Whitehorse, Yukon
Tuesday, May 24, 1994 - 1:30 p.m.
Page Number 2675
Speaker:
I will now call the House to order. We will proceed at this time with silent Prayers.
Prayers
Canada Day poster challenge
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
It is my great pleasure to rise to advise the House that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Canadian Heritage will today announce that Delaney Gehmair from G.A. Jeckell Secondary School in Whitehorse is the national winner of the Canada Day Poster Challenge. On behalf of the government, I would like to offer our sincere congratulations to Delaney and to say how proud we all are of her success in this national event.
Delaney is in Ottawa today to be present at the ceremony to announce the winner. Her poster shows a stylized map of Canada, with Canadians of all cultural backgrounds holding hands across Canada, bordered by illustrations of events that represent the diversity of our country. The poster will be used all across Canada to promote Canada Day events. Framed copies of the poster will be placed in several locations around Whitehorse and, of course, a copy will be on display in Rotary Peace Park on Canada Day.
This is a tremendous achievement for a young Yukon woman, and again I would like to say congratulations and well done, Delaney.
Applause
DAILY ROUTINE
Speaker:
We will proceed at this time with the Order Paper.
Are there any Introductions of Visitors?
Are there any Returns or Documents for tabling?
TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS
Hon. Mr. Nordling:
I have a legislative return.
Speaker:
Are there any Reports of Committees?
Petitions.
PETITIONS
Petition No. 8
Clerk:
Mr. Speaker and hon. Members of the Assembly, I have had the honour to review a petition, being Petition No. 8 of the First Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislative Assembly, as presented by the Hon. Member for Mount Lorne on May 19, 1994. This petition meets the requirements as to form of the Standing Orders of the Yukon Legislative Assembly.
Petition No. 8 - received
Speaker:
Petition No. 8, accordingly, is deemed to be read and received.
Are there any Introduction of Bills?
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
Bill No. 53: Introduction and First Reading
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I move that Bill No. 53, entitled An Act to Amend the Social Assistance Act, be now introduced and read a first time.
Speaker:
It has been moved by the Hon. Minister of Health and Social Services that Bill No. 53, entitled An Act to Amend the Social Assistance Act, be now introduced and read a first time.
Motion for introduction and first reading of Bill No. 53 agreed to
Bill No. 30: Introduction and First Reading
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I move that Bill No. 30, entitled An Act to Amend the Employment Standards Act, 1994, be now introduced and read a first time.
Speaker:
It has been moved by the Minister of Justice that Bill No. 30, entitled An Act to Amend the Employment Standards Act, 1994, be now introduced and read a first time.
Motion for introduction and first reading of Bill No. 30 agreed to
Speaker:
Are there any Notices of Motion for the Production of Papers?
Are there any Notices of Motion?
Are there any Statements by Ministers?
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
A new approach to victims services
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
Last June, I announced the repeal of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act. This was done in response to the federal government's unilateral action to eliminate its share of funding for this program. Repealing the act was not an easy decision but, like many other parts of the country, we simply do not have the resources to pick up programs off-loaded by the federal government. However, I have since discussed with several communities the provision of victim services in general. As well, the department has examined the delivery of victim services as part of its operational review of justice programs. These processes have led me to believe there is a better way of providing services to victims in Yukon.
When we looked at existing services, several issues became apparent. Specific financial compensation does not meet all the needs of a victim for support and counselling. For example, replacing a torn article of clothing as the result of a violent incident is one thing - but the bigger need may lie in treating the victim's trauma surrounding this incident - in short, the fear that he or she can never feel quite safe again.
We also learned that there were serious gaps in the justice system from the victim's perspective. For example, our victim service programs were not designed to assist the victim of a crime, until the case reached the courts. However, if the case was dropped for any reason, the victim was no longer eligible to receive any further support from our services.
To complicate matters, our victim services staff found themselves increasingly involved in the role of victim support and advocacy. Unfortunately, this compromised the neutral role they are required to play as part of the court services branch.
Some of these problems certainly stem from the fact that our justice system is adversarial and not victim-oriented, but we do recognize that the concept of justice must also embrace the needs of the victim, especially if we are to maintain public confidence in the system itself. To that end, we have reorganized our victim service programs within the department.
Victim/witness services will become witness administration. It will continue to facilitate Crown witnesses, and will remain the court services. The victims services portion has been combined with the family violence prevention unit in the community and correction services branch. The new entity, called the victim services and family violence prevention unit, is the responsibility of a redeveloped manager's position, reporting to the director of community and correctional services. Combining these important programs into one unit and under one manager speaks to the department's policy of taking an integrated and collaborative
Page Number 2676
approach to victim services.
This reorganization means that the victim services component will assist the victim as soon as he or she first enters the justice system. It also means ensuring, through efficient and coordinated case management, that the victim understands exactly what is happening throughout the entire process and is not inadvertently forgotten. To accomplish this, the newly integrated unit will get involved in early intervention through the RCMP and Crown; offer client support throughout the criminal justice process, including more active preparation of victim impact statements; make referrals to appropriate agencies as soon as possible; implement coordinated case management and disseminate all information as it applies to the status of the criminal case at hand.
The other component, the family violence prevention unit, will continue to provide its special services, such as individual counselling for spousal and sexual assault, a women's support group, crisis intervention, victim safety plans, as well as education and training in the area of domestic violence.
This new approach to victim services will be achieved primarily through the redeployment of existing staff positions and funds. For example, the victim services component is made up of two victim services officers, formerly with court services. One will focus on programming needs in Whitehorse while the other, in consultation with communities, will concentrate on program delivery throughout the territory. Funding for these initiatives is expected to come from money raised through victim fine surcharges applied at the time of sentencing.
The newly integrated victim services and family violence prevention unit will also have a small "victim loss" compensation component to deal with prescribed situations. However, the main thrust of the reorganization is to ensure that victims receive the services they need when and where they will do the most good. Given our limited resources, we feel the best way to achieve that end is to take as much of a community victim-centered approach as we can. The recent co-funding of a social worker seconded to RCMP's domestic violence investigation team is another good example of that.
In addition, the department will continue to have discussions with communities to determine what kind of support services can be designed and provided at the local level. In the meantime, if someone is victimized outside Whitehorse, then a victim services officer will be prepared to travel and meet the person in his or her own community. As well, we hope to have more resources in place throughout the territory so that victim services can be available within communities on a regular basis. Whether those resources mean justice employees, or local residents hired on a fee-for-service basis, is up to the actual community. In short, the victim services and family violence prevention unit will have the mandate to provide comprehensive, coordinated and improved services for victims of crime.
This new approach to victim services is all part of the choice provided by our recent community justice policy that gives communities greater ownership and control over the delivery of local justice services. Helping victims of crime will definitely take this kind of partnership and we must all begin to lay the groundwork now.
I said before that victims need to feel safe again. They need to be comforted; they need support and recognition for their plight, and they need time to overcome their fears. What this amounts to is a healing process that gives them back their dignity and confidence - a process fundamental to this newly integrated and collaborative approach to victim services.
Ms. Commodore:
At first glance, the ministerial statement looks pretty positive. There was a lot of information included in it. Unfortunately, the time allowed does not give us enough time to respond to everything that is in it.
I would like to say that, as the Minister indicated, repealing the act was a very hard decision to make. It provided for a number of things. We know that the number of victims in need of some assistance is on the increase, and many programs and services are available to them.
We also know that what is available to them does not meet their needs, and further provisions should be made. I am not criticizing the department; I am just saying that is the case, because of the number of people who are in need.
There does not appear to be any provision for additional personnel to deal with some of the changes that are going to be made. I hope that somehow or other there will be additional services available in the communities.
The Minister has not yet indicated what is going to be available in the communities, but we all know there is a need, and I do not know whether or not there is additional money provided for that in this year's money.
The Minister has indicated that money from the victim surcharge will be used for some of these changes. However, he did not say whether or not that money will be adequate. Could the Minister let us know how much money is included in that fund, and whether the victim fine surcharge is now being applied to territorial offences? At one time, we were not able to do that.
There are some good changes in this new approach. As the Minister has indicated, many victims in the past have felt that they have been victimized twice: once by the offender, and again by the system. Some of these changes will provide for support in that area.
The Minister has indicated there will be a number of programs moved, and certain changes will take place. Will the Minister provide to me, and anyone else who might want one, a briefing on the changes that are going to be made in the system, so we can more clearly understand the changes? Will he provide us with an update on all the changes that are being made in this fiscal year? The services provided to these people are very important, and it is hoped they will help in the long run.
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I thank the critic for her comments and advise that we certainly are prepared to provide a briefing on the changes.
As I said in my statement, there will be additional monies available, and one of the two officers in the new unit will be there primarily to service the outside communities. We are going to be talking to the communities to find out what their priorities are, and allocating money for the provision of services in the communities. They could be local residents on a fee-for-service basis, or it could be done in some other manner. That is what the consultations will determine.
The other question that was asked was whether or not there is enough money to provide the services. The sad fact is that there is never enough money. I will have to get a more accurate estimate of how much we anticipate collecting by way of the surcharge. I have heard various figures and I would like to get the final estimate before I announce the figure in the House.
She asked whether territorial offences were subject to the victim surcharge, and they are.
Speaker:
This then brings us to the Question Period.
QUESTION PERIOD
Question re: Wage rollback/public sector
Ms. Moorcroft:
The Minister responsible for the Public
Page Number 2677
Service Commission has indicated that he intends to proceed with wage rollback and wage freeze legislation that will affect virtually all public sector workers in the territory. Although the Minister has demonstrated little concern about the effect of these cutbacks on government employees, is the Minister concerned about the impact of these cutbacks on business confidence or the Yukon economy as a whole?
Hon. Mr. Nordling:
Yes, I am. I am concerned with the effect directly on government workers. I am concerned with the effect on the territory as a whole. I am concerned with the effect on private business.
Ms. Moorcroft:
Budget cuts at this time send a signal that governments lack confidence in the business community and the economy. Does the Minister agree with that assessment?
Hon. Mr. Nordling:
It depends on the cuts - where they are and how they are done, and whether they are truly cuts.
Ms. Moorcroft:
That was a typical waffle answer that did not tell us anything. I would like to ask the Minister whether he does not agree with his Cabinet colleagues that budget cuts at this time send a signal that governments lack confidence in the business community and the economy. The Government Leader and the Minister of Renewable Resources made that very statement in a letter to the federal Minister of Natural Resources less than a month ago.
Would the Minister advise us whether his proposed cutback legislation is meant to signal a lack of confidence in the Yukon economy or a lack of confidence in his Cabinet colleagues?
Hon. Mr. Nordling:
No, it is not.
Question re: Program cuts
Mr. Penikett:
On several occasions over the last year and one-half, Ministers have mentioned reviews of Yukon government programs, which were later cut back, including the community development fund and the chronic diseases program. The list of programs under review included the pioneer utility grant for seniors, the Pharmacare program for seniors and the Yukon mineral incentives program, which, until recently, had been featured prominently in the government's infrastructure document.
I wonder if I could ask the Minister when the cuts in these programs are due to be announced? I am particular interested in the future of the mineral incentives program.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I believe that what we have said all along is that we are going to be assessing all the programs and realigning them. That does not necessarily mean cuts, but just a better way of delivering the service. It means delivering a high quality of service and, at the same time, spending fewer dollars to do so.
Mr. Penikett:
Well, the problem is that every program that has been reviewed has ended up being cut. I would be interested in contrary examples.
The list of programs slated for review and cuts include, I notice, medical travel, student financial assistance and the home owners grant. I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Community and Transportation Services to indicate when the home owners grant review will be completed, and by how much is it to be cut?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
There is no intent to cut the home owners grant at this point in time.
Mr. Penikett:
When I hear "at this point in time", I guess that means the next budget.
During the last election campaign, when the NDP proposed to improve the student financial assistance program so that Yukoners who did not go to high school here would become eligible, the Yukon Party claimed the NDP were cutting the program and that they were opposed to that.
I would like to ask the Minister of Education, who has already cut education spending, if he is not considering further cuts to student financial assistance, to what end was he reviewing the student financial assistance program?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
Well, one of the things that I have said in the House before - I think three or four times now - is that we are waiting for the federal government to finish its review of the Canada student loan program. It has just completed that. We just got those documents in the last few weeks and we are waiting to see how that would tie in with any changes that we might make. There have been no changes made as yet. In fact, in this year's budget and in this next fiscal year, there will be no changes at all. It will be the status quo for the Yukon student loan program.
Question re: Wage rollback/public sector
Mr. Cable:
I have some questions for the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission about his negotiations with both the teachers and the Yukon Employees Union. I gather there is some difference of opinion as to the numbers that are being bandied back and forth - the wage savings, revenues and projected expenditures.
Would the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission, prior to introduction of the legislation that he is contemplating introducing, table the numbers that are being put to the unions and the assumptions on which the numbers are based?
Hon. Mr. Nordling:
No, I will not do that. I plan to table the legislation tomorrow. I am still discussing those numbers with the Yukon Employees Union. I hope that we can reach some sort of an agreement today that will affect what is brought in tomorrow, but it is too late to table all of those numbers. It is unfortunate that we did not start these discussions earlier, but I hope, within the next day, we will achieve something.
Mr. Cable:
Shortly after the original wage restraint press release was issued, the Government Leader was on the radio saying he anticipated there would be approximately $10 million in savings. In the budget speech, that number had increased to something between $13 million and $15 million. When were these numbers that are being put to the two unions worked up - prior to the launching of the wage restraint press release and the program, or just recently?
Hon. Mr. Nordling:
The numbers that were put forward originally were worked up at that time. At the same time, we are trying to achieve government savings in every other sector, and the more that we can save through less government expenditure and other areas, the less that we have to take from our employees. That has been changing. We have achieved more savings than expected from cuts in other areas. I do not expect that we will need the same level of savings that we were going to get from personnel costs, or that we expected that we needed in March. That is what I am talking about with the Employees Union at the present time.
Mr. Cable:
I think that the Government Leader has spoken on various occasions about continuing his downsizing of government. In the numbers that the Minister has worked up, does he anticipate any reduction in the numbers on the public service payroll?
Hon. Mr. Nordling:
Yes, we do, but simply through attrition. We do not foresee laying anyone off to achieve that savings. If there is a person that leaves government whom we can replace by reorganization, that is what we will do. I expect that there will be a downsizing of government, but it will not be drastic or affect very many jobs at all.
Question re: Foster care/young offenders
Ms. Commodore:
My question is for the Minister responsible for Health and Social Services with regard to foster homes for young offenders.
Page Number 2678
The Minister has said in the past that the school of hard knocks is sufficient training for parents who will house young offenders who have been sentenced to open custody, and he qualifies that by suggesting that many foster parents have gone through all kind of crises in their lives, may have suffered sexual abuse as children and may have been in trouble with the law as young people, but have turned out to be exceptionally good foster parents.
Could the Minister tell us what other qualifications are required for potential foster parents?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
The Member's premise mis-states what I really said. I said that some parents with little training but with experience in the real world would make good foster parents - that does not apply to all.
With regard to qualifications and the kinds of things that our experienced staff will be looking for when they interview a perspective foster parent, I will have to bring back a written response for the Member.
Ms. Commodore:
The Minister has also indicated that additional training will be conducted by professionals in his department. Can he tell us if that training will be provided to these parents prior to young offenders being sentenced to their custody?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
That decision will be based on the qualifications of the individual foster parents involved. It will be assessed by the workers, as to exactly what training is necessary, what might be necessary, whether it has to be offered before the prospective parents take a person into their custody, or whether it can be done concurrently with their having a person in their custody.
Ms. Commodore:
Can the Minister tell us if the training provided will include such things as formal counselling for physical and sexual abuse and suicidal behaviour?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I am sure that will be part of the written answer I committed myself to providing in response to the first question.
Question re: Foster care/young offenders
Ms. Commodore:
I have recently heard that youth probation officers have been directed to not request open custody for youths in their submissions to the court. They are to request either closed custody or release to parent. Can the Minister tell us why?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I am not aware of that instruction, but I will look into it and see if such an instruction has been given.
Ms. Commodore:
We hope he will then tell us why.
The Minister stated that, if more young people are sentenced to open custody than his department has homes for, he would cross that bridge when he came to it and hope there would be homes waiting in the wings. Other than the two foster homes for young offenders, will he have additional homes on standby, in the event they are needed?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I am sure we will. Again, that will be part of the written response.
Ms. Commodore:
Can the Minister tell us what the rates will be for contracting out these services, and how much the government expects to save with this new policy?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
Again, I will bring back a written answer. I believe the price per day per child is $70.
Question re: Workers' Compensation, safety regulations review
Mr. Harding:
It looks like the Justice critic will be busy reading. I have a question for the Minister responsible for Occupational Health and Safety and the Workers' Compensation Board. About a month ago I asked the Minister about a long-promised review. After quite a battle in this Legislature, the former Minister responsible for WCB committed to an in-depth occupational health and safety review in the Yukon. In April, on the Workers' Day of Mourning, I asked what the status of that review was, and the Minister said that he had to take it to Cabinet. He has had time to do that. What is the status of the review, and when will it be taking place?
Hon. Mr. Nordling:
The Workers' Compensation Board is reviewing the budget for an expanded review. I am meeting with them tomorrow to look it over.
Mr. Harding:
Once again, I should point out that there was a commitment made for this. When I hear the word review, it alarms me, because things could fall by the wayside. Has there been a recent actuarial evaluation done of the Workers' Compensation Board here? It is my understanding that there has been. Will the Minister please table it for the Legislature.
Hon. Mr. Nordling:
I am not sure whether or not one has been conducted, but I will look into seeing if it can be tabled or provided for the Member opposite.
Mr. Harding:
It is important. The initial reason for the refusal to conduct a full review was financial. We later showed that we have the best WCB situation in the country here. Thus, there was no reason for scoping down the review. What process is the new Minister looking at for the review that he is going to be discussing tomorrow, and how does he intend to implement it?
Hon. Mr. Nordling:
That is what I will be discussing with the Workers' Compensation Board tomorrow.
Question re: Workers' Compensation Board, employment opportunity advertising
Mr. Harding:
I have a new question for the Minister responsible for the Workers' Compensation Board. Ads had been placed in The Globe and Mail back in April and early May. The ads were for director positions within the Yukon's Workers' Compensation Board. I understand from information I have received that very little has been done to advertise these positions locally. Does this concern the Minister at all?
Hon. Mr. Nordling:
Yes, I am concerned about local hire. I prefer that as often as it is possible to do it. My understanding is that the Workers' Compensation Board advertised two of the three positions locally, and it is the board that makes the decision about whom they hire. They found that there was no one within the Yukon whom they wanted to hire immediately for the position. Therefore, they advertised those two positions and one more outside the territory. It is my understanding that they will then be reviewing all of the applications.
Mr. Harding:
It is my understanding that an in-depth search was not done internally in the Yukon first. Can the Minister tell me clearly what the government's position is on local hire, and does the Minister believe that the board should be operating under these same principles?
Hon. Mr. Nordling:
I have made my position clear on local hire. I believe the board should take that position, but the board is independent and if they hire outside then they are certainly responsible and liable to explain their actions.
Mr. Harding:
I understand the independence of the board. Let me ask the Minister this, though: has the Minister taken the opportunity to suggest to the board that they exhaust all the local opportunities for gaining employment for these positions that became available? Has there been a gentle suggestion that that should be being done?
Hon. Mr. Nordling:
Yes. When the board decided to go outside to advertise the positions, they did speak with me. I said I preferred that they find someone locally but if they could not and advertised outside then it should be up to them to explain why they could not find anyone locally, not me.
Page Number 2679
Question re: Business development fund, loans outstanding
Mrs. Firth:
I have a question for the Minister responsible for Economic Development. Last week, I asked the Minister about clients who had borrowed money from this government for projects, who were not paying back the money to the government - people who were delinquent in the repayment of their loans.
I asked the Minister to table in this House a list of those clients who were delinquent in repayment. Can the Minister tell us when we are going to get a copy of that list?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I will check into it for the Member opposite and see what I can do for her.
Mrs. Firth:
What does that mean - he will check into it? I want to know when we are going to get a copy of this list of clients who are in arrears in their repayment of government loans. There is nothing to check into. When are we getting it?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
First of all, we check and see if that has been done in the past or whether this is precedent setting - whether this House has in the past been given a list of delinquent accounts. I do not know that it has. I am going to discuss it with my department and I will be getting back to the Member.
Mrs. Firth:
What a crock of crap. I have never heard such nonsense.
I am trying not to be unparliamentary, but really, the government is testing our patience and our intelligence, and that of the taxpayer.
Last week, when I asked, we got a goofy story about it having to go to Cabinet, because the party had said it was okay, but Cabinet had not discussed it. Now, we get another goofy story this afternoon about it being precedent setting.
I want the Minister to stand up and tell us when we are going to get the list of people who are not paying back the loans that this government gave them, at Yukon taxpayers' expense. When are we going to get that list?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
There she goes again. Clearly, she tries to twist things around to put her own interpretation on them.
Last week, we were talking about whether we were going to be publishing the names of delinquent accounts. That is what we were talking about last week. We were not talking about tabling a list in the House. We were talking about whether Cabinet would make the decision to allow the names to be published.
Question re: Business development find, loan outstanding
Mrs. Firth:
The Minister of Economic Development is twisting in the wind so badly. It has been windy out the last few days, and the Government Leader has just been flying in the wind.
Can the Government Leader answer this question? He is the Minister responsible for Economic Development. Is he going to table the list of people who are in arrears in paying back loans that they have received from this government?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I will take that under advisement and I will get back to the Member.
Mrs. Firth:
What is there to take under advisement? I mean, we get answers like this from the crew over there every day - "We will bring a legislative return back. We will think about it. We will take it under advisement." - and nothing ever happens. I could give a whole list of outstanding decisions that have to be made.
The Minister of Economic Development is responsible for making this decision. What is his policy with respect to publishing the list of clients who are delinquent in paying back loans?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
That is what I have just told the Member; I will be investigating to see if the Members opposite tabled such lists when they were in power. We have not changed the policy from what it was when they were in power. If they tabled delinquent lists, I would be more than happy to provide them for this Legislature.
Mrs. Firth:
I do not care what the previous government did. I am asking this Minister whether or not it is his policy. I do not care who is making up the new policy or what the policy was of the previous government; I want to know where this Minister stands. Is it his policy to make this information known to Yukoners? Will he make this information available to Yukoners - period? Cabinet does not have to make this decision; this Minister can.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
That is probably why the government that she was involved in had so much difficulty; she would do it on her own.
Question re: Wage rollback/public sector
Mr. Cable:
I have some further questions for the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission regarding the two unions.
I think the Minister must have misunderstood the last question. I was asking him if, in the preparation of his numbers, he took into account any payroll reduction, whether through attrition or otherwise?
Hon. Mr. Nordling:
I am still not sure I understand what the Member is asking; however, when we looked at the savings that we hoped to achieve from personnel, we looked at overall government expenditures. At that time, we did look at the savings from downsizing and from deferring expenses. We looked at overall government spending. Everything we could possibly look at was included, and we came up with a figure that we felt we needed from personnel. The figures were calculated in the middle of March. That was when we were prepared to talk to the unions and the Member for Riverside about what we needed to negotiate. We extended the time for tabling legislation until today.
Mr. Cable:
I will take it then that, in the numbers that were used in the negotiations, there was a factor that relates to a payroll number reduction.
Let me ask this question: when the Minister took over his portfolio in late February or early March, what was the global number that he was working toward in the way of savings that he wanted to extract from the two unions?
Hon. Mr. Nordling:
I think that the global number was presented by the Government Leader in the budget speech. Somewhere between $13 million and $18 million was the goal at that time. It was pretty difficult to be specific, because we did not know what kind of shape we would be in on March 31.
Mr. Cable:
The Minister previously indicated that there has been a fair amount of "to-ing" and "fro-ing". What is the global number that the Minister is now working toward?
Hon. Mr. Nordling:
We will have those numbers when the legislation is tabled. We can discuss those numbers for weeks, if the Member wishes, during general debate in the House.
Question re: Grants to businesses, government policy
Mr. McDonald:
We will take the Minister up on that very suggestion.
I have a question for the Minister of Economic Development.
The Minister appeared to reject a notion a week and one-half ago that businesses should receive grants from the government. The Minister implied before he left for the Western Premiers' Conference that because his company had applied for and received grants and not the Minister personally, it was considered okay. Can the Minister clarify the government's grant policy for us and confirm that companies can apply for grants, but individuals associated with the companies such as the presidents and chief
Page Number 2680
executive officers cannot?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
That is not what I said at all. This government does not believe in grants and we are trying to get away from that system.
Mr. McDonald:
Perhaps the Minister could tell us, since the Ostashek Outfitting Company received approximately $25,000 worth of grants, did that company apply for the grants over the objections of the president and CEO of the day?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
That is a situation into which Members opposite got every company in the Yukon. They created an unlevel playing field out there.
That is exactly what they did and that is exactly what we are trying to get away from.
Mr. McDonald:
If the Minister's own private company found the financial assistance useful to ensure the success of his company, why would the government want to deny this same opportunity to new businesses now?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
For one thing, the finances of the government are a lot different now from what they were seven or eight years ago.
Question re: Yukon Energy Corporation, privatization of
Mr. Penikett:
I have a question for the Minister responsible for energy, who has displayed formidable linguistic skills and some gaseous rhetoric in the last few weeks, proving himself a master of nuance. In the interests of clarity, with respect to his intentions, would the Minister, with respect to the possible future of the Yukon Energy Corporation, tell the House exactly what he means by the word "privatization", when he is considering that option?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
Privatization is a concept that can take many forms. At this point in time, we are looking at some form of sale of equity to First Nations. The exact form of that sale is open to discussion. Before any further discussions take place, there has to be direction from Cabinet with regard to the kind of discussions that would be allowed.
There are all kinds of privatization. Selling the assets of the Yukon Energy Corporation is something that is not new. It was attempted in the past by the previous administration.
Mr. Penikett:
It will not matter how many times the Minister keeps repeating that assertion, it will not make it true.
Since, with the passage of land claims legislation, the First Nations will be governments in law, as will the municipalities, two local interests that are interested in becoming shareholders in the Yukon Energy Corporation - but, because they are governments, that would not constitute privatization or a rationalization of assets, could the Minister be clear about exactly where privatization comes to play in his agenda?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
At this point in time, we are talking about the potential for a sale to a corporation owned by First Nations of some equity in the Yukon Energy Corporation of up to about 30 percent of the equity.
With regard to other Yukoners being given the opportunity to invest, that is something that is down the road from step number one. We are looking at this one step at a time.
Mr. Penikett:
Since I assume that, given what we found out last week, the new Yukon Party slogan is "Yukon for Yukoners, unless there is a side deal", I wonder if the Minister could indicate to us yet whether his friend, Mr. Boylan, has reported to the Cabinet and whether his report to the Cabinet has made recommendations about privatization, rationalization or sale to First Nations and municipalities?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
The NDP are very selective about foreign ownership. They welcome the Koreans in with open arms if it is to purchase Faro, for example. They give loans and money to Totem Oil, an American firm - no problem - but they have a kind of selective ethic at work. With regard to the report of the consultant, it has been sent to Cabinet, and Cabinet will be deliberating on the report and will be making a statement once the deliberations have been concluded.
Question re: Hazardous waste, temporary container
Ms. Moorcroft:
I have a question for the Minister of Community and Transportation Services. About six weeks ago, we were told the government's temporary container for hazardous waste was already in transit to the Yukon. Has that container arrived and is it now in use in the Mount Sima area?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
I am not sure if it has been set up at the site, but I believe it has arrived in the territory. I will get further information and provide it to the Member.
Ms. Moorcroft:
A group of area residents and the Kwanlin Dun First Nation are appealing the City of Whitehorse planning board decision to permit this temporary installation. If the city's board of variance rules against the facility, what are the department's contingency plans?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
Several sites were looked at a few years ago, and some of those could be revisited if this one should be turned down by the city.
Ms. Moorcroft:
Both the groups I just mentioned feel strongly that such a minimum security operation is totally incompatible with the area's current use for recreation, as well as the proposed country residential developments by both Kwanlin Dun and the Yukon government.
Why is the department proceeding with a facility that falls far short of the original concept for hazardous-waste storage, rather than putting the temporary facility at the Whitehorse landfill site, which has a single-use access road and better security provisions?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
The site was chosen some time ago as a suitable site for special waste. The facility that the Member opposite is referring to would be a very large, long-term storage facility, whereas this is intended only for a very short term. The facility is recognized as being a safe facility. There will be much less special waste stored at this one than there would be at the other one, so I have a bit of difficulty believing that a long-term facility would be safer or better or more compatible than a very short-term facility.
Question re: Hazardous waste, temporary container
Ms. Moorcroft:
My question is for the same Minister. The site was chosen some time ago, and that was before there were recreational developments in the area, and before the thoughts that are now being entertained about having country residential neighbourhoods in that area. The hazardous-waste site shares an access road with the Mount Sima ski facility. What precautions is the department taking to minimize the risks involved in transporting hazardous goods to and from the temporary storage facility?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
We are not taking any precautions other than those already covered by our transportation people. I think the Member opposite should know that thousands of tons of some very nasty wastes are travelling the highway every day. In this case, we expect very little usage of the road. The other thing I would like to point out is that the Mount Sima ski hill and the facility were in the planning stages at the very same time.
Ms. Moorcroft:
One of the adjacent parcels of land has been selected by Kwanlin Dun, which is looking at the area's residential and recreational potential. What discussions has the Minister or his department had with Kwanlin Dun about its plans?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
I am not aware of any recent discussions. There was a very lengthy public consultation process approximately
Page Number 2681
three years ago. I am not aware of any recent discussions between the department and the Kwanlin Dun.
Ms. Moorcroft:
This development bears a striking resemblance to the Stevens subdivision, where the Yukon government wants to build a residential subdivision side by side with a gravel pit, despite the objections of existing nearby residents.
Why does the Minister not insist that the department adopt sensible land use planning processes, to avoid what are clearly incompatible land uses?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
It was that government that decided where to put the facility, long before I ever showed up. I -
Point of Order
Speaker:
The Member for Mount Lorne on a point of order.
Ms. Moorcroft:
On the point of order. If the Minister is unable to answer the question and can only stand there laughing, I would be pleased to re-ask a question for him that he could answer.
Speaker:
There is no point of order, but would the Minister please answer the question.
Question re: Hazardous waste, temporary container - contained
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
That is not the case at all. The Department of Community and Transportation Services is very aware of compatible land uses. There was a full public process - a very lengthy public consultation conducted by that government. Several sites were looked at and this was chosen by the previous Minister of Community and Transportation Services as the most appropriate site.
Question re: Faro Real Estate, loan write-off
Mr. Harding:
I have a question for the same Minister regarded Faro Real Estate - a loan from YTG. On April 30, the loan restructuring negotiations were supposed to be complete for Faro Real Estate, even though the loan has already been written off the books by YTG in the 1993-94 fiscal year. What is the conclusion of those negotiations?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
Faro Real Estate has asked for an extension of time for dealing with the restructuring and we are dealing with that currently.
Mr. Harding:
What are the payment and the extension of time arrangements that we are talking about here? This has been going on for some time. Is Faro Real Estate still saying it is going to be paying off the loan? We know it has already been written off the books by YTG. What kind of extension are we looking at here?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
My understanding is that Faro Real Estate has asked for an extension to some time in June. Yes, we are still actively conducting collection action.
Mr. Harding:
The loan is written off the books, but the government is still collecting revenue. That, of course, brings the surplus down from the last fiscal year - which is what we know the Members opposite want to do.
I have spoken to the Minister about constituents of mine who are trying to purchase their own homes in Faro. Their problem has been that the receiver for the mine is not releasing the liens that are held on behalf of Curragh Inc. on a few of the houses that they are trying to buy. I would like to ask the Minister if he will use the resources he has to contact the receiver and determine whether or not we can get those liens removed in order to assist these Faro constituents to purchase their own homes?
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
Yes, we will.
Speaker:
The time for Question Period has now elapsed.
Notice of Government Private Members' Business
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
Pursuant to Standing Order 14.2(7), I would like to inform the House that government private Members do not wish to identify any items to be called on Wednesday, May 25, 1994, under the heading Government Private Members' Business.
Speaker:
We will proceed with Orders of the Day.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I move that the Speaker do now leave the Chair and that the House resolve into Committee of the Whole.
Speaker:
It has been moved by the Hon. Government House Leader that the Speaker do now leave the Chair and that the House resolve into Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to
Speaker leaves the Chair
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Deputy Chair:
I will now call Committee of the Whole to order. Is it the wish of the Members to take a brief recess at this time?
Some Hon. Members:
Agreed.
Deputy Chair:
We will take a brief recess at this time.
Recess
Chair:
I will now call Committee of the Whole to order. We will continue with Bill No. 15, entitled Second Appropriation Act, 1994-95.
Bill No. 15 - Second Appropriation Act, 1994-95 - continued
Deputy Chair:
We are on Renewable Resources.
Department of Renewable Resources - continued
Deputy Chair:
Is there any further general debate on Renewable Resources?
Mr. Harding:
I want to begin by saying that I had an interesting weekend. I was in Faro talking to people about the news that has been in the papers and on the radio about the issue of ownership of outfitting territories. There is quite a bit of interest by people in my riding. There are also people who are planning to work and have worked in one of the areas that we have been talking about. They have had some experience in that area and I had some broad discussions with them and their feelings on the issue. Of course, they enjoy the work and they enjoy getting a paycheque. They expressed some understanding about the concerns I was raising, but nonetheless were not too alarmed about it.
I had an interesting weekend of discussion with some people; some felt very strongly about this issue and some did not. The overall general sense that I got from people was that there was some understanding that there was certainly an issue here.
I decided to go fishing on Saturday, and it just so happened that when I went fishing at Frenchman Lake, Mr. Mayr-Melnhof had come to Faro amid some storms and was looking for me to have some discussion.
I came into Whitehorse Sunday, and phoned Mr. Mayr-Melnhof at a company called Safari Adventures, which is the three combined areas. I sat down with Mr. Mayr-Melnhof and two of the people who manage one of his areas to discuss the issue. I have a legitimate concern. I had tried to get in touch with Mr. Mayr-Melnhof in Austria, the entire lower mainland and in Whitehorse. I did not realize that Mayr-Melnhof was under the name Safari Adventures. I could not find any Mayr-Melnhof in Vancouver.
I sat down with him to have a general discussion about the issue. I do not want to go into the specifics of our discussion, but it was interesting to speak to him about it. He has been following closely
Page Number 2682
what has been happening here, as have the people who are managing the areas. They feel very strongly about the issue, which is understandable. I enjoyed sitting down with them to discuss - and in some cases, argue - the issues.
I was somewhat alarmed by a story I read in the Yukon News Friday afternoon, quoting Mr. Mayr-Melnhof. He told me he thought it was reported fairly accurately. He did everything but admit that he had signed some side arrangements for his territories, but he claimed they related only to the finances. I feel strongly that the finances and revenue decisions based on management are not mutually exclusive. When you have such a large interest, you cannot really run the finance side and not have a say or impact on the management side of the resource. After all, that is your bread and butter, your revenue producer. If you have invested a ton of money into the areas, you want to ensure that you get your investment back. The way you make money in this business is to harvest.
I was somewhat concerned by those comments. Did the Minister have the time to read the comments of Mr. Mayr-Melnhof in Friday's Yukon News or did he have any conversation with him over the weekend, over the last few days?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
No, I did not. I left here at 5:30 Thursday night and went to Dawson to the Gold Show. I stayed there until the Government Leader could get up on Saturday, then I went home.
Mr. Harding:
Did the Minister read the comments of Mr. Mayr-Melnhof in the Yukon News Friday?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
No, I did not because on Friday I was in Dawson and the paper does not come out to Haines Junction until Tuesday.
Mr. Harding:
It is difficult to ask but I guess I will have to do it through representations and I hope the Minister will take my word that that is what he said. Basically, he did not say there were no side deals and he did not say there were, but he said they were a natural part of any financial arrangement, and he was not involved in the outfitting. I believe in my heart that there has to be some involvement when someone has that big a stake in something and spends time in the Yukon during the hunting season - they must have some input into the management decisions or, at the very least, the capital decisions. Capital decisions would be based on cost/benefit analysis, which would be directly linked to revenue and the revenue is produced from the harvest of game, so I find it really hard to believe that they would be two mutually exclusive principles.
The other interesting thing he said was that he was very disappointed that he has invested a lot of money in promoting Yukon trophy hunting and wilderness adventures - I think mostly trophy hunting; I am not aware that he is involved in any other aspects of the business yet - that this would be brought up and neither we nor the government had bothered to phone him or anything. I thought to myself, why should I, as an elected official, have to phone somebody to raise an issue of public policy. I did try to phone him, but I do not think I should be precluded from raising it because I did not get in contact with him because I could not find his number.
I find it somewhat disconcerting that the person we are talking about should be aware that, if he is going to spend that money - and I think he is well aware of all the rumours flying around about the ownership question - there would be some questions raised. I am sure everybody in the Yukon appreciates a million dollar investment because probably some of it went into businesses and some of it was paid out to guides and people working in the bush and whatnot. Also, it could help promote the Yukon outfitting industry and possibly other aspects of the tourist trade.
I do not think there is any question that we appreciate the investment. The problem is that the ground rules are not really clear. The act says one thing; I believe that it has a certain intent, and I believe everybody knows what that intent is: that a Yukoner have 51-percent ownership and control.
The Yukon outfitting industry - the Outfitters Association - has said that they believe in that. They believe in the Wildlife Act; they believe that Yukoners should have 51-percent control and ownership. They said it on the radio just the other day. As far as I am concerned, that is the issue.
Do Yukoners want to continue with these laws? Do they want people who live here to have the kind of control that is stated in the Wildlife Act, or would they rather remove those provisions in favour of big-money investment from Vancouver, Montreal, or even Austria - wherever, outside of the territory? I guess that is the fundamental question here.
Around lunch time, I was approached by a person who owns and runs an outfitting territory. He said that he did not appreciate me running his industry through the mud. I said that I could appreciate his points, but I was not running anyone through the mud; I want to get to the bottom of this issue. On one hand the Outfitters Association says that they support 51-percent Yukon ownership, management and control, but when I ask questions about that, I am accused of running their industry through the mud. I think that at some point the industry is going to have to clearly state what they want, and work at finding answers to what the Yukon public wants. I realize that it is an emotional issue, and that people become very polarized, and some people simply want to know what is going on.
I would like to ask the Minister if, over the weekend, he has given consideration to this matter. He told us that they do not want to accept a public inquiry, but we are not hung up on that. We do not necessarily need a judge and jury on this question. However, we would like some investigation into basic questions such as the following: What do Yukoners want now? Do they want what we have now? Is what we have now being followed? What do people think about the number of concessions that can be bought up? Do we like individual outfitting, or do we like the mass-outfitting approach? Would the Minister consider a public investigation, or consider involving the public in making decisions about the answers to those questions here in this territory?
If he does not want the expense - I do not know how expensive a public inquiry is - in what other ways would he propose that we could answer these questions? I realize these questions are out there. They do not stay in the media as long as they have, if they are not being asked by anybody.
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
First I would like to point out that the $1 million is simply promotion. That is not what he spent in the Yukon; that is what he spent around the world to bring people to the Yukon. I would also like to point out that we are in the same position that the former government was - that 51 percent of the holdings must be held by a Yukon citizen.
If there are any infractions of the Wildlife Act, then that concession would be taken away from that individual and there would be no outfitting going on in there until that was straightened around.
I have already said that this will be opened up when the umbrella final agreement is signed. We have to adjust it to suit that. At that time, there will be a place for the public and anybody else to put in their comments regarding what they want done.
Mr. Harding:
I should point out that it is interesting to note that I asked the Minister if he read the Yukon News, he said, "No", and then he just stood up and said that the million dollars referred to in the Yukon News was related directly to promotion. That is interesting. I do not know how the Minister could make that conclusion if he has not even read the newspaper. I thought what
Page Number 2683
he meant was that he knew one cannot get three outfitting territories for a million bucks, so he must be referring to advertisement or promotion of either trophy hunting or wilderness ventures or some combination of both.
I realize that the law is the same as when we were operating in government and the previous administration before that, which brought the law in. The point is, as far as I am aware, it has not been until the last three years - until these territories started being sold - that there was a lot of testing of the law. Now, we find that there may be some need to re-evaluate.
Charter arguments have been brought up. I am skeptical of some of them that have been raised by the government, but I am not a lawyer. I have talked to some legal people and there is a lot of question about it. They are not sure.
So, all I have to go by is what the law says. Maybe Yukoners want to change the law; maybe they want to open it up to foreign investment. I firmly believe that the fact that outfitting territories utilize scarce public resources - and that is wildlife, getting scarcer - is the fundamental question here. I believe it is different than foreign investment in mining or foreign investment in hotels and that type of thing, because we are dealing with a public resource that people, individually, take very seriously.
We have situations in the territory where in some areas it is quite good, but in other areas - if one goes up into the Haines Junction area, it is tough for a person who lives up there and for a lot of people who live in Whitehorse now - to go out and get a moose or to go out and get a caribou. They end up having to go up into the Faro, Ross River area or toward Watson Lake or up the Highland Highway or up into Mayo, where I went hunting last year. That has created a bit of friction. I know that last year we took a moose up in Mayo and by the time we got back into town, everybody in town knew all about it and were not too happy that we had taken a moose in what they considered to be their turf. It was not a good experience, to say the least.
I think that emotional issues surrounding wildlife are highly charged. There is a need right now - not a couple of years from now in the umbrella final agreement - to investigate what Yukoners want. It is not relevant whether it was our government or the Minister's, the question has to be looked at now, given the questions that have been raised. They have come to a head right now.
Is the Minister prepared to consider an investigation that would involve public input into the questions I have raised?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
I would like to reply to one thing regarding the statement he made that I had read the paper. I did not read it, but my department does, and the deputy minister just informed me about the $1 million or $2 million. I wish we would stop twisting words around and get this issue settled once and for all.
I am also informed that the First Nations will not accept any amendment to the legislation until the umbrella final agreement has been settled. I firmly agree with that attitude; there is no point in changing everything now and then doing it again six months hence.
Mr. Harding:
Public input does not necessarily have to be legislated changes. Public input, discussion and investigation can take place now, pending the formulation of the changes that First Nations wish to make in conjunction with the umbrella final agreement. I can understand that they do not want to change the Wildlife Act, but certainly consideration can be given, along with their involvement. They may even appreciate this process on the question, given that the First Nations I have spoken to have expressed some grave concern. They feel, as I do, that renewable resource decisions are moving one way and this person, who has a heavy involvement in three different areas but does not live in the Yukon, is moving another. It is heading toward local control.
If there are side deals, which he has almost admitted in the paper, there is a loss of control. That will be hard when there are resource councils in each community. We want local outfitters - people who have worked in the area for awhile and know the people with whom they are working - to sit down and make harvest decisions. I would guess that people on the resource councils would be frustrated when dealing with people who are managing on behalf of a more conglomerate-based outfitting network, operating outside the Yukon, whether in Vancouver, Montreal or Austria.
There are two directions in this issue. Perhaps Yukoners do not care about foreign investment in outfitting territories or non-Yukon resident ownership provisions, but we have a law that does. It has not been changed. There has been some evidence to suggest that there are some problems. I would like to see us get to the bottom of it.
I just got an interesting article. I believe it is from the Vancouver Sun and it is from November 26, 1990. It is written by a guy named Larry Pynn. The headline is "Rich foreigners stake claim to B.C.'s wildlife". The caption beside it says "Residents used as frontmen for best outfitting areas." There are some actual prominent Yukoners, such as Archibald Lang, owner of Yukon's Watson Lake Hotel, mentioned in the article. Apparently, at the time he was president of Turnagain Holdings, a guiding area in northern B.C.
The article talks about the problems and concerns of the Ministry of Renewable Resources in British Columbia. British Columbia does not have the strong laws regarding residency, ownership and control as we do - that has been mentioned by the Minister of Justice. Nonetheless, the same concerns are there.
I will read a quote to the Minister, "Part of it is highly emotional" confirms Bruce Voth, a conservation officer in Fort St. John, "British Columbia belongs to British Columbians and Canadians and why should we allow foreign ownership in something like hunting rights?"
The article all the way through in some way parallels what we are seeing in the Yukon. This is back to 1990. Their laws state, if I can read it, at section 52 of British Columbia's Wildlife Act, that "outfitters carry public liability insurance, be Canadian citizens or permanent residents and have two years of experience as an assistance guide."
Section 57 - this is interesting - further states that an outfitter can be licenced for only one guiding area.
It is interesting and there are some parallels drawn. I think the difference between the questions that are being raised here in the Yukon and the questions that were being raised in British Columbia is that we have stronger rules and regulations for Yukon residency and control.
I can understand that the people who are involved here would want to get started in the outfitting business, and I hope through their side arrangement they have an equity arrangement, where they eventually become owners or at least partners.
The only evidence, from the side agreement that I saw, did not establish that relationship. The person was only to be an employee of the main outfitter, who was Mr. Mayr-Melnhof. That was the proposal, signed by the lawyer, in the agreement that I looked at.
If there are new arrangements - and I have been told the scuttlebut by a few people, so I have no way of knowing if it is true - that the managers do have some new deals now with Mr. Mayr-Melnhof, but those details are confidential.
I do not think that is right. I think that it is a problem when it is a public resource, and the public is granting a right to harvest wildlife, the public's resource, in an area, there should be more cards on the table so that people know what the arrangements are.
Page Number 2684
That does not mean that people should know how many suitcases someone has, how much someone's furniture is worth, or if they have a vehicle or not and the worth of that vehicle and whether it is a 1988 or a 1992, but there should be some clear understanding of what the true ownership structure is.
The article says, "Unknown to even wildlife branch officials, there are faceless, foreign businessmen who pay up to $1 million for the best guiding/outfitting areas. They hire B.C. nominees, or frontmen, some of them with a history of big game poaching violations, to comply with residency laws."
It is an interesting article. It also talks about how the ministry's hands are tied, and that they would like to get into it further. One thing we have here that they do not have in B.C. is a stronger law on the books. Aside from Charter challenges, which we can debate, there is some power to look into things a little further.
Has the Minister heard of any of these concerns from British Columbia? Are we going to just say whatever and forget about it, or is the Minister prepared to do something, so Yukoners can get some answers on this question?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
We are going over the same things, and I have answered the same questions. I will read part of this document, then send it over to the Member.
"In June 1991, Renewable Resources received, from an anonymous source, a copy of an unsigned draft agreement respecting Fritz Mayr-Melnhof and an unnamed outfitter."
This is a complete breakdown from the time these things started.
Mr. Harding:
It will be interesting to look at that and to see whether it was authenticated by the lawyer, as the one I put into the Minister's hands was. To me, as a new Member of this Legislature, I do not think that is the relevant point. From my point of view, the issue is the issue is the issue. If there was something done by the department in 1991 that was not correct, I do not think it makes it any more right now. It will be interesting to see. The evidence could be different.
The thing that authenticated the matter to me was the fact that the lawyer, who was acting as the agent for Mr. Mayr-Melnhof, put the proposal forward and signed it, although the document was not signed. It was signed by the lawyer for Mr. Melnhof, which made it more than just a few words of agreement jotted down on a piece of paper, which anyone could have done. Not anybody could have Anton Campion represent them and sign an agreement on their behalf. That was quite well authenticated. I will have to read the document the Minister has given me.
However, all I can say is that the issue is still the issue. They are the government, and it should be dealt with.
The Minister continues to say he is not going to do anything about looking into this question. Let me ask him a pointed question.
Has the Minister ever had any discussions with the Government Leader, who was involved in one of the sales transactions about arrangements for side deals with the Government Leader's son-in-law, who was involved in the sale? Has he ever had any discussions about that with him? Does he have any knowledge whatsoever of side arrangements there?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
No, I have not nor do I have any idea what the arrangements were.
Mr. Harding:
Does he have any in any of the other three areas? If there are side deals, which we have proven some evidence of, is that of no concern to him whatsoever?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
I have no evidence of any of them.
Mr. Harding:
I did give him evidence, signed by the lawyer for Mr. Mayr-Melnhof, so he does have some evidence. If he did not have it before, I put it right in his hands. He has it. I saw it given to him so I know he has some evidence of it. I guess it depends upon the definition of "evidence" - whether it is a document signed by a person acting as an agent for Mr. Mayr-Melnhof or whatever. It is disconcerting to think that that would not be enough to raise a few eyebrows. It certainly raised a few eyebrows in the Yukon; I know that.
I have some specific questions for the Minister; they arise out of share registry documents, which go back into the previous administration. If he cannot answer them today, then I would ask him to provide me with the answers as soon as possible.
We know from the share registry that the Government Leader, before he was Government Leader, sold all his voting and non-voting shares in his outfitting company to Mr. Mayr-Melnhof on March 1, 1991. We also know that, for the next 11 months, Mr. Mayr-Melnhof owned not 49 percent, not 51 percent, but 100 percent of the outfitting company before Mr. Ostashek's son-in-law took over.
Can the Minister tell me when the sale of the Government Leader's former outfitting company was reported to the ministry, and also what was reported about the change in share ownership of the company, which is a requirement of section 106(6) of the Wildlife Act?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
That was all done before I was even here, before I was around. How can I be expected to get that information. I was not here in those days. Mr. Ostashek sold his area long before he decided to run for politics, and I have no information. I just got through telling the Member that I have not talked to any of them about this and I am not going to talk to them about this.
Mr. Harding:
It would make sense for the Minister not to talk to anybody about this, because then he would not have to say he had any knowledge of it.
I assume that the government, the day after the election, just does not throw all the outfitting files out. I do not think they just throw out all the concession licences or the certificates and the previous history of it. The deputy minister is still the same. There was a change in government, but he is still the same. A lot of people who work in the department are still the same. The conservation officer in my riding is still the same. So, I do not think it is asking too much to provide that information. I know the Minister was not in power. What I am asking is that the department provide me, through the Minister, with the information I am asking for. Can he do that?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
They will research the files again.
Mr. Harding:
I have another question through the Minister to the department. I would like to know how Mr. Mayr-Melnhof was the concession holder for concession number 11, while he held 100 percent of the voting shares during that period for Kluane Outfitting - March 1, 1991, when the Government Leader sold them to him, until January 22, 1992, when a Yukoner, Mr. Ostashek's son-in-law, began to hold 51 percent of the voting shares. Can he research that and provide me with the response?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
Yes.
Mr. Harding:
It is also interesting to point out that the Minister, when I have asked him about researching and checking into all of this, has told me several times that he has investigated all of this. This was probably the area where I started asking questions first - Kluane Outfitting. He told me that he had had many discussions with the department. Would not these sort of questions about ownership have been part of not even an in-depth investigation, but a cursory look?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
All my discussions are on what happened since I have been here - not what happened before. All the areas - and once more we have to come back to this - are 51-percent owned by Yukon residents.
Mr. Harding:
We have to go back over it. We have produced
Page Number 2685
some evidence that they could be 51 percent held. That is a lot different from being owned and controlled by Yukon residents. It is as simple as that. They may be held on paper, but if there are negotiations that show that they are not owned and controlled, then there is a spirit-of-the-law question, I guess. There may even be a legal question; I do not know whether there are any illegalities. I cannot imagine Anton Campion being involved in something in which they were not confident that they were not in breach of the law.
I guess my question to the Minister is this: if there is something that has been done wrong and the department was not aware of it - that is why I asked the notice question - then it is not really relevant. It is not really relevant, anyway, whether it happened before him. If something in the public interest was not done, does it stop after an election?
Should it not carry on further? Is that not what we are elected to do - whether it is the previous government or this one - to put the public interest first? I do not think that it should stop where the Minister is saying it should stop. The point of my question is that if the ministry was not made aware of this through notice, they would not have known that anything was wrong. Maybe they granted a concession certificate. Did the Minister say that he stopped his entire investigation? Did he say that he started it on October 19, 1992, and he never went back any further into anything?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
Here we go again. When I came in, they looked at it and they assured me that things were the way they were before, and that they had consulted lawyers and those were the legal opinions they got. I accepted what the department told me. I will have to repeat that the whole Wildlife Act will probably be opened up for amendment when the umbrella final agreement is finalized. What more can I say?
Mr. Harding:
The Minister can do a lot. The Minister has a lot of powers under the Wildlife Act. I must say that this is not a particularly enjoyable issue for me either. The Minister may think that we are having a great deal of fun over here, but I do not enjoy talking to constituents about someone who signs their cheques being under scrutiny. I do not enjoy being confronted by people who tell me I am destroying their industry by bringing it up. I do not enjoy that. I do not enjoy putting someone - an individual who wants to do business here - in the public spotlight, unless I have to. I do not enjoy the fact that people I know, who are working with this person, being made the centre of discussion in the issue. I am doing it because I think that there is an issue here. There is a reason for it. I think that there is a lot of concern. I do not care whether it is the previous Minister, or this Minister; I think there is an issue here that should be looked at. I have gone to the point where I have even asked the Minister to present some alternatives to a public inquiry. I do not even know where it is going to go, I just think that the public - different stakeholders in the industry - should have some input. I know I have talked to outfitters who say that they do not like these deals, but they try to take care of it on the side. I guess the question I would put to them is to ask where they stand on this. Do they support 51-percent control and ownership, or do they not? Do they want to reduce the amount of control Yukoners have? Are the Yukon outfitting areas too expensive now, where 51-percent control by Yukoners is too much to ask? These are all questions that need answers.
I have told people involved in the industry that I am not going to crusade against foreign ownership. I have stated my case; I would like to have a majority of Yukon control and ownership. However, if other Yukoners do not think that is a problem and want to open it up, that would be fine with me.
I hear the Minister asking why I am carrying on. The reason is that there are so many unanswered questions.
Some Hon. Member:
(Inaudible)
Mr. Harding:
The Minister of Education says that he thinks the people who are trying to buy the Faro mine are foreign. I guess the Minister of Education, who is the former President of the Yukon Fish and Game Association, has totally missed the point. He thinks that wildlife is the same as lead and zinc. We have a diminishing, scarce public resource - our wildlife - being subjected to more and more scrutiny and being divided up into smaller and smaller pieces of pie. We have First Nations subsistence concerns, resident hunters, the outfitting industry and a million dollar wolf kill at taxpayers' expense. Some people cannot even get a moose any more. If that is the same as lead and zinc, hotels or tourist businesses, I think the Minister has totally missed the point. It is a renewable resource.
If someone sets up a hotel, they are not shooting my or someone else's moose. They are not shooting Yukoners' caribou. They would be running a hotel. However, when someone sets up an outfitting business, they are shooting moose and caribou, which are a public resource.
Some Hon. Member:
(Inaudible)
Deputy Chair:
Order please. Will the Member please allow the Member to continue?
Some Hon. Member:
(Inaudible)
Mr. Harding:
Yes, of course. The Minister is saying there is some merit. The hunters stay in hotels. There is benefit from the outfitting industry. I have stated clearly that there is, and that I am a supporter of it. However, what I am asking questions about is the determination of the harvest. There is a very big difference.
The Minister is saying it is a sustainable harvest. If it is a sustainable harvest, why are we spending $1 million of taxpayers' money on a wolf kill? I do not know how much more clearly it has to be spelled out for the Members opposite.
We have resource councils established to determine harvest levels, and what are sustainable and how we are going to divvy up scarce resources. That is the whole direction the umbrella final agreement is taking for wildlife resource management. They have not asked for resource councils for a number of other things, as far as I am aware, but they have for wildlife.
Some Hon. Member:
(Inaudible)
Mr. Harding:
The First Nations people feel that is a resource they are entitled to. Of course they are. It has been set down in the Supreme Court, through decisions like the Sparrow decision. Participation on renewable resource councils is a way to cooperatively manage wildlife. It is very indicative that First Nations people are going to be prepared to work with other Yukoners, like outfitters and resident hunters, in determining how the resource is going to be structured.
We all know there are benefits to resident hunters; we all know there are benefits to businesses in the area when people come in and harvest game from the outside. I have no problem with that, as long as there is a sustainable harvest. If those decisions have not been made locally, then it will be more difficult to have cooperative management.
The Members opposite shout out that mining is the same. I do not have a problem with mining investment coming from foreigners. I do not think we are talking about the same thing. Local control is the issue here, along with the umbrella final agreement, and where we are moving with wildlife management. That debate could go on for hours and hours. I believe it is important to have local control and, if Yukoners do not want that, they will have to decide.
I find it strange. When I talked to the Minister about this issue just last spring, I got a different story. He did not agree with it; he did not like foreign ownership; he did not think 51 percent was enough; it was not satisfactory; he did not like people running two
Page Number 2686
or three outfits. He stood up and said all these things to me. Now, when I start raising questions about it, he has taken a new approach to it, saying that I am just going on about nothing. I do not think it is, and I do not think he really believes that either but, for one reason or another, he has changed his tune, and that is disturbing. I do not know if it is politically motivated.
I guess the question is this: where do we go from here? Do we continue to raise this issue, because I do not think this issue is going to go away and I do not think that it will wait for a couple of years. It may die down for awhile, but I think it is going to resurface. There are a lot of people out there in the Yukon. I know that Mr. Mayr-Melnhof has invested a lot of money here and I am sure that he is worried and disappointed that it has come to this. Down deep I speculate that he is also glad that decisions are being made and that discussions are being undertaken, because you want to have some stability and some knowledge of where Yukoners are going to go if you want to decide to invest money in the Yukon.
I guess I could ask the Minister this simple question: where do we go from here? Does the Minister intend to leave this for another couple of years for umbrella final agreement discussions, or where does he see this going?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
We go around and around and around. We hope that the umbrella final agreement will be before Parliament very shortly and be signed. Once that happens, we can start the process.
The Member keeps saying that this went on for two or three years. I have to point out that these situations when on for a number of years with them knowing about it and they did nothing about it.
As for the statement about me being politically motivated, I do not think there is anyone in this House who can say that I have not tried to defend the wildlife of the Yukon. I have stood up and taken more junk from people all over the world than anyone else in this Legislature. I have been called rotten names, had rotten phone calls - even my wife has received them - and we have stuck by my decisions because I believe that I am bringing the game back. I get sick and tired of always blaming the outfitters for killing all of the game. That is just what he is doing.
The Member indicates to me that because a landed immigrant, who is a Canadian citizen, has these outfits, they are taking more game than they would have any other way.
The outfitting concessions are held by Yukon residents and they are continually checked by the department. I have great faith in what the department says. You say that I have changed my tune. I have not changed my tune, but I have listened to five legal advisors and any time that I think I am smarter than five lawyers, then there is something wrong with me. I have not changed and I resent the fact that the Member thinks I am trying to get rid of the game. I have worked very damn hard. In fact, I have agreements with First Nations where we now have corridors that we never had before to try and protect the game. The First Nations know that we have to try to protect the game, and I know it. We are doing our best to work through this system.
We are still working on a system to get the outfitters on a quota. The Renewable Resource Council in Mayo has succeeded in getting some of their area outfitters on a quota system and they are quite happy with it. I think that if we are left alone and able to work on this system we will succeed all around, but it takes time.
Mr. Harding:
I think that the Minister is going to be hard-pressed to find in Hansard a quote where I said outfitters are to blame for problems in the number of game animals and that they are the only ones to blame and the only ones to point fingers at. I do not think that the Minister will find that, because I never said that.
I never said it - it is as simple as that. We all have a shared responsibility in game management - resident hunters, outfitters and First Nations - and that is why renewable resource councils, fish and game associations, and organizations like that are established. We all have a shared responsibility.
The Minister is making the political argument, as far as I am concerned, to equate himself to his constituency, but I certainly never said that. He will not be able to find a quote. I challenge him to find a quote.
What he will find is where I said I support the outfitting industry. What he will find is where I have said that I would like to see some clear understanding on what Yukoners want, in terms of foreign investment in outfitting territories. What he will find is that I have said that we have a shared responsibility. What he will find is that I believe in the umbrella final agreement and in cooperative resource management decisions. That is what he will find.
If he wants to believe that raising those questions is an affront to the outfitting business, then I guess he will choose to believe that, as will the individual people involved working in the industry, which is fine by me.
I heard the president of the association on the radio say he believes in what I am saying. He believes it should be 51 percent owned and controlled by Yukoners living here. He says he believes in the Wildlife Act - spirit, intent and wording - everything should be upheld. That is what he said.
I am not saying anything different than that. I am saying there may be cases where it is not, so I am surprised when someone in the industry comes up to me and says that I am running them through the dirt. I do not think I am. If it is portrayed by other people out there, and people who read it take that impression individually from what we have said, that is unfortunate, and I do not agree with it. Nonetheless, that is part of the problem - when there are people in the industry who - we are not sure - may or may not be doing what the Wildlife Act intended regarding ownership and control.
I have talked to some of these people, and I know they believe that they want, over time, to gain a territory, because they did not have as much money. I do not know what their equity arrangement is. I really do not. The only agreement I have seen personally, which I gave to the Minister, signed by the lawyer for Mr. Mayr-Melnhof, clearly showed that there was no equity. It was strictly a management agreement, and this was quite shocking to me.
Perhaps Yukoners will say, if a Yukoner can come up with 10 percent of a territory and hold 10 percent of the equity, that is good enough for us. I do not know. I just believe that, if Yukoners were polled, they would say they wanted majority Yukon control and ownership. I mean not just managing it, not just being employees of someone else, but being actual owners.
I know the Minister has done things to protect the game in this territory. He has done the wolf kill, but this is another part of game management. The Minister should not rest on the laurels of the wolf kill forever. I think that this is another question of game management. It is obviously an issue in other jurisdictions and I look forward to trying to find out some more information about it.
I do not have the resources of the government, and we sort of have to stumble along like Inspector Clouseaus, trying to gather information, but certainly we will continue to do that and get as much information as we can using the fine researchers that we are allowed to employ and through my efforts myself. We will just do the best that we can. That is all we can do.
One person from the Yukon called me and said, "You know, that Minister of Justice is right about Inspector Clouseaus. You know it is a darn shame that one has to be an Inspector Clouseau in one's own bloody territory and cannot find out who really owns
Page Number 2687
these areas. It is a sad thing." He was not alarmed by the comment, because he realizes it is tough to put a finger on what the actual ownership situation is. As I read that enlightening article from B.C., they have some of the same problems, albeit they do not have the same tough laws that we do.
The Minister, in his last statement, mentioned things he is doing to regulate the outfitting industry. He said the other day he is a big supporter of outfitting quotas and he is going to be bringing them in. How is he doing with his outfitting quotas? What kind of time line is he looking at? Has he had an update or report from the committee yet?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
We expect a report on that from the committee this fall.
Mr. Harding:
What does he see evolving from it? Is he going to be making a public announcement about the information that they have tabulated?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
When the report is in, yes, of course we will. Why would we not?
Mr. Harding:
I am just reading through the comments that the Minister tabled on the subject of citizenship and residency requirements for ownership of outfitting concessions in response to Opposition questions.
They say that the present government is continuing to apply the same ownership criteria as the previous administration did, and that, excluding Cabinet documents prepared by the administration, they can provide a summary.
Unfortunately, as I read through it, it is all "maybe" and "could be", and a lot of, I guess, question marks. But, it does not make any mention of a side agreement that takes away Yukon ownership and control after Yukon ownership and control has been registered as 51 percent with the game branch. It does not speak to that.
It is signed by the lawyer for Mr. Mayr-Melnhof. It mentions an unsigned one, but there is nothing authenticating it, which makes it quite questionable. There is no one acting as an agent for Mr. Mayr-Melnhof. Even if it is there, even if there was an unsigned one, I think Yukoners still have some questions about it. Rather than feeling persecuted, would the Minister not want to get to the bottom of it for the answers to the questions that have been raised by Yukoners?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
We are going around on the same thing again. It is quite apparent that the best thing we can do is agree to disagree. I am not going to change my opinion, and it is quite apparent he is not. We gave him a document that put down the whole thing, starting back in 1991, when the first one of those documents, unsigned, was given to an outfitter. I was not in government at that time.
The Member shakes his head. We can go on for the next 24 days. I do not know.
Mr. Harding:
I want the Minister to be clear. It says, "a copy of an unsigned draft agreement". The one we gave him was signed by an agent for Mr. Mayr-Melnhof. That is not unsigned. Mr. Mayr-Melnhof was obviously putting forth an offer.
The comments forwarded to the Minister were a bare breakdown of the concerns regarding foreign ownership. We have freely admitted there were all kinds of rumours at the time, but not a lot of evidence. Now, there is some evidence. I think it is a different situation.
I wonder why the Members opposite, who expressed concern just a year ago, would now be saying it is not an issue. Why would they be doing that?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
I have already pointed that out on a number of occasions. Four different lawyers advised me that, at the present time, it was not an issue. He is a landed immigrant. He is a Canadian. He owns 49 percent of the shares; 51 percent is owned by the concession holder, and the certificate is issued in that outfitter's name. All he has done is lend the money. I cannot say any more.
Mr. Harding:
In a nutshell, the issue is that he is a non-resident Yukoner. Under the law, he is entitled to 49 percent. He told me the other day he is a landed immigrant. There was tabled a 1991 document authenticating what he and the government considered to be proof. We are not Immigration Canada, and I do not know whether he is being investigated or not. He says he knows the rules, but that is not the issue.
The issue is that he is allowed to own 49 percent, but he may own 100, 98 or 95 percent. He may own more than 51 or 49 percent. I am saying to the Minister, are things as they should be? Are things as they are written in the spirit and to the letter of the law under the Wildlife Act?
Even though, just a year ago, the Minister told me there were problems, does the Minister really believe that everything is okay?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
I have said about all that I can. I am just repeating myself and going around and around. The document that was given to us was a draft document. He seems to think that we are going to turn the world upside-down because of it. As far as I am concerned, it is not evidence.
Mr. Harding:
It was a document signed by the agent for the person, which I think gives it some authenticity. If I would have had just an unsigned document, then I would say that there would be some question about it, but this was authenticated by the lawyer from Anton Campion for Mr. Mayr-Melnhof. Yes, we are going around and around. It is unfortunate that I cannot get the Minister to move on this. I will tell him that I have not asked him to turn the world upside-down; I have asked for a public inquiry. They said no. I then asked them to present some alternatives, and they said they would not present any. They talked vaguely about the umbrella final agreement, and about the Wildlife Act changes that may happen in the next couple of years, but there was no concrete response given. I think that it is an issue. It was an issue, through rumour, for the previous government, and an issue of evidence for this government. I am disappointed. I guess that I will leave it now, for the time being, but I am sure that it will resurface. I would think that, for the greater good of all people involved in the industry - the outfitters, Mr. Mayr-Melnhof as an investor, Yukon resident hunters, and Yukon First Nations - there should be some public dialogue about exactly what the ground rules governing outfitting are going to be in this territory in terms of ownership and control. I think that should happen sooner rather than later. It is not necessarily an attack on the present administration; it is a call for some dialogue on the question. I think that it would be quite well supported.
Let me move on to another topic. This should be another good debate. Let us talk about game sanctuary roads in the Burwash Landing area. We have had some debate about this in Question Period, but that is a very poor forum for getting to the bottom of things. I have been told by the Minister that he has talked to lodge owners and some people up in the area about where it is going to go. What are the parameters of the discussion? What is the concept? What is the initial starting point? I have been told there are some roads - I may be wrong, the Minister can tell me - in the area. There are some placer claims. Are we talking about putting in new roads, or widening existing roads? What are the parameters of the dialogue?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
Regarding the one road up the Alsek Pass, national parks and the government are looking at that one. It has to go through an environmental review panel study. Regarding the other roads, we have looked at different things up there. We have not completed looking at all of them. Naturally I talked with the lodge owners; they happen to all be in my area. They are all very concerned about the Shakwak project coming in, and people
Page Number 2688
going through the Yukon faster because we have no way to hold them when all they can see is an area nine or 10 miles away which they cannot get to. There are very few valleys I know of up there that do not have an old mining road or an access road that people are now using to get into the game sanctuary, so I suppose we would be improving on these roads, if and when we choose. If we are simply trying to find out where we would like to go, then we would go to the public to see what they think.
Members can rest assured that the lodges that are close will agree with it, and the ones far away will not. We will have to make decisions from there.
Mr. Harding:
I am not taking a hard position on this issue, and I never have. I am taking a hard position on ensuring that the people in the area have been consulted before any concrete decisions are made.
I heard Chief Johnson, from the Kluane First Nation, on the radio, expressing concern that the Minister only talked to him after the issue was brought up by myself in the Legislature.
I guess I will move off this issue, as long as I get a firm commitment that, before any major decisions are made in terms of where they should go or how big they should be, or even if they should go ahead at all, there will be a discussion with the people concerned, especially in the area. Can the Minister give me that commitment?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
Yes, I can.
Mr. Harding:
This is easy. I would like to move on to another issue that we have also discussed in Question Period, and that is the issue of the changes to the Environment Act.
A couple of months ago, the president of the Whitehorse Chamber of Commerce was saying that he wanted some changes and that we were on the leading edge of environmental legislation. I dispute that comment. I hardly think the Yukon is on the leading edge. Since that act was brought in, I believe there have been acts introduced in many jurisdictions that are probably more on the leading edge than ours. Nevertheless, it does instill in people some feelings of influence over how things are done that affect the environment in the territory.
There are complaint procedures, the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment was established, and there are a number of other good things relating to input. People who are concerned about environmental issues can raise concerns through appropriate processes and established bodies. I think that is a good thing.
When the Whitehorse Chamber of Commerce came out with the public statement, the Minister responded, in concurrence with the chamber, that we were the most gol'-darned regulated place in Canada, that we only have a few people and do not need as many regulations. I clipped out all the comments and followed it quite closely, and I looked forward to getting into the Legislature to ask about it. When I mentioned it in the House, the Minister said that the department was making some changes.
This act was just brought in. There were many aspects of the act that were the result of much consultation. Why would the Minister announce, after the Whitehorse Chamber of Commerce publicly asked for it, that he is probably going to change it, according to their request, and then say that he was going to do it behind closed doors, without consultation? He said he did not want to put it out for a public review.
I would think that, if there were concerns to be raised, a public review would be a more appropriate vehicle, but I would like to hear the call for review come from more sources than simply the Whitehorse Chamber of Commerce. I think there should be a broader call than that.
Can the Minister tell me what is going on with the changes to the Environment Act he has talked about proposing?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
There they go again, putting words in my mouth. I never, at any time, said we were going to do things behind closed doors. I was asked by the press if I agreed with what the Chamber of Commerce said, and I said I agreed with some of it. They also know that the government has some problems with a few minor things in it that they are trying to adjust. We have already had an individual up here from Alberta. It is quite correct that Alberta and B.C. are advancing much faster than we are. We have listened to them and some of the problems they have had, which I think we can sort out.
Our review schedule is an initial review for Justice and Renewable Resources in May to June 1994; senior review June/July 1994; non-government review July/August 1994; Departments of Justice and Renewable Resources to package proposed changes and put them forward for the fall session of the Legislature 1994.
Mr. Harding:
The Minister said he responded to the reporters and told them what part he did not agree with. What parts does he not agree with in the act, as a result of the Chamber of Commerce representations?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
One example is that the way some of the legislation is worded would make all businesses vulnerable in a number of areas, and the due diligence defence. I believe Alberta also had a little concern with individuals on the same thing. Most of the other examples are pretty well housekeeping. We have three sets of regulations out now for public review, and we are moving just about as fast as we can on it. The other side knows there are an awful lot of regulations that have to come in.
As for the statement "too many regulations", I will stand by that any time in the Yukon. There are way too many regulations for 30,000 people. I do not have a problem saying that, any place.
Mr. Harding:
It makes good political sense to say that, and I am sure everybody thinks that, so I can say it, too. There are too many regulations.
However, at the end of the day, there was an act put together through consultation with probably the same Yukoners who complain that there are too many regulations, and who felt, on a collective basis, that the Environment Act met their needs. At the end of the day, that was the result.
The Minister said that all businesses will be vulnerable in a number of areas. Could he be a little more specific as to which businesses and how they would be vulnerable? One would hope the act would make only businesses that were not cooperating with sound environmental practices vulnerable.
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
One of the problems is that even if they were doing what the government requires, they can get themselves into problems with other organizations.
Mr. Harding:
If the Minister is referring to the complaint procedure, to what specific section is the Minister referring? I would like to review the section, as the critic, to examine the Minister's point.
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
We are getting into a long go around here. Would the hon. Member like to receive a complete briefing on the whole thing?
Some Hon. Member:
(Inaudible)
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
All right, we will set that up for the Member whenever it is convenient for him.
Mr. Harding:
I thank the Minister for that and I will certainly take the government up on that briefing.
The next issue that I want to talk about is another one that was raised in Question Period and that was the issue of game farming in the territory. The Minister has now released some proposed game farming regulations, which unleashed a few sparks throughout the territory. There were a number of organizations that expressed great concerns with the procedure used for the regulation development, in that they felt it was too pro game
Page Number 2689
farming and that there was not enough education on both sides of the issues as to the industry's potential value. I read information put forth by game growers in the territory. I read letters to the editor from wildlife viewing business operators. I saw strong representations made to the Minister by the Council for Yukon Indians, Yukon Fish and Game Association, the Yukon Conservation Society, the Dawson First Nation and a number of individual Yukoners. There was a considerable amount of debate and a lot of people very concerned about the issue, especially CYI, which was quite strong in its opposition to the Minister's actions.
The Minister responded by saying that there was a lot of consultation, but I guess the point the people against had was that consultation was done in a pro fashion right off the bat and that it was not really, in their minds, properly accomplished.
The Minister went on to say that the regulations are going out for a 60-day review. Is the Minister going to leave game farming where it is? Does he intend to push forward with his regulations, or is he planning to do further consultative changes with the people who have expressed quite grave interest in, and reservations about, the direction the Minister is taking?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
To start with, the regulations have not gone out for public review yet. They will be going out shortly.
The Member mentioned the First Nations. I spoke with Chief Taylor when I was in Dawson. I got the impression that he is not too concerned, although his letter certainly indicated that he is - the conversation did not indicate that.
I guess what one has to ask is when does one stop consultation. This has been going on and on for many, many years and some time one has to make a decision to go. That is what we get paid for as politicians.
Actually, with the exception of probably three or four letters - one of them rather mean - that were sent to me, I have not had a great deal of public resentment against it at all.
Mr. Harding:
The Minister knows full well that CYI is a collective body in some forms - they have many individual structures of 14 native bands. So, when one gets a letter from CYI, it has some collective thump. It is kind of like getting a letter from a lot of people. I know the former president of the Yukon Fish and Game Association would also claim to speak for a number of individuals. I think they have upwards of 1,000 members. So, when they elect an executive, a lot of times people concerned about those issues like their representatives to put their thoughts forward. That, I believe, should be taken, at least in general, as a collective response. So, while the Minister might have received four letters, the people who wrote them, in some areas, certainly represented a lot of people.
I think the Minister should not be asking when one stops consultation, but how does one start consultation. How does one ask the questions in a manner that one knows will get a fair and unbiased, objective response from all of the people who have expressed interest? I guess that is the question. If one assumes one is going to go forward with an industry, obviously the people who do not support the industry are going to be quite concerned about that.
Would the Minister agree to a solid schedule of a very open, neutral proposal on the industry that shows all the positives and all the minuses that have been presented by people on both sides and put that out for an extensive public review? I think that would be very important.
Coupled with that, would the Minister agree to support what some other jurisdictions have done, and that is working in conjunction with the federal government on an environmental assessment of this industry? I think that at the same time the people involved in the industry should be allowed to continue to operate. Would the Minister agree to initiate a moratorium?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
No, I will not agree to putting another moratorium on it. I would point out that there were already five or six game operators here. They were funded by government to get started. It is a reality.
If one reads our regulations closely, no one can go outside of this area unless everyone in those areas agrees to the game farm. The regulations will be out, and people can look at them then. We had a public discussion paper in April 1992, and there were nine submissions received on that paper.
Mr. Harding:
I would just say to the Minister that I think he should reconsider. However, he has obviously made his mind up and is not prepared to change it.
I want to move on to another issue with the Minister, which has been brought to me by people involved in the forestry industry. In the light of the forestry transfer being imminent in the next few years, or however long it takes, there is a question that must be asked of the Minister. It was pointed out to me by representatives of the forestry industry that the stumpage fees in the Yukon are much higher than the royalties that, for example, mining companies pay when they extract a resource from the ground. I do not know if the philosophy behind that is that trees are renewable, whereas ore, such as lead and zinc, is not. I do not know if all the Ministers even get that point.
How does the Minister feel about the stumpage fees? Does he support increasing or reducing them? What is his philosophy about people paying more for them than, for example, the royalties paid in the mining industry?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
I guess this is one time the Member and I can agree. We should go out for coffee and have a good time.
The stumpage fees are way too low. The stumpage fees that have been agreed on with Kaska have moved from 80 cents to $1.73, and I still think that is too low to look after silviculture. In B.C., they pay from $7 to $25 for every cubic metre. I do not say we should charge that much, but we should be up to a more realistic rate. We are way behind the times.
Mr. Harding:
What does the Minister base that view on? Is it because royalties in mining are a depletable resource and trees are renewable? What is his justification for higher stumpage fees than royalty fees on mining, for example?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
There are a couple of reasons. If we leave our stumpage fees low, we have people coming in to highgrade. As the hon. Member mentioned, trees are renewable, but they are only renewable if you have the money to plant them and the stumpage fees are applied to silviculture.
Mr. Cable:
There have been two areas where the Minister's department has been investigating contaminants. The first is cadmium and the level of that contaminant turning up in the ungulates.
I understand that there has been a program carried out under one of the federal funding arrangements. Has the Minister reached a conclusion about the source of cadmium?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
The research is ongoing and I have not received a report yet. Research is still ongoing and I suspect it will be ongoing for some time to try to find the source and the cause.
Mr. Cable:
Does the Minister's department or the consultants retained under these programs have any idea where the cadmium is coming from? Is it airborne, or is it ground contamination?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
We are assuming that it is coming from the air, but we are not completely sure of that. It could be coming from the lichen. We are now conducting tests on caribou in every area, knowing the pattern of air currents, to see if there is contaminated or whether it is from the lichen that the caribou winter on.
Mr. Cable:
I understand the Chief Medical Officer does not share some of the reservations that have been expressed regarding
Page Number 2690
caribou contamination in Old Crow. What is the department's position?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
Health and Welfare have to deal with the human part of it. We are dealing with trying to get the evidence to give to them. The Health and Welfare people make the final decision. Unfortunately, the medical officer is not here.
Mr. Cable:
The other major contaminant talked about in the last couple of years is the toxaphene chemical that has been turning up in the organs of the fish in Lake Laberge. I understand Environment Canada and the Minister's department have been reviewing this. Has there been any determination as to the source of the toxaphene?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
No. At the present moment, it is still speculation, but we are now broadening our scope, checking other lakes in other areas, and picking up more information from those places.
Mr. Cable:
What sort of information has been picked up? Is the toxaphene contamination in Lake Laberge unusual with respect to other lakes in the territory?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
We are finding that some of the other lakes have some toxin in them, but Lake Laberge is an unusual situation. The lake trout there are extra fat, and we think this has something to do with it, although it is speculation at the present time.
Mr. Cable:
Is there any time line set by the Minister's department, in conjunction with whomever they are working with, for determining either cadmium sourcing or toxaphene sourcing?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
We will bring that information back, but I suspect it is pretty well ongoing.
Mr. Cable:
I have just a couple of questions on the forestry transfer. I put some of these questions to the Government Leader.
Where does the Minister's department sit on the preparation of the legislation that will be necessary to permit the takeover of forestry?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
We are working on legislation that would carry us in between the two. To get our policy, we would have to consult with the people of the Yukon, and that would take some time. Meanwhile, we are trying to develop an interim policy until we can develop a policy that people of the Yukon want.
Mr. Cable:
What would be the salient features of the interim policy? I assume log exports would be one, and perhaps stumpage fees would be included.
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
Silviculture would be one, stumpage fees would be another, log exports, and anything else that is on the public's mind right now would probably be included temporarily until the policy is ready.
Mr. Cable:
Is the process for the interim policy ongoing with the federal counterparts of the deputy's staff, or is this being worked up by the Minister's department?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
For the initial policy we worked with the First Nations, the Yukon Conservation Society and the federal government. Now we are working with the federal government in changing their policy into ours.
Mr. Cable:
If I am hearing the Minister correctly, he is saying that there have been some consultations with the First Nations, the federal government, conservation groups, and the CYI - is that correct? Now the Minister's department is working on a second step after the initial consultation - is that correct?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
That is correct.
Mr. Cable:
When does the Minister anticipate that the interim policy would be ready?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
We will not put out the interim policy until we get control of forestry, but the federal government - working with us now - may change some of its policy as we go along, so that it will be ready when the transfer is made.
Mr. Cable:
I have just one final question. As part of this interim policy, will the government be dealing with the issue of clear cutting?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
We are really talking about an interim policy, but I would suspect that we would be looking at that, because that is certainly one of the issues that bother an awful lot of people in the Yukon.
Deputy Chair:
Is there any further general debate?
Mr. Harding:
I have a question about campground privatization. I have had some written correspondence with the Minister over the last few months. What is the status of campground privatization? What specifically is happening with Rancheria? Will it not be open this year? From where did the request come to close Rancheria? Did it come from anybody? Was there any representation made by anyone in the public and are there any plans - aside from the Carmacks area, which I understand has been turned over to the First Nation - to do any other privatization in any other campgrounds?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
We pulled all our equipment out of the Rancheria one. It is up at Rancheria Falls now and the land has reverted to the lands department. It has been advertised in the paper for sale.
In Carmacks, we turned the campground over to the First Nation and the Carmacks people. We may, after awhile, look at a small campground down below Carmacks for boaters.
The one in Dawson is with private contractors. It has been that way for four years.
Mr. McDonald:
I have a couple of questions to ask. I would just like to take the opportunity to comment on the subject memo the Minister tabled this afternoon regarding the ownership of outfitting concessions. I can honestly tell the Minister that I do not recall any such memo going to Cabinet. I do not recall that subject at all being discussed by the previous Cabinet.
The subject memo that the Minister has tabled says nothing more than what the Minister has said already in the Legislature. I note there is no new information here. It does not say what action was called for in the memo. It says nothing about what proof the department had that there were side deals in existence. It says nothing that we can put our hands on or that we can really address with respect to what the previous Cabinet knew and what it did, in terms of what it felt was appropriate action. I can honestly say that I do not recall any such discussion taking place in Cabinet. Certainly, there was none to which I was party.
In any case, I think the issue has probably been exhausted and likely discussed as much as the critic and Minister want to today, so I will not pursue it right now.
I have some questions about the abattoir. The abattoir proposals that were most recently considered by the Yukon Agricultural Association were raised in the Legislature recently. I wonder if the Minister could give us a general update as to what the government's current actions are with respect to trying to ensure that it gets built.
The Minister will know that there were some very clear commitments made by both the Minister and the Minister of Community and Transportation Services about how they were going to get personally involved, get us over the stumbling blocks, past the hurdles and get this thing done. There is only one performance indicator that is worth a damn: whether or not the abattoir is built. If it is not, the Ministers have failed; it is pure and simple.
I would like to ask the Minister what his department's actions are and what his personal actions are to get us past those hurdles and to ensure that the abattoir is built and underway?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
We are trying to find some land in conjunction with Community and Transportation Services. That seems to be an issue that we have not been able to solve. The
Page Number 2691
agreement was that they were supposed to raise $150,000 in equity by the end of June and, right now, they have $5,000 raised and $40,000 promised.
We are doing another market study to see if meat would be acceptable to people if there was a territorial inspector instead of a federal one. We are working closely with the association, but we must have that show of faith from the people. If people are not interested enough to contribute that much equity, then we have a problem.
Mr. McDonald:
What precisely is the equity requirement being pursued by the Yukon government? How much must the industry come up with for the Yukon government to feel that they have sufficiently contributed toward the project?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
We are looking at 10 percent of the equity of the project. If they downsize the project, then their equity requirement would drop.
Mr. McDonald:
Does the 10-percent equity required include the cost of the land and all associated costs, or not?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
No, we were attempting to provide the land. But, if they bought the land, that would count as part of their equity in the program.
Mr. McDonald:
What precisely, then, is the situation with respect to land acquisition? I know that when the Yukon Agricultural Association and the various government departments had the open house at the Hidden Valley School last year, they indicated to us that the latest site they were interested in selecting was, I think, the twenty-fourth or twenty-fifth proposal that they had been pursuing.
Each time, their proposal had been shot down for one reason or another. They also indicated a frustration - that is probably a good word - with the process up until that time and they had shown enormous energy and effort to try to get past the hurdles with each new passing day, but were having difficulty getting sufficient support to identify a piece of land.
I understand that one of their latest proposals involved land that they wished to have subdivided, but the proposal was rejected by the government because the government felt that the land, having been agricultural land, should not be subdividable under the new Subdivision Act.
Deputy Chair:
Order please. The time being 4:30, we will now take a brief recess.
Some Hon. Member:
(Inaudible)
Deputy Chair:
Those are my instructions from the House Leaders, and until that changes, that is the way it will be.
Recess
Deputy Chair:
I will now call the Committee of the Whole to order. Is there any further debate on Renewable Resources?
Mr. McDonald:
I will not start in mid-sentence, but I will ask the Minister specifically what the department is doing to help the Yukon Agricultural Association secure land. Clearly, they have gone to a lot of effort themselves and shown a lot of interest. They have aggressively pursued many different options. Precisely what is the government doing to ensure that not only there is land, but that this project gets off the ground?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
I learned at the last meeting I attended that they are looking at four or five different areas. Some of the areas may not be able to be subdivided.
The Member mentioned that the association has done a lot of work to acquire property. I might add that this government has also. I worked from the day I took over this office, right up to the day that we lost lot 288. We had conducted the environmental assessment and everything else and then it - I guess you could say - blew up in our face like a lot of other things do. We were cooperating as much as we could to get land; some of the land is in places where we would have to go through hearings with people in that area to see if they would even want an abattoir. We are feeling our way on a step-by-step basis.
Mr. McDonald:
I guess the problem here is that there is nothing like success in securing land, and nothing short of that will be adequate.
The Minister has indicated that it would require some sort of public discussion and acceptance of the chosen sites. I would agree that that is part of the process.
I would ask him, however, as he indicated that an environmental assessment had been done on lands that were identified, and that this was a cause for serious concern, could he tell us what it was he was referring to?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
There was an environmental assessment done on lot 288, which is the forestry land. There was also one done on land on the Mayo Road by the government.
Mr. McDonald:
Precisely what was he referring to when he said that the environmental assessment caused something to blow up in his face? Can the Minister explain that statement?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
Lot 288 passed the environment assessment, there was no problem there but, all of a sudden, we did not have lot 288. It reverted back to the federal government.
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
I might be able to shed a little light on the subject of land for the abattoir.
I think the Member opposite is aware that people have offered 20 acres of a private piece of property for the abattoir. What we wanted to find out was whether or not they could subdivide that - even though, when it was first talked about, the agricultural land regulations and the agricultural policy both precluded subdivision. However, we thought there were a couple of possibilities: first, had their application gone in before the Subdivision Act, which also stipulates there be no subdivision of agricultural land; and secondly, could an abattoir be considered as agricultural, rather than industrial.
The Department of Community and Transportation Services and Renewable Resources are checking into that, at this point in time. The other possibility is a piece of land on the Hot Springs Road that we are currently aware of, which may very well be suitable for the abattoir.
Mr. McDonald:
As the Ministers, I am sure, are both aware, the reason for the refusal in policy to permit the subdivision of agricultural lands was to discourage and prevent any notion that persons who were recipients of large land grants under the agricultural land program could profiteer from the land they had received, given that the land they received was essentially provided at very low cost. Certainly, any consideration that these lands would be subdivided or used for what is obviously an agricultural-related industry for which there would be no sense that there would be profiteering might be considered an appropriate exception under the policy - perhaps not the act, but certainly under policy.
In any case, could the Minister responsible for lands tell us what target dates they have for resolving these problems and finding a slate that meets the necessary qualifications both for the business plan and also to pass any environmental concerns that there may be, as well as resolving any neighbourhood problems that might be associated with the abattoir.
I do not think there is any doubt that one could go around the block on this question for the next 30 years without ever finding a resolution, but it certainly helps to have a sense that we are going to come to a conclusion and that people are going to pull out the stops to make things work. Otherwise, one might be inclined to think that there is not a political will or there is not the capacity to get a deal and find a solution to this problem.
Does the Minister have a target date for this?
Page Number 2692
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
There are a couple of things. I would just like to comment on the agricultural policy and the land regulations with respect to agriculture.
Another reason why those particular sections are in those two documents and also in the subdivision regulations is not only the profiteering, but I think, more importantly, to retain the integrity of agricultural land so it does not become, over a period of time, subdivided down to country residential type of uses.
I believe that there was a meeting held last week among Community and Transportation Services, Renewable Resources and the agricultural committee that is looking into the abattoir. I am not positive that that happened, but it was intended that there be a meeting. Then the abattoir committee would have three or four different possibilities. If they chose the one on the Hot Springs Road, they were to work with the neighbours. If the Justice people told us that the Lock property could be subdivided, then they would work on that one.
I cannot recall the other possible sites off the top of my head. I am hoping that we can have something - maybe not a transfer of title, but at least a final decision on the land by about the middle of June. That is the target I am pushing for.
Mr. McDonald:
The middle of June the Minister is referring to is the middle of June 1994, I take it. The Minister is nodding in the affirmative.
There have been some concerns expressed by some members of the Agricultural Association that funding commitments that had been made in the past by various agencies would lapse if decisions could not be reached with respect to site selection and scope of the project.
Can the Minister tell us if the Agricultural Association and their membership, and others, meet the equity requirements that they have stated must be in place and, if the land site is selected by June, or the summer of 1994, is there funding available to meet the balance of the commitment to see this project completed?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
They know that the money they now have - the $500,000 - was for the design that was there now. As the design will have to be smaller, they will have to go back and apply for that money again.
Mr. McDonald:
Is the Minister saying that the money is an uncertain element as a result of the delays, and that, even on a scaled-down level, this project may not proceed?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
They have to apply for the economic development agreement money again if they change the design of the building. The small amount of money we have in there is available.
Mr. McDonald:
Is the economic development agreement money and the money that the government has committed sufficient to build the project? Does it need the community futures money, or money from any other source? Is this project going to happen?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
It depends on the design they come up with. It also depends on the market studies of whether or not the marketplace will accept territorial inspections of the meat.
Mr. McDonald:
The Minister is going to have to correct me, because I have to bring some closure to this issue at some point, but the Minister seems to be saying that, even if certain funding has dried up, if the proponents simply continue to down-scale the project - make it smaller and smaller - that, ultimately, whatever funding happens to be left, they can build an abattoir with whatever happens to be around.
Obviously, there is a critical mass that has to be reached in order to ensure that there is an abattoir capable of supplying a market based on what the Agricultural Association knows, or believes, at least, to be the situation with respect to the potential market here for the products of the abattoir.
At the Hidden Valley school briefing, the fellow who was designing the abattoir and the federal meat inspection representative - the person who was there to talk about meat inspection - made it very clear that the proposal that the Agricultural Association was promoting would, if approved, be the smallest abattoir that they knew of in the country. The suggestion was that, to go smaller, or to provide even less capacity, would not make it an economic proposition.
Does the Minister challenge those assumptions or, as the various funding sources dry up, because this thing is dragging on forever, can a smaller abattoir be built? What is the sense of what is realistic here from the Minister's perspective?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
The Yukon Agricultural Association is fully aware that they have to reapply for that money. They keep telling us that the most important thing is to get the land first. I think that is practical, and I do not have a problem with that. We will sort that issue out and go from there.
Mr. McDonald:
The Minister did not tell me anything that I did not know. Of course they have to reapply for funds, if the funds lapse. Of course we have to make sure that we have land, and I am aware of that but, because of the mix-up with the size of the land and the site location, and because we passed the previous deadlines, we are now in a situation where the association has to reapply, meaning there does not seem to be any certainty around this project.
I am eager to know what kind of commitment the territorial government is going to be making. If this abattoir has to go from $1.5 million down to $1 million, or perhaps less, because funding sources dry up, is the territorial government going to be making a sufficient financial commitment to see the project happen, or is the government going to say, at some point, that we have delayed this for so long that the previous programs you used to get money from for the abattoir have now dried up and blown away, and our small, initial commitment is all that stands and, even though we had you jump through dozens of hoops and hurdles in this steeplechase course, the fact of the matter remains that our financial commitment is very small and, if you cannot build the abattoir for what we can give you, then you cannot build the abattoir, and we are sorry, but you are out of luck?
If I were involved with the abattoir project, I would be so pissed at the Yukon government that you would not believe it. After all the work they have done in identifying a site and in lining up funding sources, and then to see them dwindle away might make me quite angry.
What financial commitment is the Government of Yukon itself prepared to make right now to this project? What is the total financial commitment?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
It is $100,000 over two years. Let me point something out. Both the Department of Renewable Resources and Community and Transportation Services have worked right along with these people all the way through. I suppose the next important thing, in my estimation, would be to see whether the market will accept meat inspected by a territorial inspector. If not, then where do we go from there? We go back to federal inspection, and the costs go up immediately.
Mr. McDonald:
I understood that the Agricultural Association had addressed that issue in their business plan, but obviously not to the satisfaction of the Minister. When they were making their presentation to various groups, including the Opposition caucus at one point - because we asked them to do that - they indicated that, while no one would know absolutely whether local chickens and the cattle that would be slaughtered at the abattoir would be sold in the stores, they did seem to think they had some commitments from local retailers that their product would be picked up and sold if it was federally inspected. What precisely is
Page Number 2693
it about this claim that the Minister feels uncomfortable with? It obviously strikes at the heart of the whole abattoir project, if the government itself feels that this is still an unresolved element of the project. There is no point in building any abattoir at all if, in reality, nobody wants to buy the product. What has happened to make the government feel insecure about that?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
There are a number of things. Concerns have been raised by government departments as well as the management committee of Economic Development, that a proper marketing survey of Yukon wholesalers, retailers, restaurants, et cetera, has not been carried out.
Mr. McDonald:
Does the Minister share the view of the department that this is a fundamental concern?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
Yes, it is. If no one is going to purchase the goods, what is the point of moving on this? If we do not do a proper survey on where the product will go, we will certainly have to do it before we go ahead. I think it should be a concern of the Yukon Agricultural Association, as well.
The study we are doing now regarding the territorial inspector is being paid for by us.
Mr. McDonald:
I did not quite understand the last point the Minister made. I will get back to the survey in a moment, but what was the last point the Minister made?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
There is a committee established to go to the market and see if they would accept a territorial inspector to check the meat and if there are places that will purchase it. It has just been set up, and will proceed when it gets its terms of reference. It will see if the product is marketable.
Mr. McDonald:
What precisely is the Minister saying? Is he saying two things: firstly that the marketplace - meaning food retailers - may not buy Yukon-grown poultry and red meat and, secondly, that he has some doubts about the competence of a territorial meat inspector? What precisely is the problem? Clearly, if there is a competent meat inspector, he can ensure that the meat sold from the abattoir is as safe as it is anywhere else in the country. Does the Minister have some doubts that a territorial inspector could perform that duty?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
It is not whether or not I have doubts; it is whether or not the marketplace will purchase it. People are used to having federally inspected meat here. The question is whether or not they will change their habits and purchase local meat; that is the point.
Mr. McDonald:
Perhaps the Minister could tell us what the role of federal inspection services would be. Would there be any role for them at all? What has happened to the role they were playing?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
If we downsize the plant to an acceptable size, then the federal employees and federal inspectors will not be included in it at all.
Mr. McDonald:
As a result of downsizing this to something that is acceptable to the territorial government, in terms of cost, I guess we will have to move to some form of territorial meat inspection. Is that what the Minister is saying?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
It depends on the funding agencies and whether they are going to accept this situation - the EDA and a few other organizations from whom they are going to have to borrow money.
Mr. McDonald:
Part of the problem here is that because there have been delays all this money is lapsing. This strikes again to the point I was obliquely making at the beginning, which is that as we wait and go through the various hurdles and as funding sources dry up and as government is cut back, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, the project ultimately and inevitably has to be downsized because the funding is no longer available - and downsized to the point that it is no longer a viable enterprise and no longer enjoys federal meat inspection services, which would give the people a sense of security about the product, and ultimately contribute to the demise of the project in its entirety. One might then suggest that the reason the project is doomed is because of the delays up until now.
At one time, a lot of the ducks were lined up - a lot of the funding sources were in place. It then reverts to the time when some Ministers decided that the project was not what they had in mind, that it involved too much land or was something they did not know about, even though their departments, I can assure the Ministers, did not know precisely what it was all about because I heard them talking about it and explaining the proposals to the public and to me. One might be of the mind, then, that the delays, largely brought on by a lack of communication between the departments and Ministers, have basically - unless something rather miraculous happens - deep-sixed this project.
That is very, very worrisome. If the funding sources are now no longer available, which causes the whole project to change, all the marketing assumptions to be different and the inspection services to change, clearly this project may never happen at all.
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
In the first place, they never did have the equity to build the one they planned on. We will continue to insist that they have their 10-percent equity, which they do not have. We are still trying to help them.
We work very hard, and committees have meetings all the time trying to find land and trying to solve these problems which, so far, we have not been able to solve.
Mr. McDonald:
I would just like to turn back the clock. If the Member for Kluane was sitting on this side of the House, where the Member for Faro is right now, and was listening to this debate, I know what the Member for Kluane would have said two years ago. He would have insisted that we cut through all the red tape. He would have been outraged at this notion that more committees were going to be set up to second-guess industry assumptions. He would be angrier than all get-out, and he would be critical of all the bureaucracy and the foot-dragging that he would perceive to be taking place. That would have been the populist Member for Kluane we grew to know and love while we were in government.
In a quiet moment, maybe the Minister might want to think that through, because I think, for a small industry association like the Yukon Agricultural Association - given the amount of energy and effort that they have to put to this project in order to get it to go, and given the expectations of that little volunteer organization - what they are expected to do is just phenomenal, as a volunteer group.
We can expect to put companies like First Commercial through these kinds of hoops when they want to build a mall expansion, because they have a lot of high-priced paid help. They have people who are absolutely conversant in rules and regulations and not intimidated by public servants but, for the small Agricultural Association that depends on volunteer labour, this is expecting a whole lot. My hand goes out to the people who have been involved and who remain involved, and who are eager to continue going through the hoops. If this project ever does get off the ground, we owe a lot to their perseverance.
I have some questions about agricultural land issues. I have a constituent who has been applying for agricultural land. I understand that the responsibility for land approvals has been transferred to Renewable Resources. I would like to ask the Minister about the process for consideration and approval of agricultural parcels.
The constituent has approached me saying that he was not permitted to even register an application for land at a particular site - the site happens to be up the North Alaska Highway - irrespective of whether or not he could get agreement from the First Nations that have made selections in the area, because the
Page Number 2694
department wants to consider only the development of agricultural subdivisions, and is not prepared to accept site-specific requests for agricultural parcels. Does the constituent have his facts straight on that question?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
Firstly, it would help to know who the constituent is and where he wishes to apply for land. We have not made any decisions like that since we became responsible for the lands branch. Would it possibly have been the federal government and the Federal/Territorial Land Acquisition Committee that advised the constituent?
Mr. McDonald:
No, it is the territorial lands branch that my constituent had gone to before. This is also before the responsibility had been transferred to Renewable Resources. My constituent did go to the lands branch.
I am asking a policy question here about registering land requests. The constituent made it very clear, and I think that this was confirmed by a researcher who works for us in the Opposition, that the lands branch at the time was discouraging site-specific land applications, saying that they wanted to consider only agricultural development in planned subdivisions.
Now this, as the Minister will know having been in the Legislature for a long time, is, for some sectors of the agricultural community, a very controversial position to take.
In the past, there has been no objection to the department pursuing agricultural subdivisions, but there has also been an assumption that if the land claims hurdle - and, I admit, it is a very high hurdle - can be crossed, then the policy of government should not be to reject, outright, application for agricultural land outside of planned subdivisions.
I am asking this general policy question: will the government permit applications to be registered outside of planned agricultural areas?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
To my knowledge, we do right now. What I would suggest is, if the Member could give me the name of the individual privately, I certainly will look into his case so I can understand why our branch turned it down. I have a problem with that. Unless it did not pass agricultural land inspection, or something, I do not know why they would turn it down.
Mr. McDonald:
I will pass on the information with respect to this particular case. However, I think he did not make the application to Renewable Resources, because the transfer had not been completed at that time. He made his application to the lands branch.
While the individual understands what normally has to happen, because I went over it with him, that this is not a process that would take a couple of months - it would take at least a couple of years, especially when one is seeking land outside of a planned area, that he has to go through soil testing and so on, aside from all the land claims issues. He understood that there were other things he had to do, but he wanted to register an application for the land, which also happens to be land under his trapline. He said he had agreement from the local trapper, being himself, that he could make application for this particular property.
In any case, he wanted to register an interest in the land. He just wanted to make that note with the authorities so that, if there ever was the possibility that land could be released in the particular area, he would be considered and his application date-stamped.
However, he could not get to first base - he could not register an application. That was something that I understood would at least be the minimum that the government would do, even if they were to ultimately reject the application outright.
In terms of the general policy, first of all, is the Minister aware that it is appropriate to at least register the application?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
One of the reasons we had it transferred over was to try and make it easier to get agricultural land. I guess we have missed on the first one already. After 50 years, I still do not have mine, so I would not get too excited about that, but that is another story.
I would like the Member to give it to me in private, and I will certainly follow it up. They have just been transferred over, and perhaps it was caught in the transfer. I am certainly interested in looking at it, if I could get the name.
Mr. McDonald:
Maybe, when the Minister sees me privately, he could find out whether or not the policy is to at least permit the registering of applications, so that people, even if they know there is going to be a long lineup - and a lineup for which they may never get satisfaction - will at least know they can stand in line. That is the first step.
Can the Minister tell us, or can he provide information to us, about the status of federal land transfers for agricultural applications? Can he tell us what the success rate of the applications that are currently in the mill happens to be? Can he give us the general kind of update that has been regularly sought in the Legislature so that we might have a sense of how the government is progressing on this front?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
Community and Transportation Services is still working with the federal government. It has not been transferred to us as of yet.
Mr. Deputy Chair, I would like you to report progress.
Motion agreed to
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I move that the Speaker do now resume the Chair.
Motion agreed to
Speaker resumes the Chair
Speaker:
I will now call the House to order.
May the House have a report from the Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole?
Mr. Millar:
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.
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I move that the House do now adjourn.
Speaker:
It has been moved by the Hon. Government House Leader that the House do now adjourn.
Motion agreed to
Speaker:
This House now stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.
The House adjourned at 5:26 p.m.
The following Legislative Return was tabled May 24, 1994:
94-1-354
Employment equity competitions: comprehensive guidelines on applying employment equity currently in draft form (Nordling)
Written Question No. 42, dated January 20, 1994, by Ms. Moorcroft