to whether there are any side deals that put into doubt the validity of the claim of 51 percent local ownership?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

Our ability is just the same as the Opposition's was. We would be stonewalled by the Access to Information Act and everything else the same as the Opposition is. Come on.

Mr. Penikett:

That is why we have been asking for a public inquiry. I know one does not order a public inquiry on the basis of rumours. But, the House has been presented with documents that are clear evidence that a foreign investor and his lawyers tried to make a deal with a Yukon outfit to get around the law - the law that requires 51 percent local ownership. A non-resident tried to do that. Given that that same foreign company is involved in at least two other outfits that we know of, does the Minister not agree that a reasonable question for the department to ask is if there are any similar arrangements in operation, or were there any similar arrangements in operation, at the time of the sale of the other outfits in which this gentleman was involved? Is that not a reasonable question?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

As I said, we are looking at it under the umbrella final agreement and, as far as I am concerned, that is where it sits and that is where it is going to say. I am not going to have an inquiry on it all; we will look at it again in the department and through the department, but that is it.

Mr. Penikett:

Let me try to put the question this way - and again, it is not a legal argument. What would it take for the Minister to have a good, hard look at this - to make an inquiry or to order an investigation or something? Would it take evidence that the majority of the outfits in the Yukon may now be controlled by outside investors who are perhaps non-residents? At what moment will the Minister take this situation as being serious enough to warrant using the powers that he and the government have to get the facts?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

I have gone to quite a few outfitters' meetings, when they have their general meetings. There are 24 outfitters at them. Every one of them is a Yukoner; they do all the voting and everything else. I have never met the gentleman the Member is talking about and I am still not convinced that the document is completely illegal, and if the Member says it is, then produce the evidence. These outfitters are all Yukoners who I sit and talk with - all 24. I have never seen anybody else in that room at that time. Mind you, they sit many times when I am not there. I doubt anybody else goes in there and makes a decision. Knowing the outfitters and knowing the type of people they are, they will make their own decisions.

Mr. Penikett:

I think it is a wonderful thing that the Minister is on friendly relations with the 24 outfitters from the 24 areas, but what does the Minister think I should do, as a Member of the Legislature who is not an outfitter, has never been one and has never even been invited to one of their meetings, if I hear complaints from my constituents that some of those 24 outfitters are not outfitters in the sense in which the act intends, they are employees of some foreigner, and that the law, which we wrote, which said the area has to have majority control owned by Yukon residents, is being breached? What does the Minister think my duty ought to be in that case?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

He made the statement that some foreigner was an outfitter. If there was a foreigner there, he would not be allowed to even have it; he must be a Canadian citizen or a landed immigrant.

Mr. Penikett:

With respect, the Minister is deliberately misinterpreting my question.

In a room full of 24 outfitters, who are all supposed to be owners, operators, business people and proprietors or, at worst, partners, and constituents come to me and complain that outfitter X and Y are not owners or proprietors, but simply employees of someone who does not live here, under a structured share agreement

Page Number 2670

to get around the law, what does the Minister think my duty should be? Should I raise it in the Legislature? Should I ask questions or call for a public inquiry or just keep my mouth shut, which seems to be what the Members opposite want me to do?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

I would not have to worry about asking people to keep their mouths shut; I know that would not happen.

No, the Member should raise it. However, he should also, I hope, have enough faith in me that I am not crooked or a liar. I trust my department completely. I trust the four lawyers that give me advice. They know more than I do about legal matters. They say that there is no evidence that the areas can be taken over by a foreigner. Fifty one percent must be held by a Yukon resident. That is very simple - 51 percent is 51 percent - and it must be that way.

If outside shareholders, who are Canadians, put money into it, that is an investment. Does a Canadian not have a chance to have an investment? Are we going to say that a landed immigrant cannot invest in a hotel or in something else? If that is what they are saying, that is not the policy of this government.

Mr. Penikett:

We are not talking about hotels, motels, lodges, cars, trucks, boats or planes. We are talking about outfitters. We are talking about outfits, which is a form of a business, and which the law states must be controlled and owned by Yukon residents.

The Minister just said, a few minutes ago, that he understands that his department officials have had the same kind of frustration as officials did when we were in power, in terms of getting facts. A long time ago, I was told by a learned gentleman, who was advising me, that, when all else fails, believe the evidence of my eyes. If I see an arrangement where some local person has no capital, but is suddenly allegedly a partner of someone who is a multi-millionaire and all the capital has come from one source, I am going to be fairly suspicious that this is not really a partnership or an arrangement between equals. These are not two investors who put up similar amounts of money. This arrangement is something other than a partnership. It may be a contract or an employment situation, but it is not a business partnership.

If they see that, as many other Yukoners do, they are going to ask questions. What bothers me is that we have one Minister who says that side deals are all okay, that they are fine by him because, in his opinion as a lawyer, the Charter says the Yukon Wildlife Act does not affect it. It amazes me that we never had a ministerial statement by a Minister getting up and saying the Wildlife Act is a dead parrot, because the Charter makes some provisions of it ineffective. In fact, a year ago, the Minister himself was saying that he wanted to protect the ownership provisions but, now, the Minister of Renewable Resources is saying that he believes in the 51-percent rule, but he does not have the tools to find out if, in fact, there is 51-percent ownership and control. He just told us a few minutes ago that he is not prepared to take any steps to find out.

I asked this question before: how bad is this situation going to have to get before the Minister will look into it? I would think there is enough public concern out there that the Minister would at least want to clear the air. Why can we not get an affidavit from someone? Why can we not even ask for it when we are annually renewing certificates - an affidavit that the shareholding is as it is purported to be?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

As I said before, this will all be opened up when the umbrella final agreement is signed. It is quite apparent that the Members on the other side have a really strong opinion against not allowing other Canadians to have any shares or any investment in the Yukon, and I am sure they will speak up on it.

I am still going simply by what I am told. I am going to accept that, I believe in every person who tells me, and I am going to remain that way.

Mr. Harding:

The Official Opposition has never said that landed immigrants cannot conduct business according to the law in Canada - never. We have asked questions about the letter of the law and the Wildlife Act. A motel, or a travel lodge, or a tourist business, or some other business is not an outfitting concession. It is just not the same thing under the law. I do not believe it is philosophically the same thing because of the resource that is used.

The Minister says he is an honourable man, and I believe that. I asked the Government Leader questions, and he refused to answer them, after he first introduced himself into the debate and said that everything was okay as far as he knew in the sale. When I asked him about side deals and his knowledge of them, four times he refused to answer. He let the Minister of Justice go on a rant in Question Period to protect him.

Then the Minister of Justice went out of the Legislature and said side deals are okay, so we are making them retroactively okay.

Although I believe this is a red herring, it does not matter, although I believe it is the truth that the previous government never had the evidence in the hands of the Minister and the Cabinet, which they are claiming we do. I have asked them to table the Cabinet documents. I do not know where they are, or why we have not seen them. I want to see those documents. Regardless of whatever is in them, it should be pointed out that we want to get to the bottom of this matter.

I asked the previous Minister, and we had a researcher call him, whether he ever had the documents put in his hand that show the front established. He said no, there were rumours, and they could never get any concrete proof, or any even somewhat conclusive proof, to follow up on it. That is what he told me.

Anyway, that is all a ruse, because the issue is still there, no matter what happened, and it has to be dealt with. The Minister has produced a case that we have looked at, and we have some comments to make on it, but we hardly feel it is analogous to the situation.

The person in question was a German citizen. They claim this person is a landed immigrant. They say the side deals were ruled illegal, but I cannot understand why a government, knowing that someone was intentionally going out there and knowingly trying to violate the spirit of our law - 49 percent in three areas, and maybe 100 - would allow them to continue to be granted outfitter certificates on a yearly basis.

The Minister has the power under the Wildlife Act to refuse to grant certificates and concessions if he feels that it is in the public interest. He knows that.

He says the person holds 51 percent, but that is all they do. They hold 51 percent, they do not own it; they are not partners. We had one person phone the office who told us that one of the previous partners, whose name appears on the management agreement from the law firm of Anton, Campion for Mr. Mayr, was fired by Mr. Mayr. Now they have a new person at Rogue River. That is not a partner. How does a person who owns 49 percent fire someone who owns 51 percent of a company? Explain that to me.

How do they fire someone? How does the majority owner become fired by the minority owner, if the majority owner is really the owner? Why do lawyers go through legal gymnastics with these side agreements? If everything is above board they do not need to, according to the Members opposite in government, under the Wildlife Act. Why do they do it? They do it because they are not sure. The government should be doing everything in its power to ensure that people in the Yukon play fairly in this business. I know that most of the outfitters feel that way. I talked to one yesterday who is very upset because they know that this issue is big; they do not like it. They knew it was going to be a problem. There have been rumours - they had never seen the documents,

Page Number 2671

but now they have seen them. When they saw them, they said, "Holy Mackerel, we have a problem here - particularly in the declaration of the trust agreement with the concession licence. This is bad news. They should not be doing that. They should not have that. There should not even be an attempt to get it." They said that because it is bad for the industry. I know that they are not all involved, by any means.

I can tell him that we are not hung up on a public inquiry. We want some information, and we are not getting it from the Government Leader or from the people who are involved in the arrangements, because they are not telling us about side shareholder agreements.

This debate is going to go on for days and days, because I simply am not going to let it go. We will keep going over and over the same ground if we have to, believe me. I do not care. I am paid to be in here fighting for my constituents and for their concerns. As Renewable Resources critic for the Yukon, I am fighting for what Yukoners tell me that they are concerned about. I will stay in here - I do not care until when. We are going to go over and over this until we get some answers. It is not going to be good enough for the government to tell me that there will be some kind of legislation coming up in the next sitting. I have been down that road before.

I do not know if the CBC is listening, but there was a new story at 12:30 p.m. that said that the government proved yesterday - and I believe this is a side issue, but I want to make the point, because we have been raising questions about whether the person who owns these three interests is really a landed immigrant, and whether landed immigrant and Canadian citizen are the same thing. We are not sure. We have never seen the legal opinion. We were told by the government that it is the same for outfitting concessions, in that the previous government took that position. Well, they got their licences, so maybe that is the case.

Perhaps that is the case. I know that the previous government had no knowledge of the side agreements. They thought the whole 100 percent was owned.

What I want to say to the Minister is that the Inspector Clouseau research by the Inspector Clouseau Caucus got a book, called Immigration and Doing Business in Canada - "We phoned as many people as we could to try to get some information." The document that was tabled by the government yesterday was what they claimed was proof that the person is a landed immigrant. It was authenticated in 1991.

However, the document we got about doing business in Canada states that "Travel outside of Canada for business reasons is understood to be part of the businessperson's lifestyle. Short business trips abroad will not affect your permanent residence status. Immigrants should, however, be aware that if they do not live in Canada, they will lose their permanent residence status. Long absences from Canada may often indicate that a person actually lives somewhere other than Canada."

The up-to-date share registries in the last few years show his address as being in Austria. We do not know how much time is being spent here. All we have are people who work for his outfitting territories telling us that he comes here for a few months in the summer, goes to the areas - this is what they say, and there are a number of them, believe me - but that he does not live here. As far as being in Vancouver, that is the first any of these people heard of that. Having a Vancouver address and living there and having a Whitehorse address and living here are two different things.

I have a friend who is a landed immigrant who said he was under private investigation when there was some theory he was were not spending enough time in Vancouver, when he was originally from Seattle - there is a private eye watching him. There are some rigid requirements here.

That is a very small potatoes issue now. Since we started raising this issue, we now have the copy of the side-agreement evidence. This is something we have suspected for some time.

The ante is up again when the Minister of Justice states that he thinks that side deals are not a bad thing. The ante is up again when the Government Leader refuses to answer questions about side deals. The ante is up yet again when we suggest a public inquiry, or some form of indepth investigation, and the government says no. The ante is up again when the Minister of Renewable Resources says that he does not know what we are going on about. We have debated it in the Legislature. He knows exactly what we are talking about.

The pot is pretty full right now. It is time that Yukoners see some cards on the table.

The Minister tells us that he cannot look into what these corporations are doing. I say that is ridiculous. He is the one, every year, who is signing the certificates. He has powers under the act to say, "Listen, if you do not produce, I am going to send this to a board that is going to look at this and demand information. If you do not produce it, then I am going to say it is in the public interest not to provide you with this information." I guess then we will see if these side agreements hold up or not.

I think that the Minister should be demanding that things are all above board. If we want to have a debate about whether this gentleman, who is a non-Yukon resident - I do not know if it is Austria, Montreal or Vancouver, but he is a non-Yukon resident, and there is no dispute about that by anybody in this House - can own 100 percent or not, then let us have that debate, but let us be clear about what the facts are. The facts, as they have been presented to us, are that there is some evidence that he does own 100 percent of three territories and that he has employees, through management agreements, working for him who must do a number of things and take direction from him.

I read in the Yukon News a quote from an anonymous outfitter who used to be in one of these arrangements, and he was fired. The 49 percent shareholder fired the majority owner of the company - amazing.

We have to get to the bottom of this matter, and we will get to the bottom of this matter. I am going to talk to every Yukoner I can to see if they will help me get to the bottom of this matter. I know from talking to a lot of people out there on this issue that many of them do want to get the bottom of this matter.

If people want this person to be able to have 100 percent ownership of Yukon outfitting concessions - he has at least 49 percent of three now, we are sure of that, and maybe 100 percent with the side agreements - then I think they should have a chance to tell us.

Right now, we are not playing by the rules, as far as I am concerned. I am really startled that the Minister would not pursue the information that I gave to him, because it is signed by the firm of Anton, Campion, on behalf of this person, and it was put out to a Yukoner to establish an agreement relationship. It is for discussion only, but one would figure that the guy would not negotiate backward.

If the Yukoner said, "I will take that," then one would assume, in the normal process of negotiation, that Mr. Mayr-Melnhof would say "Okay, good, we have a deal. You sign a declaration of trust, you sign a share option for a dollar to me, 51 percent, any time I want it, and you vote your shares the way I want."

"We sign a management agreement. You get $2,500 per month, you get $1,000 for your house, you get to use a truck, and you get expenses paid that are related to the business. That is the deal."

"You get to go to Yukon Outfitter Association meetings, cast your vote, and you will be registered as the owner with the share

Page Number 2672

registry."

It is pretty shaky, on behalf of the government, to say, "We give the concessions, we hold the licences and the certificates and, therefore, we do not care about those agreements, based on that flimsy case law they gave us today." I do not think that is reassuring.

If we have evidence, or at least some partial evidence, which I think we do, that people have been trying to skirt the letter of the law - especially the Wildlife Act, given that we have a $1 million wolf kill going on in the territory right now - if there has ever been an argument for protecting our renewable resources, it is now - we have to go out and find out if that person is going around the letter of the law.

These Yukoners are not owners. I can understand where they are coming from, too. They want to get involved in the business. They cannot afford the $600,000 now. Since this person has gotten involved and bought three areas, the prices have escalated, because no longer is the real spirit of our Wildlife Act being upheld. It is too wide open now.

In some other jurisdictions, the prices have increased, but here we had some protection, where they had to have a Yukoner hold 51 percent, just through some arrangement - whether it was a loan - and be the real legitimate owner. I know a couple of outfitters who have some backers who are foreign investors, but these people have real solid equity ownership positions, and that is different. They have a loan they have to pay back over time.

It is important that we investigate this.

It is just not going to go away. I can assure the Minister of that. I want to tell him that we are not going to allow this to be skirted. We are going to keep coming back and coming back. The question of landed immigrant versus Canadian citizen is not going to work. Trying to say that we, as a government, did the same thing and had the same policy, that side agreements were okay, is not going to work. Because, quite frankly, it is irrelevant. The Minister now has the evidence that there are side agreements.

It is unfortunate that the people out there who are involved in this right now, if they do exist, have entered into this relationship. I am sure that they are upset with us for pursuing it. But, there are also a lot of people out there in the communities who are upset because it is happening.

I would ask the Minister, once again, if he would agree to an indepth investigation of some kind - it does not have to be a public inquiry - so we can get the truth, so we can put the people who were involved in the sales transactions and were involved in these share-structure agreements to tell us whether there are arrangements regarding their share structure and ownership and management duties that are not knowledge of the Ministery of Renewable Resources. Will he agree to do that?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

I would like to point out that to get the Cabinet documents of theirs, it apparently has to go to ECO. We have really stirred up a kettle of fish. It is in their hands now; I cannot tell the Member when we can get them.

As far as I am concerned, the department has done nothing wrong. We have done exactly the same as the Members' opposite government, and I do not think they did anything wrong either. Until some definite proof is laid at my door, I am quite prepared to leave it the way it is.

If and when the umbrella final agreement is settled - and I am hopeful it will be - the whole law will have to change, including the ones relating to wildlife. We certainly will be looking at all the issues.

Mr. McDonald:

I do not know what the Minister needs as proof to justify a more thorough investigation. Clearly, if all the documents that prove the case absolutely and completely were on the table right now, we would be asking for the Minister to revoke the licences and nothing but. In the absence of that absolute proof, and given the existence of some documents that suggest very strongly that there was some serious problem, we have to go the next step, which is to investigate further, rather than sit back and say that we need the total evidence. The only way to acquire that evidence, under the circumstances, is to investigate further. If the Ministers are not prepared to do that, then we are at loggerheads here.

I have some problems that I have to address. I have been listening to the debate here in the Legislature for the last few days, and I can honestly say to the Minister that I am completely and utterly confused as to what the government's position is with respect to the residency requirements under the Wildlife Act. In Question Period, we understand that there is a Charter of Rights and Freedoms concern, and that the residency rights requirements are not valid under the Wildlife Act. We further hear from the same speaker, during Question Period, once he leaves the Legislature, that not only are the residency requirements under the act invalid - or, as he says, probably invalid - but that the side deals that have been discussed in this Legislature may not, in fact, be such a bad thing. This was said by one Minister.

In Committee, the other Minister, who is responsible for the act, says that the Wildlife Act prevents non-residents from owning concessions. He says that he needs evidence of the side deals in order to do anything.

If there were such side deals, he would do something, so we have two incompatible positions. What I would like to do, if possible, is to hear from this Minister what the ultimate position is - what the true concerns are that are being expressed by the government. Does the Charter invalidate the residency requirements under the Wildlife Act or not, in the Minister's opinion.

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

According to the legal advice I have, yes.

Mr. McDonald:

So, the Member says that the Charter does apply, so consequently, the residency requirements under the act are invalid - is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

No, we are not saying that. We are saying that if it was challenged we would probably not win the case - that is the legal advice.

Mr. McDonald:

Are there other provisions under the Wildlife Act that have a residency requirement attached? Are they being enforced?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

Yes, all of the wildlife regulations are being enforced.

Mr. McDonald:

If they are being enforced, why is the Minister taking the position that the Charter has invalidated the residency requirements?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

The legal advice I got says that they probably would. I presume that would have to go to court. It would be up to someone to take it to court to prove that.

Mr. McDonald:

Would it not be appropriate under the circumstances for the Minister to protect the provisions of the Wildlife Act to the letter if someone were to challenge those provisions using Charter arguments, and simply get a ruling from higher courts as to whether or not the residency requirements are valid or not?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

I have said two or three times that the umbrella final agreement is going be signed very shortly and that we are already starting to look at how we can bring that into our Wildlife Act. The Wildlife Act will be changed at that time. I have already said that. It will be looked at to see if it complies with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I have said that, and I have been saying that for two days.

Mr. McDonald:

I am concerned about the here and now. The problem I have here is that it appears as if the Minister is saying

Page Number 2673

to someone who is trying to skirt the Wildlife Act on the basis of the residency requirements that they are not going to bother to enforce it because they feel the requirements are invalid or that they probably would be invalid if challenged.

Is he also saying that if somebody from British Columbia came up and wanted a hunting licence after being the Yukon for all of 48 hours, and made application for it, that would also be okay?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

Of course not. We are enforcing the regulations the way we are right at the present time. We have never moved from that and they are the same regulations that the former government enforced.

Mr. McDonald:

If the regulations say that outfitting concessions have to be owned by Yukon residents - 51 percent - then, irrespective of what might happen with a Charter challenge, the government will still proceed to defend that provision of the Wildlife Act. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

Yes.

Mr. McDonald:

Ultimately, the government's position is indeed that the Wildlife Act prevents non-residents from owning concessions, and that the appropriate position for the government is to defend those provisions and seek to prevent non-residents from owning concessions. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

As I have stated, 51 percent must be held by Yukoners. It was law before we came into power, and it was law before that government came into power, and it has not changed. It still states that 51 percent must be held by a Yukon resident.

The three Yukon residents who hold the areas right now are very respectable individuals, have run good businesses, and they are certainly doing their best to run their outfits.

Mr. McDonald:

I do not know any of the individuals, but I am prepared to believe that they are all respectable and they all might be good business people. Even the fellow from Europe may be a respectable person and a good business person. However, all of that is irrelevant. What is relevant is what the law is and whether or not the government wants to enforce the law.

I can see we have to call it a day, but I will just leave this question with the Minister, and he can either answer it or just simply move that we report progress on this bill.

If the Minister had evidence of a side deal taking place that appeared to reverse the intent of the Wildlife Act provisions, would he have concerns about that?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

That is a hypothetical question.

Mr. Chair, I would like to report progress.

Motion agreed to

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

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 Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole?

Deputy Chair:

The Committee of the Whole has considered Bill No. 50, entitled An Act to Amend the Municipal Act (No. 2), and directed me to report it with amendment.

Further, the Committee of the Whole has considered Bill No. 15, entitled Second Appropriation Act, 1994-95, and directed me to report progress on it.

Speaker:

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

Some Hon. Members:

Agreed.

Speaker:

I declare the report carried.

Mr. Harding:

I move that the House do now adjourn.

Speaker:

It has been moved by the Hon. Member for Faro that the House do now adjourn.

Motion agreed to

Speaker:

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

The House adjourned at 5:31 p.m.

The following Sessional Paper was tabled May 19, 1994:

94-1-131

Non-Canadian resident rights under the B.C. Wildlife Act: Ernst and Wiemers v. Dumlich, dated May and July, 1984 (excerpts from the Supreme Court of Canada) (Brewster)