Whitehorse, Yukon
Wednesday, May 25, 1994 - 1:30 p.m.
Page Number 2695
Speaker:
I will now call the House to order. We will proceed at this time with silent Prayers.
Prayers
DAILY ROUTINE
Speaker:
We will proceed at this time with the Order Paper.
Introduction of Visitors.
Are there any Returns or Documents for tabling?
TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I have a document for tabling.
Hon. Mr. Nordling:
I have for tabling the government contracts registry, by type and by department, for 1993-94.
Ms. Moorcroft:
I have for tabling a letter from John Ostashek and Bill Brewster to the Minister of Natural Resources. It seems that they need to be reminded that budget cuts signal a lack of confidence in the economy.
Speaker:
Are there any Reports of Committees?
Are there any Bills to be introduced?
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
Bill No. 94: Introduction and First Reading
Hon. Mr. Nordling:
I move that Bill No. 94, entitled Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act, 1994, be now introduced and read a first time.
Speaker:
It has been moved by the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission that Bill No. 94, entitled Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act, 1994, be now introduced and read a first time.
Some Hon. Members:
Division.
Division
Speaker:
Division has been called. Would the Clerk please poll the House.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
Agreed.
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
Agreed.
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
Agreed.
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
Agreed.
Hon. Mr. Fisher:
Agreed.
Hon. Mr. Nordling:
Agreed.
Mr. Abel:
Agreed.
Mr. Millar:
Agreed.
Mr. Penikett:
Disagree.
Mr. McDonald:
Disagree.
Ms. Commodore:
Disagree.
Mr. Joe:
Disagree.
Ms. Moorcroft:
Disagree.
Mr. Harding:
Disagree.
Mr. Cable:
Disagree.
Mrs. Firth:
Agreed.
Clerk:
The results are nine yea, seven nay.
Motion for introduction and first reading of Bill No. 94 agreed to
Speaker:
Are there any Petitions to be introduced?
PETITIONS
Petition No. 9
Ms. Moorcroft:
I was hoping that if we followed the normal Orders of the Day this petition could be presented before the legislation that was just introduced. The petition I have for presenting indicates that the right to bargain collectively is a fundamental right enjoyed by millions of Canadian workers and the proposed Yukon government compensation restraint measures suspend the right to free collective bargaining; therefore, 600 Yukoners have signed this petition asking the Yukon Legislative Assembly to restrain from suspending the right to free collective bargaining and respect the right to negotiate terms and conditions of employment currently held by the Yukon Teachers Association and the Public Service Alliance of Canada.
Speaker:
I apologize for missing the Petitions prior to Bills, and I hope the Member will accept my apologies.
Ms. Moorcroft:
It is no problem.
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
Western Premiers Conference, Report on
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I want to take the opportunity today to report to the House on the Western Premiers Conference held last week in Gimli, Manitoba.
This is the second time I have attended such a conference, and it has again proved to be of benefit to the Yukon to work with other western Premiers on issues of common concern to us all.
The focus of this year's meeting was as follows: the economy, jobs and infrastructure; the social security review and human resource development; health care; trade; transportation; agriculture and forestry; the national overlap and duplication initiative; western cooperative initiatives and the western economic development and diversification.
As well, western Premiers considered the 1994 report of the western Finance Ministers, which I presented as both Government Leader and Minister of Finance. Western Premiers noted the common direction governments in western and northern Canada have taken regarding fiscal policy and the significant progress made in reining in government deficits. Through these efforts, we in the north have achieved balanced budgets, and the four western provinces have plans in place to achieve the same goal by 1996-97.
It is clear that we in the west have set an example for the rest of Canada, and western Premiers invited others, including the federal government, to follow our lead. At the same time, we want to ensure that our success in addressing our deficits and debt is not undermined by further federal off-loading. This is as unacceptable to this government as it is to other jurisdictions in the west.
Western Premiers are committed to continuing the work on fiscal renewal through cooperation and coordination and agreed that the western Finance Ministers should meet prior to the 1995 budgets to examine opportunities for improving coordination on budgetary, tax and social policy issues. United action among western jurisdictions has led, for example, to success to date on combatting tobacco smuggling activities, while maintaining our common interest in the health of our citizens through decreased use of tobacco.
The reduction of overlap and duplication is an important element in putting Canada's financial house in order. Western Premiers reported our interest in the devolution of federal responsibilities to the northern governments as the key means to reducing overlap and duplication.
They called on the Prime Minister to fulfill his promise to complete the devolution process during the current federal mandate.
Page Number 2696
Western provinces and territories agreed that the social security reform would be a key initiative this year. The Yukon joined other western jurisdictions in urging the federal government to provide for full and effective partnership for provinces and territories in this reform initiative.
It was also agreed that a similar partnership was needed on health care reform. Western Premiers recommended to the Prime Minister that Premier Roy Romanow of Saskatchewan be named as co-chair to the National Forum on Health, which the federal government is establishing to discuss the future of health care in Canada.
On trade matters, the western Premiers reiterated their strong interest in reaching an agreement on the reduction of internal trade barriers by the end of next month. Again, it was agreed that jurisdictions such as the Yukon would need some flexibility within the agreement to pursue legitimate measures to ensure regional development and economic prosperity. Western Premiers reviewed the many areas of regional cooperation and, again, supported the territories' full participation in the western diversification process. As well, they noted the need, not only to improve the transportation systems in the west, but to develop a system that allows access to the natural resources in the territories and more remote parts of their provinces.
These are the highlights of the Western Premiers Conference. However, I do want to note for the House that the Yukon will be able to play host to the western Premiers. The next conference is to be held in Saskatchewan. Following that, the Yukon will have its first opportunity to welcome western Premiers to our territory. This is an important addition to our decade of anniversary celebrations, and an important indication of our effective involvement in this western forum.
Mr. Penikett:
I want to thank the Government Leader for his report on the Western Premiers Conference, although I would note some dissonance between his statement today and the press coverage of the conference in the southern media.
The Government Leader has noted the common direction of governments in western and northern Canada on fiscal policy, but, of course, the media have made very obvious observations about the difference in approach between those jurisdictions that are simply cutting, curtailing public services, taking away the rights of public employees and those that have pursued a more balanced and fair approach.
Likewise, I would comment that the Government Leader's mention of how we are setting an example in terms of dealing with debt and deficits is of course not hard when we do not have any debt and even the temporary deficit that we had was a self-inflicted wound.
The question about the reduction in overlap and duplication among the jurisdictions is an interesting one, and I am surprised the Government Leader has not commented on the stories that have appeared in the southern media about the efforts by the western Premiers to seek constitutional change without constitutional conferences. I would like to ask him more about that at a later opportunity.
Likewise, once again, we hear the word "reform" being used in connection with social security reform and in fact, in most of the jurisdictions we are not talking about reform, we are talking about cuts. Nonetheless, I am pleased to see that Premier Romanow is being nominated to co-chair the National Forum on Health, because Saskatchewan, unlike the Yukon, has been pursuing a focus on empowering the communities - local control, prevention and wellness - which I think is highly commendable.
On international trade barriers, it is interesting that we set a target for next month, but the Yukon is again asking for some flexibility, which we would support. But, I am quite curious as to the Yukon's position, because I note from the media reports that Premier Klein, for example, seems to be actively supporting the American initiative to destroy the Canadian wheat board, which I think is a great pity.
I want to ask the Government Leader about transportation, because it is not clear from the statement what the YTG position was, as it is not clear on many of these points exactly what the position of the Yukon government is, and we may want to pursue that.
Had this been a policy announcement, of course, we probably would have complained that some of this had been announced in the media before the Legislature, but of course, there is no new policy here. I know, as the Government Leader now knows, how difficult it is to fall into the hands of a tough investigative reporter, like the representative of the Whitehorse Star.
Speaker:
This then brings us to Question Period.
QUESTION PERIOD
Question re: Wage rollback/public sector
Mr. McDonald:
I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
The Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission has announced that the government has achieved more of what he calls "savings" than was previously expected. Consequently, he has indicated that there is less justification for cutting employees' wages.
What are the savings he is talking about and precisely how much money is he referring to?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I do not believe that the Member said that there was less justification for the wage restraint legislation; he just said it did not have to be so severe.
We have always been saying that there would be in the neighbourhood of $4 million to $8 million in lapsed funds that could be applied against the accumulated deficit. From the rough calculations that we have now, which will not be finalized until some time in June, we are estimating that we will have in the neighbourhood of $8 million and possibly has high as $10 million to put against the deficit.
Mr. McDonald:
Of course the Minister did not say any such thing - that there was $4 million to $8 million available to put toward the deficit. He said that they had a total of $8 million to $10 million, of which half would be considered net funding to put toward the deficit; consequently, he is 100 percent out in his claims.
Can the Minister tell us what this means for the deficit for the year and what it means for the accumulated deficit that they have projected for the 1994-95 year?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I believe there is going to be an operating surplus for the 1994-95 year. The effect will be that there will be a reduction in the accumulated $13 million, by some $8 million to $10 million, which would still leave, as of March 31, 1994, an accumulated deficit of $3 million to $5 million.
Mr. McDonald:
That is not true at all, and the Minister knows that. I have the budget papers right here in front of me, and the budget paper shows that the accumulated deficit projected for March 31, 1995 was $6.2 million. That does not take into account any of the lapsed funding that the government has just announced today; there was no accounting at all for lapsed funding.
If the Minister is expecting there to be $8 million to $10 million worth of lapsed funding that could be applied toward the deficit, is he not saying then that we can expect an accumulated surplus by March 31, 1995 of between $2 million and $4 million, not even
Page Number 2697
counting the $4.5 million and the $2 million that they have accounted for in terms of reserve accounts?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
We have stated quite clearly time and time again in this House that that money will be spent. There is no doubt about it. The Member opposite should have no doubt that money will be spent.
The Member opposite is right, and I will not make any apologies for balancing the books one year earlier than expected. I commend the departments for the fiscal restraint that they have shown. They have shown that we can operate government in a far more efficient manner, and I make no apologies for that.
Question re: Government finances
Mr. McDonald:
What the Minister might want to make apologies for are the many different and conflicting claims that he has made about the state of the government's finances. It is only now in Question Period that we discover, despite his answers to the preliminary questions, that we are, in fact, sitting on a $2 million to $4 million surplus. Not only that, but we have also discovered from the Minister that, given that the $6.5 million will be spent, contrary to his claim that overall government spending is down, government spending will in fact go up, according to his own accounting of this situation.
I would like to ask the Minister this question: can he tell us what has transpired in the last week that would cause the Ministers to change their minds with respect to the state of the government's finances? I would point out that, only eight days ago, they sent to unions involved in the contract negotiations, financial projections that copied the old projections that were stated in the budget speech.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I believe it was just at the end of this last week that the final cuts have come from the departments, regarding their projections about what would lapse. I would say that we were pleasantly surprised that they were lapsing a little more O&M money than we had figured. The figure is not that dramatic. We have always said that there could be in the neighbourhood of $4 million to $8 million to go against the accumulated deficit. The Member opposite would like me to apologize for that, but I will not.
Mr. McDonald:
There are many things that the Minister can apologize for. I will have to take these items one at a time, so that we know precisely what he is apologizing for.
First of all, the Minister has indicated that the lapses they were projecting for this year were in the neighbourhood of $4.5 million. The fact that they have gone up to $8 million or $10 million is a projection of perhaps a 100-percent error. I think that is worth noting, under the circumstances.
If these lapses resulted from conscious cuts by the government, can the Minister tell us what assumptions we can draw about the spending estimates for the coming year? Is the Minister going to amend the budget, now that he knows that conscious cuts from last year resulted in more lapsed funding?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
No, we have no intentions of amending the budget at this point. Some savings were achieved that may not be achieved in the next year. I can give the Member an example: our mild winter and limited snowfall reduced the overtime costs in the Department of Community and Transportation Services quite dramatically. We will be assessing it after next year. I hope that the department can continue to keep a tight rein on it. When we talk about overall government spending, and look at the actuals rather than the estimates, our spending is not going up, but going down.
Mr. McDonald:
That is not what the budget papers say. I guess we will have to live with this fiction for one more year. I will be here next year, and we will go through this process once again.
Can the Minister tell us how much the government will be recovering from the many items that they have written off in the last 12 or 18 months? I am including everything from the extended care facility to the Faro Real Estate arrangement. How much new money will be applied this year that can be applied to the budgets?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
As I said, all the figures are not in yet. I do not have that figure with me today. The rough cut on these has come in and my department's projections are that we will have surpluses to apply toward the deficit. We will not have those final figures until some time in June.
Question re: Western Premiers Conference
Mr. Cable:
I have a few questions for the Government Leader about the Western Premiers Conference. I was going through the ministerial statement trying to find the beef and the first problem that I had was with the comment that the Leader of the Official Opposition raised in response to the ministerial statement.
Is the Minister saying that the approach to fiscal policy taken by the Western Premiers and by himself is common? Is the approach taken by Ralph Klein - with very significant program cuts - the same as that taken by the Government Leader and Mr. Harcourt, for example?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I can certainly tell the Member that the approach taken is a lot more radical and different from what the federal government is doing, when they are increasing spending instead of decreasing spending.
The fact remains that no matter what the philosophical belief of the western Premiers is, they are all on a balanced-budget target, something that the federal government has not been able to accomplish yet, nor the two largest provinces, being Quebec and Ontario.
Mr. Cable:
Well, you can pass those comments on to Mr. Chretien, if you like.
The Minister also mentioned that there was social security reform being talked about, and a partnership being mooted about. He then went on to say that there was a partnership being set up in health care.
What is the type of format that the Minister is anticipating with respect to social security reform?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
Surely, the Member opposite is aware of Mr. Axworthy's tour back and forth across the country and the social reform that he is going to undertake. The problem is that he has not told anybody else what he is going to do. Meetings have been set up and cancelled and the western Premiers and government leaders are very, very concerned that they are going to be handed a unilateral decision and have no input into the decision, yet they will have to pick up a share of the costs and still deliver the services. They feel that it is very important, in both the health care and the social forums, that there is adequate representation and full discussion about how these reforms will take place.
Mr. Cable:
Oh, yes, that is obviously what is being suggested in the ministerial statement, but what sort of partnership are we talking about? What sort of organization? What sort of forum? Is it a joint federal/provincial committee that is being talked about? Is that what the Minister is suggesting? Is that what his colleagues, the western Premiers were suggesting?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I would have thought the Member opposite would have been aware that the Prime Minister has said he is going to chair the forum on national health care reform - the Prime Minister himself is supposed to be chairing this and going across the country. What we are asking is that there be some representation from the provincial and territorial level and that is why we suggested that Premier Roy Romanow co-chair this forum
Page Number 2698
with the Prime Minister.
Question re: Wage rollback/public sector
Ms. Moorcroft:
The Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission now admits that the government has more in its piggy bank than it realized, so he has watered down his wage rollback and freeze package a bit. Can the Minister tell us when, and how, he discovered things were not as bad as he had painted them?
Hon. Mr. Nordling:
When I talked to the Minister of Finance and the Department of Finance officials.
Ms. Moorcroft:
I have to wonder why the Minister did not discuss the financial planning and the financial figures with his Cabinet colleagues earlier, and I have to question the competence of a government whose financial projections are up and down like a roller coaster.
Given the fact that last year's lapses, which could run into several million dollars, have not yet been calculated, can the Minister please explain what his personnel savings target is standing at, as of this information. What is his personnel savings target standing at?
Hon. Mr. Nordling:
The Minister of Finance wanted to answer the preamble.
Some Hon. Member:
(Inaudible)
Hon. Mr. Nordling:
The answer to the question that the Member asked, which is completely unrelated to the preamble, is approximately $10 million.
Ms. Moorcroft:
A month ago the Minister was doing an end run around the unions, telling government employees in a letter that his legislation was necessary to prevent massive layoffs. Yesterday, he told the House there would not be layoffs and that attrition would take care of things. Could the Minister explain what size, in numbers, he would like the Yukon public service to be, including the teachers.
Hon. Mr. Nordling:
There is a teacher/student ratio, which we hope to maintain with respect to the size of government. There is no specific number. What we want to do is run an efficient, cost-effective government, and if there are positions that we can get along without by reorganization, we will do that. If we need to re-hire positions where people have left, then we will do that.
Some Hon. Member:
(Inaudible)
Speaker:
Order. Please allow the Member for Mount Lorne to ask her question.
Question re: Wage rollback/public sector
Ms. Moorcroft:
One independent Cabinet Member has suggested he may vote against wage rollback legislation, if that is what his constituents want. Yet we have another independent Cabinet Member insisting we cannot survive without a rollback. Yukoners want to know who is calling the shots over there. Will the Minister tell us if he or someone else originated the idea of a wage rollback and freeze, or was it proposed before or after he joined the Cabinet?
Hon. Mr. Nordling:
It was a Cabinet decision.
Ms. Moorcroft:
Once again, I see we are not going to be in a hurry to call this "answer period".
The Minister's unwillingness to respect the collective bargaining process has been clearly demonstrated ever since he first floated the idea of this legislation. I have to wonder if that is the glue that holds the independent Cabinet together over there.
What I would like to ask is this: can the Minister tell us what changes in the proposed legislation came about because of his talks with the two unions involved?
Hon. Mr. Nordling:
We decided that we would not freeze the experience increment for the teachers or the wage increments for the Public Service Alliance employees. We also decided that we would not go with a Christmas closure that would affect the PSAC employees.
Ms. Moorcroft:
I am glad they are, over there, at least not going to be the grinch that stole Christmas. Obviously, we will be discussing this whole issue more during Committee debate on the new bill, but I am interested in where the Minister now stands on the question of collective bargaining.
Will the Minister assure the House that this legislation will not be used as a pretext for union busting and that the government will abide by all non-monetary conditions of the existing contracts during the wage freeze period?
Hon. Mr. Nordling:
Yes. I will give that assurance. There is no intention whatsoever for this to be union busting legislation. The Member will see that when she has a chance to look at the legislation. We will, as a government, be bound by all the terms and conditions of the collective agreements as they are now in place, subject to the monetary issues.
Question re: Employment standards legislation
Ms. Commodore:
My question is for the Minister of Justice and is regarding the Employment Standards Act.
It appears that the Minister was so intent on repealing Bill No. 13, entitled An Act to Amend the Employment Standards Act, that he put a rush on Bill No. 30, which was tabled in the House yesterday. Other than the Chamber of Commerce, can the Minister tell the House with whom his government consulted before drafting Bill No. 30?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
The government spent months and months consulting with groups: labour unions, businesses and workers. Of course, that was when the hon. Member was Minister. There is nothing new, in terms of new clauses in this bill, except for the additional protection for employees' wages in the event of the insolvency of employers.
Ms. Commodore:
That was not even an answer.
One of the sections the Minister decided to leave in the existing act is section 30, which allows an employer to forfeit a week's wages from the employee. Does the Minister and that government not believe that workers should be paid for hours worked?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I am sure that the case will be that the side opposite will pick and choose what they like and what they do not like about it. The section she refers to - section 50 in the existing act - will remain. It is felt that it is fair, because it is the balancing factor with regard to the very large increase in notice required for long-term employees.
Ms. Commodore:
The Minister has indicated that it is fair to forfeit a week's wages from an employee. I guess that speaks for the rest of the bill that was introduced yesterday.
The Minister said, at least in the media, that people will have a week and one-half to let their views be known with regard to Bill No. 30, which was introduced yesterday. I would like to ask the Minister who he will be consulting on the bill, and how that consultation will be taking place?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
Letters are being hand-delivered to unions and employer groups. I think there are 30 or 40 such packages going out that contain the bill and explanations, and requesting that we get a response by the weekend after this one coming up.
Question re: Employment standards legislation
Ms. Commodore:
The second question is regarding the same subject and is directed to the same Minister. In Bill No. 13, the definition of a spouse includes common-law and same-sex couples, and is similar to the Workers' Compensation Act. That section was recommended by the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment. I would like to ask the Minister if the same
Page Number 2699
definition applies to Bill No. 30.
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
With respect to the bereavement sections, the clause is identical to the Workers' Compensation Act clause.
Ms. Commodore:
The reason given for excluding the right to parental leave in Bill No. 30 is that it would save employees money. Since Bill No. 13 indicated that provisions for such leave would be without pay, would the Minister explain how excluding that provision would save money, and for whom?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
Could the Member repeat the question.
Speaker:
Would the Member repeat the question. It will not be counted as a supplementary.
Ms. Commodore:
The news release indicates that the section regarding the right to parental leave in Bill No. 30 was excluded. The reason given for excluding is was that it would save employers money. Bill No. 13 allowed for that same leave without pay. I am asking the Minister to explain how it is going to save money, when in fact in Bill No. 13 it was leave without pay. Whose money is he going to save?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
The business that employs the employee obviously has to make arrangements to replace that worker, were additional leave without pay contained in our bill.
Ms. Commodore:
I can see that dealing with Bill No. 30 is going to a long and drawn out process, because I am certainly not getting any answers from this Minister.
Notice of a requirement for overtime was included in Bill No. 13, as protection for individuals who could have family responsibilities that would not allow them to work overtime. Since they will not have the right to refuse overtime, as a result of the Minister's bill, is there any other protection in Bill No. 30 for those individuals? This is very important to the individuals whom it will affect.
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I am not sure if I am being examined on the previous Minister's bill or the bill that we tabled in the House, but I am sure that she has had ample time to peruse our bill and she will recognize those clauses that are left in and those that have been removed.
Question re: Business development fund, loans outstanding
Mrs. Firth:
I have a question for the Government Leader in his capacity as Minister responsible for the Department of Economic Development.
The campaign promise of the Yukon Party, and part of the Yukon Party's commitment to Yukoners, was that they were going to increase access to public information in government files, by providing real freedom of information.
For two days I have been asking the Minister of Economic Development to provide information that is in government files about clients who have borrowed money from the government and not paid that money back. Yet, the Minister is refusing to provide this information to the public and to Members of the House. I would like to ask him why.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I agree with the Member opposite. I fully agree that the names should be public, but we have to go through certain steps before that can happen, and that is what my department is doing now. I have asked them to put together a paper that I can take to Cabinet. The first thing the department has to do is get a legal opinion and they are pursuing that now. When these steps are taken I will be going to Cabinet and I am quite certain that I will receive approval for this.
Along with this, I think the Member opposite has to agree that it is only fair that these people who are in arrears be given the opportunity to bring their accounts current before their names are published. I think that is only fair.
Mrs. Firth:
I have been asking the question of the Minister now for over a week and a half. These people should all be rushing to the government to pay the money back if they do not want their names published.
This is a very serious issue. We have $2.7 million in outstanding debts. The government is writing off almost $1 million of that - $880,000 - my constituents, all Yukoners, had to pay tax increases and the Minister is standing up and talking about some legal opinion.
If the Minister agrees that the names should be tabled, and his party has directed him to table the names, why will he not table that information today?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I just told the Member why I could not table it today and we are going through the proper procedures to get the legal opinion - and depending on what the legal opinion says, then the proposition will be put to Cabinet. Cabinet will make the decision as to whether the policy is going to be changed to publish these names and when they will be. Will these people be given a grace period first in order to catch up their accounts? I just want to say, just because of the debate in the House, there have been some who have come in to get their accounts caught up.
Mrs. Firth:
Great, is that not wonderful? At least somebody is making somebody do something around here. God, Cabinet cannot make a decision to save its life.
This is what we have heard: the first excuse we got was they had not made a decision yet; Cabinet had not decided - we are sort of back to that. The second excuse yesterday was maybe it would set a precedent. The third excuse we are getting today is, "We need a legal opinion."
Speaker:
Does the Member have a question.
Mrs. Firth:
Yes, I sure do. I have several.
I want to ask the Minister why he feels it is necessary to get a legal opinion to provide this information. Why? When the city can issue the names of people who are delinquent in paying their taxes, why does he think he needs a legal opinion before he can make this information public?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
It is just a matter of being careful, so we do not put ourselves in a position where we could be in a lawsuit. The Member opposite will get the names if everything falls into place and the legal opinion is that the government can do that. I have clearly stated that is my desire. The party has sent that message to government and I am sure that Cabinet will look at it in that light. The legal opinion is the critical factor in this issue.
Question re: Business development fund, loans outstanding
Mrs. Firth:
I do not want to be accused of repeating myself, but I said what this was yesterday - and it still remains the same. It is just a crock -
Speaker's Ruling
Speaker:
Would the Member please try to refrain - I would not necessarily call it unparliamentary, but I do not think it is very dignified for the House.
Mrs. Firth:
That is why I only said "a crock" today. I am trying to be dignified as I can under the circumstances. We are not dealing with a very dignified group of people across the floor.
Perhaps I should just be asking the Government Leader to give us a list of the names of his friends so we do not ask any questions about them. Maybe we can get on with some business.
Speaker:
Order please. I believe this is a supplementary question. Would the Member please ask the question.
Question re: Business development fund, loans outstanding
Mrs. Firth:
This is the original question.
I would like to ask when the Minister discovered that he had to be careful about publishing the list of the names of clients who were delinquent on paying back these loans. When did this new
Page Number 2700
information come to him?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
It is not new information. I told the Member last week that I had the department working on a paper to take to Cabinet, and I fully intend to do that. This is part of the process of putting the Cabinet submission together.
Mrs. Firth:
What is the Minister's policy on this issue? What is his policy in the department? What is the instruction he has given to his department regarding outstanding - or delinquent, not just outstanding - loans? Is the Minister saying there is no policy in place right now with respect to publishing the names?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
That Member over there has been in this House a lot longer than I have and never, never have the names been put forward in this Legislature or in public.
Mrs. Firth:
That was exactly my point in reading out the Yukon Party commitment. That was the complaint. That was the Minister's complaint - "We are going to increase access to public information and government files by providing real freedom of information." Now he is saying we are not going to provide it because the other government did not provide it. Surely the Minister can see how ridiculous that sounds.
Could I ask the Minister this: when are we going to have an answer to this question? I do not want to hear the words "soon", "pretty soon", "in the fall", "in the spring" - whatever we hear; I have been given that one -
Speaker:
Order. I believe the Member is not supposed to supply a suggestion as an answer to her own question.
Mrs. Firth:
I will just put the question this way: could the Minister be specific, instead of vague and evasive as he usually is?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
Maybe we should just let the Member throw a dart as one of her answers. Maybe that would satisfy her.
As I said, the process is in place. The department is preparing a Cabinet submission. When they have that submission completed, it will go to Cabinet. After that, an announcement will be made.
Question re: Western Premiers Conference
Mr. Penikett:
I would like to play darts with the Government Leader, as well.
One item that the provincial and territorial leaders agreed to last week was the statement, "Child poverty remains a national disgrace, and creative actions must be taken to ensure that parents and young people do not fall into the trap of the working poor." With Members opposite cutting education, social services and health spending, can the Government Leader tell us what creative actions his government is taking to ensure that parents and young people do not fall into what the western Premiers called the "trap of the working poor"?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I think it is time the Members opposite were challenged about saying that there are cuts to education. That is simply not true. There have been no cuts to education. The fact that we are delivering the service far more effectively than they were capable of doing it does not mean that there are cuts.
Mr. Penikett:
I have to tell the Member opposite that he, and his Cabinet, are the most anti-education government in this country. They have cut training, schools and the college. Now they are trying to cut the teachers' pay.
According to southern media reports, the provinces were divided on a number of -
Some Hon. Member:
(Inaudible)
Mr. Penikett:
Perhaps I will wait until they are finished.
Speaker:
Order please. Will the Members please allow the Member to ask his supplementary question.
Mr. Penikett:
According to southern media reports, the provinces were divided on the issue of international trade, with Manitoba and Alberta wanting wide open borders and Saskatchewan and British Columbia seeking the right to have exemptions so that the government could show some economic leadership in those provinces.
Since he did not tell us in his ministerial statement, can the Government Leader now tell us which side of that debate the Yukon Party government supports and how future contracting procedures will reflect that?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
As I said in the communique that was issued by the western Premiers at the end of the meeting, they unanimously - including Saskatchewan and British Columbia - supported the removal of trade barriers by the end of June. However, all of us required some flexibility for regional economic development. This applies to the provinces, as well as the territories. The provinces were in complete agreement on that, not just Alberta and Manitoba.
Mr. Penikett:
Unfortunately, the western Premiers' communique was not attached to the ministerial statement we saw today.
One of the provinces advocated linking western colleges and universities with this Pacific Rim marketing, educational and research expertise - that may be a diminishing resource here - and "developing a seamless intermodal transportation system for western Canada", which is quite a bit different from the resource roads policy mentioned in today's statement.
Can the Government Leader tell us what the Yukon position was on these proposals, and how we might see them demonstrated in territorial initiatives?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I believe that is one of the proposals that British Columbia initiated and brought to the conference after Premier Harcourt's trip to the Orient. They are going to continue to work on that, and it will be discussed at future Western Premiers Conferences.
Question re: Employment standards legislation
Mr. Harding:
With respect to the Justice Minister's new employment standards bill, my constituents have faced many stumbling blocks causing long delays in the pursuit of their lost wages from Curragh. As I did not want to see this situation occur again to any worker, I lobbied the Justice Minister to bring in legislative changes to protect wage recoupment. It is nice to see that he agreed.
However, the form of the new protection, in sections 78, 82 and 83, is not yet clear. Can the Minister tell me how this legislation will work to protect workers' wages owed by insolvent employers?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
Briefly, it allows a super protection, or additional protection, to the first $7,500 owed to the workers. That special protection will be valid against such things as liens against equipment and chattels, assignment of book debts, and the like. It will not be valid against money owed on equipment for the purchase price because, of course, the full ownership has not transferred to the employer, and it will not be valid against federal legislation, such as the Bankruptcy Act, which is paramount to any act we try to put forward and implement here.
Mr. Harding:
Could the Minister tell me if this super protection for $7,500 will supersede claims of people who have purchased goods and services, and other lien claimants of the insolvent employer? What jurisdiction was this modelled after?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
It will supersede liens and other kinds of security against things that belong to the insolvent company, or employer. It is modelled after the Alberta legislation.
Mr. Harding:
My goodness, there is a pattern here with this Alberta legislation.
One of the biggest concerns of my constituents and others, who
Page Number 2701
have faced the same situation of trying to recoup lost wages, is the time line that is taken to do so. There was a policy in the old act for provision to directly access the directors themselves, but there has been a lot of challenges thrown up in front of that.
Will this new legislation influence the time lines and help to speed things up with this super protection?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
No, it will not. In essence, there really is no way of effecting that kind of change to the system, because of its cumbersome nature and the fact that there are all kinds of statutes that may apply that are not under our jurisdiction and are paramount to our jurisdiction. It is a similar case in the provinces. We have acts such as the Income Tax Act - being the most powerful one - and the Bankruptcy Act and other acts, such as the Bank Act, that come into play, depending upon the circumstances.
Speaker:
The time for Question Period has now elapsed. We will now proceed to Orders of the Day.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I move that the Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve into Committee of the Whole.
Speaker:
It has been moved by the Government House Leader that the Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve into Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Chair:
I will now call the Committee of the Whole to order. Are we prepared to take a brief recess at this time?
Some Hon. Members:
Agreed.
Chair:
We will take a brief recess.
Recess
Chair:
I will now call Committee of the Whole to order. We are dealing with Bill No. 15, entitled Second Appropriation Act, 1994-95.
Bill No. 15 - Second Appropriation Act, 1994-95 - continued
Department of Renewable Resources - continued
Mr. Harding:
I would like to begin today by asking about high quality management waters. A lot of people have talked to me about high quality management waters in the Yukon, and there is some divisiveness over the issue. I think that everyone, in principle, supports the promotion of catch-and-release fishing and the preservation of stocks for future years. Some people feel that high quality management water practices have gone a little too far in some lakes, and that perhaps they are not necessary. For the record, I would like to say that I am a firm supporter of them, and I like to practice catch-and-release fishing myself. I get just as much enjoyment out of it as I do from any other kind of fishing. I would like to ask the Minister if all of the high quality management waters that have been designated have now been implemented. Are there any plans for future high quality management waters? Is there anything being looked at now? What is going on in that area?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
The only one I am aware of that may come up in the future is the Tagish Lake area. The Yukon Fish and Wildlife Management Board will be discussing it with the people before we make a decision on it.
Mr. Harding:
Has there been a recommendation by the board to implement Tagish Lake as a high quality management water, or was there no firm recommendation made?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
Yes, there was a recommendation to do that. However, some of the people in the Carcross area did not feel that there was enough consultation, so we held off on it and will go back to consult with them again. Also, at the same time, we are trying to make an arrangement with the B.C. part of the lake, so that it would come in under the high quality designation.
Mr. Harding:
It is tough when the board looks at something and makes a recommendation, and then there is a dispute within the government or the community. It makes it tough to find a solution. Is the arrangement that is being looked at for consultation intended to be on a broad scope, or is it just within the community? I do not expect that a committee would be established to travel the Yukon for one particular area. What forum is now going to be proposed for looking at the Tagish Lake issue?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
We did a lot of consulting in the Tagish area, but not as much in the Carcross area and the people there felt that we should come back to them. Also, the Fish and Wildlife Management Board consulted about that lake when they were around in the Whitehorse area and other such areas, so unless there is a great demand for it, we would simply go back to the Carcross area and see what the problem is there. They apparently were not consulted enough about our reasoning for putting it in, which we would like to understand. If there is still disagreement, then I suppose we would recommend that we go back to everybody again and start over.
Mr. Harding:
Does the Minister personally support the recommendation of the board?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
It was moved with the others into Cabinet and it was asked that we delete that one for the present time. They do not feel that there has been enough study done in that area; we hope there has been. If not, they will have to have this summer before they go to the Fish and Wildlife Management Board again.
Mr. Harding:
I do see a bit of a danger here, because on one hand government wants to let the people in the area use the waters at the input and have some control over the lakes in the area. But, in my riding, for example, I have heard some really good arguments against some areas not being high quality managed waters - that there is no need. I have heard the same arguments made in areas where I think that there may be a need. So, it is kind of tough if government makes one exception here, although I believe government should be listening to the people in the area. I could see other areas coming forward and the Minister getting himself in a lot of these little Donnybrooks over particular waters. I will just say that regarding areas like Little Salmon and Quiet Lake and Big Salmon Lake, where hardly any people go, it would suggest to me we have gone too far with high quality management waters. So, if Tagish is rejected, then I will be coming to the Minister saying, "This is what my constituents are saying. Will the Minister give us the same exemption and that type of thing?" It could get a little bit mucky.
The Minister said the decision was made at Cabinet. Did the MLA for the area make representations to Cabinet that it should not be high quality management water, or did he make representation to the Minister in some other form?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
I do not discuss what goes on in Cabinet. I will say that I would be surprised if the Member did not find something else to come at me for. He is the critic and therefore should be doing that.
I could point out that Little Salmon has already gone through, so I could probably clear myself there and would not have to open that up.
The main reason is that the department also looked at it and we
Page Number 2702
do not feel that there was enough consultation in the Carcross area. Actually, the Yukon Fish and Wildlife Management Board has never complained about us holding off. We explained why and they seemed to accept that at the time. It will probably be brought up at their next meeting after we have completed the studies on it.
Mr. Harding:
It will be interesting to see. What are the time lines for this - just briefly? What are we looking at for a final decision to be made?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
We will be going back to the people this summer and hope to get it in front of the board at their meeting toward fall, and will probably try to get the regulations into here.
Mr. Harding:
Just on another subject, I am having a kind of frustrating time. A number of my constituents have been raising a couple of issues regarding hunting in the Faro-Little Salmon Lake area for a number of years. They have caused considerable anxiety for some people who are active in my riding in those areas. I have made representations to the Minister before, and I believe he has referred them to the board.
The two issues I am talking about refer to, I believe, game zone 441, which is the Mount Mye area, in behind Faro, to the north. It is the area that includes the band of sheep - ewes and rams - where we have done some enhancement and some work to accommodate the development of the mine in the area and allow their migration routes to be preserved so that they can function normally.
In that particular area, over the years - we are people who have watched the sheep there a lot - it looks to us - and some of my friends and I have worked on radio collaring the sheep - as if there could be a small sustainable harvest in that area. For example, this year we found a very large and quite old dead ram. Every year we usually find one or two that are dying of old age up there on the hills.
There is certainly nothing wrong with that, but it points to the possibility that there is room for a sustainable harvest. There are some first class hunting opportunities there.
We have had trouble getting any consideration of opening that area up, and I had a conversation with the sheep biologist at the game branch about it one day. She told me that there are two questions: one, can we have a sustainable harvest, and, two, should we allow hunting in an area where we are doing enhancement. I thought to myself that, in my view, the biologist should tell us whether there is a sustainable harvest or not - if we can have a small harvest, one or two rams, on a Yukon permit or something in that area. The second question, regarding whether we should have a hunt where we have been doing some enhancement, is really more a decision for the Minister to make. It is basically a political decision and should be handled at that level.
That is what we are elected for and paid to do. If there is a sustainable harvest allowed, it is a question of whether or not the Minister is going to allow it.
We are trying to get some consideration. I think the department could, because there is a first-class opportunity for revenue producer for the territory to put toward wildlife management. I have seen some absolutely exceptional game in that area.
What are the Minister's thoughts on this? Can he do anything to help us take a solid look at whether or not there could be a harvest there, if the biologists determine that it would be sustainable?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
It is quite interesting that the Member has brought that up. As the Member is probably aware, individuals can go to the Fish and Wildlife Management Board and make recommendations. They would come back to me and that would put them into the political arena.
I would just point out, as I am sure the Member is aware, that we have spent a lot of money there to get a viewing area for tourists and other people. The people of Faro particularly wanted a viewing area there. We spent a lot of money burning the area around there so that sheep would go there more often. There is nothing stopping the Member from writing the Fish and Wildlife Management Board. It would get to me through them. The recommendations would go to the biologists. They would provide the facts and figures about what is in there. At that point, as the Member suggests, it is up to the board and me to make that decision at that point.
If it is a permit hunt, I am sure it would have to be Yukon-wide. We cannot just pick and choose.
Mr. Harding:
I have made my proposal to the Minister and the Fish and Wildlife Management Board before. This is the problem. It has been reviewed by the board already. I do not think there is enough understanding of the area.
I never proposed that for the area where the sheep viewing and burning has been done. I am talking about the summer area, high up in the mountains, which is totally removed from where they want to build the viewing area. I certainly would expect the permits to be Yukon-wide, no question. I thought it would be an interesting way of raising some money for the territory. They should offer a hunt in the area. It is an exceptional area and it has not been hunted. It would be a good opportunity and makes sense, as long as it is sustainable.
I have discussed this issue with the biologist. What alarmed me is that it did not just stop at the idea of sustainable harvest. It grew into an issue of whether or not it should be in that area. I would think that would be the Minister's decision. A biologist is paid to determine whether or not it is sustainable. That is important information for the politician in making a decision about whether or not to allow hunting.
The problem is similar to the Tagish high quality management waters. I have a lot of constituents who think it would be a good idea, if it is sustainable, to have some small-scale activity there. However, every time they consult - and my constituents have gone before boards and so on - they have been told that they are not going to allow it. The reasons have never been that it is not sustainable. They have used other reasons, so I have a problem with it.
If there was consultation in the area, I am sure the recommendation from a large majority of the people would be that there could be a small sustainable harvest there, and that local people would support it on a Yukon-wide basis.
I have gone the route the Minister just suggested two years in a row, and I have gotten nowhere. Can he at least take a more personal look into it, to see if all consideration has been given to the ideas I have presented?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
I do not ever recall the Fish and Wildlife Management Board giving us a recommendation on it, one way or the other. I think we all agree that, if we allow one area to make the decision, without the other areas, I would probably be in trouble, which I do not like. I am a very quiet, easy-going person, and I try to avoid these problems.
I will ask the department to take a look at it and see what they think, as well as the Fish and Wildlife Management Board.
Mr. Harding:
I will send the Minister copies of the correspondence I sent to him and the board in the past about the issue. I do not suggest those decisions should be made locally without considering everyone else. I am saying I have received local representation. I was trying to compare it to the Tagish example, where the Fish and Wildlife Management Board made a recommendation and the local people, because of their concerns, got another look into it.
The other issue is that a number of my constituents, on an ongoing basis for the last couple of years, have raised the issue of
Page Number 2703
a closure that was implemented along the South Campbell Highway in the Glenlyon Lake area. I think it might be Mile 452.
There is quite a long history to this. At one time, there was a consideration that, because there were rams being harvested right off the highway in the late season, there would be a late-season closure, some time around September 15 or 20. They usually do not come in there until October. There were a number of rams being shot just walking up on to the road. It was winter range, and a lot of people in Faro, in the area, and the Yukon Fish and Game Association, said that that might not be right, and perhaps we should be protecting the winter range area. A lot of people in Faro agreed with it.
What happened was that the whole area was totally shut down for the whole season. There has been real confusion about this. The reason given to us, as the people of Faro who raised concerns, was that a new band of sheep had been coming in that area, which had not previously been there. However, I have only been here since 1986, and I have seen them there every year. This was only closed about three years ago, and I never understood the reason.
I know a lot of representations were made when the Outfitter Quota System Committee came into Faro just a few months ago. A constituent of mine raised this issue and was told they would receive some information about it, but they have not received it yet. I would like the Minister to give me a commitment that he will really look into this. I think it was going too far to close it down. Some people like to go hunting in the Truitt Peak area, and I do not see what is wrong with that. That is quite a hoof to go in there.
The whole idea behind the closure in the first place, which was supported by the people in the area and the Yukon Fish and Game Association, was to have a late season closure to protect the winter range.
I do not know why we would close down the whole area. I believe that there might have been some representations by the then outfitter in the area; I think he has sold it now to another gentleman. It was the Glenlyon Range outfitters. I think that Mr. Richie made some representations to have it closed. That is what I was told, but I am not sure. If the Minister would investigate that and first of all see if he can get the information that was requested by my constituent at the quota meeting sent to him, and secondly, would he take a real close look at this and see if there is not some accommodation that could be made? I should also point out that this has come to the Yukon Fish and Wildlife Management Board before.
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
It is my understanding that the Yukon Fish and Wildlife Management Board made that decision. However, I will give the Member for Faro my word that we will look into it. It will be quite a long answer so I will provide the answer to the Member in a letter as soon as we can.
Mr. Harding:
I should point out that I know that the board did not make that decision; I think that that is part of the problem. I guess we have a disagreement with the board - it would not be the first time the Minister and I have done that. I do value their work, but there are times when I think the people who live there do make some good arguments.
I know that the members of the board will know my constituent, to whom I was referring, very well, because he has had a lot of debate with them. A couple of the members on the quota board are the same members on the Yukon Fish and Wildlife Management Board and they have a long history together.
I do believe, from my limited knowledge of the area, the constituents make quite a bit of sense on these issues and naturally, of course, I side with them.
The next issue that I want to ask the Minister is about leases. It is my understanding that the Department of Renewable Resources is now responsible for issues such as grazing leases - is that correct?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
I am rather surprised that the Member for Faro would say that he disagreed with the Yukon Fish and Wildlife Management Board, because I recall being kicked from one end of this building to the other - and he has a habit of kicking me - because I disagreed with the board on a couple of issues that I thought were sensible. Of course, the Member for Faro's disagreement is sensible; mine were not. I guess that is the way we view the situation. This rather surprises; it not only surprises me, it pleases me, because it indicates to me that I am not always wrong when I say no to something.
With respect to the grazing leases, the Department of Renewable Resources only conducts the inspections and soil tests and they are then referred back to Community and Transportation Services.
Mr. Harding:
What I criticized the Minister for - and I looked this up in Hansard as well - was pounding on the previous Minister for not listening to them, and then turning around and having a disagreement himself. I also said to him, when I was criticizing him, that I could see that there would be times when the Minister would object to the recommendations of the Fish and Wildlife Management Board. If we ever change seats, I am sure there will be some interesting discussion.
Some Hon. Member:
(Inaudible)
Mr. Harding:
Exactly. There was a whole election campaign about the Fish and Wildlife Management Board and the wolf kill. I remember letters the Minister sent to the paper saying that by not listening to one recommendation, he felt they were challenging the whole umbrella final agreement and everything else. I thought it was interesting that when the Minister got into government, he immediately had big problems with them. For the record, let me just say that I realize that there will always be times - we hope not many - when there will be disagreements with the boards. As long as the Minister is consistent, that is fine. Regarding the grazing inspections that are undertaken, would the department be looking for compliance with things such as the fence building and the number of animals? Would that be under the jurisdiction of the department? The Minister is nodding his head, indicating yes, so I assume that is correct.
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
Yes, that is correct. I would like to point out that I have written one letter to the newspaper in the 12 years that I have been here, and that was about game regulations. I did not write the other letters to which the gentleman over there referred. He has spoiled the day. I thought we were getting along fine and now he has spoiled it for me and he has upset me very much.
Mr. Harding:
It was a letter he wrote to the government, and a copy was sent to the newspaper. I have the article. At 4:30, I will get the article and show it to the Minister. He wrote a letter to the Minister of Renewable Resources and copied it to the newspaper. The newspaper article is all about the letter he wrote to the Minister of Renewable Resources. I will give that to him so we can be clear. We want to keep this good partnership and relationship so that we can help solve the wildlife problems of the Yukon, and keep the status quo situation.
I have been told by some people that there are a number of violations in existing grazing leases. These inspections are showing that there are violations in some areas, including fencing provisions and number of animals, and that the leases are long and that they are not being enforced. I should be very fair to the Minister, so I will say that the criticism has gone back as far as the previous administration as well. The problem these people have is that they are looking at the areas, and they are upset that the department, after it has determined that there are infractions, is not
Page Number 2704
more forceful in asking the people to live up to the animal numbers restrictions in the leased areas, and the fencing provisions. As a compromise, they would be prepared to accept that the people be given a small amount of time to live up to the provisions of the act, and if they did not, they would have their leases revoked. Can the Minister comment on situations that he may be aware of where violations are occurring, and tell us how he is going to approach the enforcement of the regulations?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
I do not think that the leases are actually very long. That 35-year lease that everybody promised the people, to my knowledge, never came through. When the department finds somebody has broken the regulations, they advise them and then they go back and inspect again. Now, if the Member has a certain area that he wants us to inspect, all the Member has to do is let me know.
Mr. Harding:
I will raise that issue. The people who talked to me talked to the department and claim they have not been having much success for the last few years in getting enforcement in these areas. So, I will be more specific and give the Minister a note and some information about it and he can investigate it for me. I firmly believe that there should be enforcement of the regulations. It is not fair if people are tying up areas for a number of years and not living up to the regulations. At a minimum, they should be given an opportunity to live up to them. If they are not, then the leasing rights should be removed, because there are other people who can use that valuable land. There is no question about it.
The next question I have goes back to the issue of game farming. We have talked a bit about reviewing the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment, and the Minister said they expressed some interest in doing so. What exactly is happening with the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment on this particular issue? It is my understanding they may have received some complaints under the Environment Act from groups or individuals who are concerned about the industry taking off.
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
The department and the Council on the Economy and the Environment are in consultation right now on the proper way for people to forward complaints if they want to complain.
Mr. Harding:
Can the Minister be more specific about that? What exactly is he talking about? Have they received a complaint that he is aware of, and is he talking about the proper way to receive complaints or to act on them once they are received?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
We were just advised today. In fact, a copy of it just arrived on my desk this morning, so we have not moved too far.
Mr. Harding:
I will wait and see what happens. Maybe I can have a nice question for Question Period next week about it. No doubt the Minister will be fully ready for it.
The last issue I want to raise at this point with the Minister is the proposed regulation changes for this year that were put out for public consultation by Renewable Resources. Have those regulation consultations been completed? When will we know what the results were and when will the final decisions for the regulation changes be made?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
Yes, they have been out for public review, and so on. They have been back and gone through Cabinet and they will be in the hunting synopsis two months from now. I believe we try to issue the synopsis some time in June.
Mr. Harding:
I have one more question on the game farming issue. Under the new regulations, would a person be able to establish a game farming business for things such as mink, fox or lynx - any fur-bearing animals? What would they be covered under? I realize that the game farming regulations are supposed to only be covering elk, muskox and bison, but if they do not regulate things like fur-bearing animal production, what are they covered under and how is it regulated?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
No, they would not come under the game farming regulations because only three animals are allowed under it - elk, muskox and buffalo - but we do have fur regulations now in existence.
Ms. Moorcroft:
We have had a lot of debate on outfitters and I do not want to repeat it, but I do want the Minister to understand what my constituents have to say. Yukoners in my riding, for one, do not want to see our wildlife resources being owned and controlled by wealthy non-residents. They do not want to see Yukon wildlife become a private reserve for a select few. They do not like the fact that Yukoners can no longer afford to buy into the industry. They do not like that, at the same time as a wolf kill is taking place, the government is unwilling to stop moose hunting in that same area.
They do not like that game is being shot for trophy heads, while they are unable to provide meat for the table.
The Minister has said that he supports outfitter quotas. When will he be dealing with that?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
Because we have a new chairman here, they want to start all over again, so we have to answer the same questions I have answered and answered already.
Moose hunting was stopped completely in the Aishihik area. No one has a private reserve. The animals belong to the people of the Yukon. Outfitters in those concessions do not own the animals; they are allowed to take so many. If they abuse their quotas, the department talks to them about it and suggests that they slow down.
Yesterday, we answered that we think the quotas will be ready by this fall. There have been reviews all over the Yukon, and we anticipate that the paper will be back by the fall.
Ms. Moorcroft:
I am raising some serious concerns that have been related to me by my constituents. I would appreciate it if the Minister would not be patronizing.
The Minister says that he thinks that the outfitting quotas will be ready for Cabinet by the fall. That was a short question. I have another short question: does he think he will succeed in getting it through Cabinet?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
That is hypothetical. I do not even know if there is a consensus among the people who are involved.
Ms. Moorcroft:
I will move away from what the Minister considers to be a hypothetical question. I have had my say on that issue.
I would like to point out that we cannot have outfitting, hunting or trapping without habitat protection. I would like to know what has been done toward developing regulations for habitat protection?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
I think we all know that habitat is still under the federal government. We have a very peculiar situation here. The grass, the water and the trees are owned by the federal government, but we are supposed to protect the animals. We have to work through the federal government.
We have regulations that we hope to bring in to Cabinet in June some time. The job is made more difficult by the fact that we have to work through the federal government all the time, because they own the water, land and grass.
Ms. Moorcroft:
I appreciate that the Minister has to work with the federal government due to the overlap of jurisdiction. However, the Minister has acknowledged that they expect to be bringing forward habitat regulations to the Cabinet in the fall. Does the Minister know how much money has been spent on the development of those regulations? He can get back to me.
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
Instead of fall, we hope the regulations will be ready in June. Perhaps the Member misunderstood that.
Page Number 2705
We have spent a fair amount of money, but we will have to give that answer to the Member in written form.
Ms. Moorcroft:
I have a question about parks. How much, if any, land does the government anticipate setting aside for parks?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
We are trying to protect representative areas. This would have nothing to do with the percentage. These areas also have to go through a resource study to see if there is any mineral there. We have been very successful in the Tombstone area, thanks to a mining company agreeing to go out, which very few people give them credit for. They gave up their claims, and that will be coming in under land claims with the Dawson First Nation.
Ms. Moorcroft:
The Minister does not want to indicate what percentage of land they may be setting aside. In what areas are they doing the resource studies, and what other studies do they consider necessary before a park is developed?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
We are going through the ecological regions and picking out areas. Right now, we have done the Porcupine/Peel area and the southeast plateaus.
Ms. Moorcroft:
I know economic development agreement funds are being used to develop a silviculture industry. I have looked at some of the results of the research projects. I know they have done a history of logging and studies of timber yields.
What specialized training has been done?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
We funded a number of courses on it through economic development agreements so that they could learn silviculture, and we have also tried to put out the contracts on silviculture in small areas so that local people can have a chance to bid on them and work in these areas.
Ms. Moorcroft:
How many hectares of land have been planted in demonstration projects?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
I will have to bring that information back for the Member. I know that there has been quite a bit done in the Watson Lake area, but I do not know the number of hectares.
Ms. Moorcroft:
The Minister described the specialized training as being generally in the area of silviculture so that people could engage in those projects. What public education has been done?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
One example we can give you right now is that the Yukon Conservation Society has done a paper on alternative forestry methods. Here again, we are getting into an area of federal jurisdiction, although we are spending money to try to get some of the things done that the federal government is not doing. If we can get forestry transferred, we would be doing a lot more on such things as this.
Ms. Moorcroft:
I would like to ask a constituency question now. Last year, there was a certain amount of panic caused by the smoke when a planned burn on the Red Ridge went out of control. I would like to know what plans there are for burning this year and what efforts the government has made to advise the local residents of those plans?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
There is a burn planned in that area again, and all of the people have been notified. In fact, I knew one person who complained violently last time. We went out and found him. This year, everybody in the area is aware that we are going to conduct another controlled burn with the help of the federal government.
Ms. Moorcroft:
Can I ask, then, that when they are notifying people they do send a copy of the letter to the MLA for the area as well. I have only talked to one person who has received a letter notifying them of the burn and the dates for the burn, and that was received by the hamlet council. So, I have not heard yet that individual residents have been notified, and I was not notified. I would like to request that in the future.
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
My understanding is that a lot of people have been notified and I will have to apologize for the fact that the Member has not been. The department should have done that and I will see that it does not happen again.
Mr. Cable:
Last January, I asked the Minister about when he thought his department would be reviewing the agricultural policy. It is set up, as I am sure the Minister recollects, to be reviewed between three and five years. It was dated November 1991. I think at the time - in January - he responded to my question and indicated that he wanted to talk first to the Yukon Agricultural Association. Has he had an opportunity to talk to that association about the review of the policy?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
We spent quite a bit of time, quite frankly, on abattoir land and such things as that. It will be reviewed through the Yukon Agricultural Association whenever we can get everybody together on it.
Mr. Cable:
I believe the Minister was actually going to talk to the association - if I understood his answer correctly - about the timing for the review. Does he have any thoughts about the timing for the review?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
We cannot really speak for the association. When they have the time, we would have to adjust to be with them on it. Right now, they are spending a great deal of their time - it is volunteer time, an awful lot of it - on the abattoir.
Mr. Cable:
Is it anticipated that when the Yukon Agricultural Association does have the time there will be a comprehensive review of the policy? Is that what is intended?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
Yes. In fact, the Agricultural Planning Advisory Committee has already started to identify certain things that we have to look at when the time comes.
Mr. Cable:
Is there any element of the policy as it is now constituted - the November 28, 1991, policy - with which the Minister or his department have any trouble?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
One of my favourite ones is the five year to seven year agreement to develop farmland.
Mr. Cable:
Can we read this policy and say yes, that is the policy for agriculture for the 1990s and the government is going to do whatever is said in this policy manual, or does the Minister have some reservations about things in this document that would lead him to have his department not put it in force?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
Of course I have the five to seven year agreement. That is something we have to adjust where they are farming. For instance, where a person has nothing but willows and so on, he should be able to do it in five years whereas a person who has to salvage heavily timbered land would take quite a bit longer. I would prefer they had seven years rather than being forced to use bulldozers, knocking it all down and destroying it.
The other area we are having problems getting implemented is the tax rebate one. It seems to have got caught up in red tape in just how we are going to do this and so far that problem has not been solved.
Mr. Cable:
There is a lot of debate in the Yukon among the farming community - or among the non-farming community, more correctly - about whether agriculture is ever going to play a significant role in the territory, both in terms of jobs and in terms of dollars. What is the Minister's view on that? Are we batting our heads against the wall up here, trying to farm moose pasture, or is there, on the horizon, a real viable agricultural sector that we can look forward to?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
I personally really think there is a future - just how great a future it is, I do not know. As everybody knows, it is very, very hard work and a lot of people do not want to go into it unless they can go in with big, fancy machinery. My experience, after having lived in Alberta and having been over to New Zealand and seeing how they do it much smaller with much more success, is that it is a slow industry and big, heavy equipment should not
Page Number 2706
be up here. It is just not going to work and it costs too much for what we can get out of the product.
However, it is an industry. It was here in 1898 and fed a lot of people in the Dawson area. We can do the same thing here, but people have to work at it and it is very hard. With the exception of a few, most of the people who are in farming now have to have another job to even survive. In 10 or 15 years, though, they will be successful. Personally, in my experience in this, if one looks at Alberta and Saskatchewan, the great-great-grandfather who started the place starved to death; then his son started to make a little more of it, and three generations away they now have a beautiful farm that their family sacrificed and worked for but now it is a paying thing. If it takes that long in Alberta to do this, with the soil they have and the weather they have, compared with ours, it is a slow process. One has to have faith in it and it has to slowly work ahead.
Mr. Cable:
One of the things that the various provinces have had that has assisted in developing their agriculture is agricultural stations where research is carried out. I know that it is indicated in the policy under research, that the research is going to be focused on marketing and the financial aspects of agriculture, and perhaps, down the road, research on the technical side - the breeding of different types of products that could be raised in the north will be done some time later. What, in the Minister's view, is the reason for that - this focus on the financial, as opposed to the technical, side?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
Actually, the circumpolar conferences are good examples of what we are trying to do in the research area. We are borrowing from other areas of the world. There are some very interesting things in the book about it.
Research into whether or not people would purchase products is kind of new. The first time this has really started to happen is in the last four or five years - where it has gotten to the point where we have vegetables growing. I would like to point out that, back in 1950, the federal Department of Agriculture had an experimental farm at Haines Junction, and they could grow everything. The ground was heated with cables. They kept chickens in a controlled temperature of 70 degrees, and they had to put glasses on them because they ate the eggs, and such things.
My brother and two other people out there had chickens that they left in the barn. They had their combs frozen, and they out-layed the government chickens. Research can go too far.
They could grow corn, or anything, at the experimental farm at Mile 1016, but what is the point of it? It will cost so much to grow that it is of no use to you. I hope, and sincerely believe, that the department - from what I have seen - is going into more practical things to promote agriculture. For example, one of the big problems with the abattoir is that all the grain has to be hauled in. I just read an article not long ago about Alaska, where they are bringing in thousands and thousands of pigs. They have to bring in grain from the United States or Canada, and that is the end of the market. By the time they haul the grain in, they cannot possibly make money.
We have to go slow on this. We have to develop some grain that will not freeze. Haines Junction was chosen as a good area for this, but to my knowledge, they seldom got a crop to ripen - oats, barley, et cetera. The reason I know that is because they would sell it for horses for practically nothing, because the oats had been frozen.
There are only certain areas where these products will grow. It is the same with potatoes. We now have potatoes that will grow and mature before the frost comes, but we did not have them 10 years ago. These are things that you have to experiment on as you go along.
Mr. Cable:
I guess the grain is sort of a case in point. It is very difficult for individuals to do the genetic manipulation to produce short-season seeds.
I note that the government - or perhaps it was the previous administration - was supportive of the alpine seeds experiments. What has happened? Has there been a product produced? Does it have some promise?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
I see the Leader of the Official Opposition smiling, because I was going to say that that was one of the good things they did. It has proven to be a very good industry. It appears that it could expand.
Mr. Cable:
Government played some role in that in some way and gave some encouragement for the people to do some cross-breeding.
On another topic, a few weeks ago, the federal auditors were critical of the economic development agreements and the way they were administered. One of the comments, I believe, was that they did not feel there was enough follow-through to determine whether or not they were successful in producing whatever it is they are supposed to be producing. Does the Minister share that view with respect to the agricultural contracts that have been let?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
I think the Member is trying to get me discussing the business of another department. If I say the wrong thing, I will get shot.
I believe that all grants, loans and everything else that goes out - just like a private business - should be followed up in order to see whether or not it was a success. If it was not a success, one does not want to do it again.
Mr. Cable:
Are the Minister's officers involved in any way with that portion of the economic development agreement that relates to agriculture?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
My department is involved in the management part of it, but not in the follow-up. That is something we should perhaps look at. However, I do not think these loans or grants will be going out quite as quickly as they did in the past.
Mr. Cable:
What is the follow-up? Is there any follow-up on the agriculture grants?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
We are getting back into the Department of Economic Development again. They do the follow-up and the checking to see what went on and they report back. My department only sits on the Management Board.
Mr. Joe:
I just want to make a couple of comments. Lots of questions have been asked in the last few days. In my riding, we do a lot of exercises toward land claims and developing a good relationship with Renewable Resources. We do some planning.
One day, our plan is going to come true. Too many moose have come out of the Pelly and Macmillan river areas. We do our part. I would not put the Minister first. We have to do our part and work out our own plans and give our recommendations to the Minister for review. Those are the kinds of plans we are working on.
I hear all the questions that have been asked here in the last few days. We have to do our part sometimes, too. We cannot just put the Minister on the spot - anyway, I really am enjoying the questions being asked by the Member for Faro, but, I think we should work more on planning how we are going to work together, how we are going to manage our wildlife. It is very important to work together. If we do not do that, then what happens is that a lot of questions get asked and people want to understand.
Once we put a plan in place, everybody will understand what the job is, and I think it will work. If we do not do that, nobody is going to do it for us, so it is important to do our part of the plan.
We have spent enough time in this House asking questions. I hear some questions over and over. I think we should speak to the real issue. We would go much faster than asking the same questions over and over.
I know what the real issues are. If I take a shortcut and ask a
Page Number 2707
few questions, if I get an answer, it will be all right. If I do not get an answer, I have to stand here and keep asking questions until I get an answer.
There is another thing. We get ourselves mixed up and do not give the next person a chance to find more questions to be answered.
That is all I have to say.
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
I would have to say that I completely agree with the Member about most of the things he is saying, and we do have to get together and work together. There is no question about that. I think the Mayo Renewable Resource Council is a good example of what we can do, what we will do and proceed to do more and more, as land claims are settled.
I am also very pleased with the fact that we worked with five First Nations in the Carcross area to get them to not kill animals in that area, especially the caribou, to see if we could bring the population numbers up. We have had complete cooperation from the First Nations and, in my talks with some of the members, the department has cooperated with them. This shows what we can do.
We now have a corridor in the Kluane area, one mile on each side, which everyone is supposed to respect. I firmly believe that this will work. It is not going to be perfect, but it is a start, until we can prove to people that we can save game and bring game back by doing these things.
In the Watson Lake area, there is the Meister River, where the logging outfit is, and there is a one-mile corridor on each side of the road where people are not supposed to hunt.
As land claims go ahead, there will be more and more of these renewable resource councils and, therefore, more and more involvement between the First Nations and the territorial government.
In the Aishihik area, particularly, I feel that we have the First Nations and the department talking to each other a great deal and working together. Department staff and the Fish and Wildlife Management Board will be flying in this week to a workshop at Airport Lake at Pelly Crossing. We are moving these people around: last year, we were at Ethel Lake and met with people.
I was very pleased to be able to fly out there and spend the day with them. I would like to fly out again, if someone would let me out of the Legislature, but I do not suppose they will, so I will have to stay.
We have to work together. I firmly believe we can bring the game back, and I think we are moving into a new era in game management. We have all made mistakes but, if we all work together, we can bring the game back. It is going to be different, and it is going to be difficult, but we can do it.
Mr. Penikett:
I wonder if I could change the subject before we conclude general debate.
As the Minister knows, in accordance with the Canada/Yukon accord under environmental cooperation, Environment Canada, DIAND, and Yukon Renewable Resources are working to produce the first joint federal and territorial state of the environment report. I am sure that the Minister also knows that he is required, under section 48(1) of the Environment Act, to submit to the Legislative Assembly the state of the environment report in 1995.
As I understand it, under the direction of the management committee made up of both federal and territorial officials, someone from Environment Canada and someone from the Department of Renewable Resources were instructed to set up a steering committee to produce the state of the environment report. This was done, and the group included the Council on the Economy and the Environment, which is as it should be.
I understand that Mary Reddoch and Gregg Jilson attended one meeting only and then only Mary Reddoch attended that, but I understand that some misunderstanding ensued when there were letters sent on Council on the Economy and the Environment stationery from the vice-chair of the council criticizing the public officials involved in Renewable Resources and Environment Canada. Even though I understand, in subsequent dialogue, it was clarified that these were not the opinions of the Council on the Economy and the Environment, no apology was forthcoming for using the Council on the Economy and the Environment letterhead to make these criticisms, which, because of the way the council's activities are minuted, had the potential to become public.
I understand that last week the steering committee had a meeting. It was a fairly large group of something like 30-some people from around the territory, but the Council on the Economy and the Environment was not represented. According to section 49 of the Environment Act, which says, "The council shall review the Yukon state of the environment report and submit a report of its review to the Legislative Assembly", my view is that the council's involvement in this process is absolutely essential.
I would like to ask the Minister three questions, really. I will give them all now and he can answer them in whatever sequence he likes.
I would like to know generally what is happening about the state of the environment report. What is the situation with respect to the YCEE involvement? Are they part of the solution or not? And has the Minister had any reason to be involved in any discussion with anyone about the appropriateness of letters criticizing public employees going out on YCEE stationery?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
On the matter of the criticizing of the public service, there has been an apology sent back. There has been a misunderstanding among them. We sincerely hope that that has been cleared up.
As to the status regarding the environment report, we are working on it. We think we are on schedule and will have it ready on time. What we have done is to get people with traditional knowledge in on it. The Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment has indicated that it is anxious to be on it. I hope we have that one straightened around now.
Mr. Penikett:
I thank the Minister for his answer. Can I take it that the report will be ready for tabling in the Legislature in 1995, if the Minister has anything to do with it? Can I understand from his answer that, given the recent absence of Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment representation and the communications problems he has referred to, that Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment will be represented, but by someone other than those who have been previous participants?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
The chair of the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment has indicated that they certainly will participate. They will have to make a decision about who comes from the board, not I.
Yes, we are on schedule. Unless something unforeseen happens, it will be ready to be tabled on time.
Mr. Penikett:
From time to time, there have been documents that take a look at the lay of the land or the state of the water. The river basin studies of the last decade were, I think, significant. However, I want to say to the Minister that I think a lot of people are looking forward to the state of the environment report. The first one that came out of British Columbia, which was a joint federal/provincial project, was excellent, from my point of view, in terms of the information it contained: the maps and the diagrams. I think it would be very hard for us, on our own, to produce information of that quality. I would only say that I encourage the Minister in this work, because a lot of people who care about the environment have very high expectations of the report.
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
We are working very closely with
Page Number 2708
Environment Canada. As well, our consultants are the same ones who work with the B.C. government.
Mr. McDonald:
I have a question to ask the Minister, which results from information that we received only very recently, about the general finances of the department. The question I would like to begin asking the Minister is essentially about last year, but I will ask him in very general terms, because it has a bearing on this year. I will explain myself in a moment. Can the Minister tell us what lapses occurred in the Department of Renewable Resources in the last year - how much, and where?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
We will get back with the exact figures, but I will give rough figures now. The O&M is roughly $300,000, and capital is $100,000. Those are just rough figures.
Mr. McDonald:
That is fine for the purposes of this debate. I am sure that when we get to the supplementary estimates in general debate, we will be asking for more specifics. We will be asking the Finance Minister for that information. The point I want to make is that these lapses have been characterized by the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission as savings. They have been characterized as conscious efficiencies that will be carried over from last year into next year, and into future years. In answering questions in the media today, he did indicate that these savings will, as a result of more efficient government, be carried over to future years. He suggested that we can consequently expect this level of overall government savings - in the case of the Department of Renewable Resources, $300,000 in savings - to be carried forward into the future as well. These additional savings, as the Minister knows, were not known to the government until last week. Consequently, they have obviously not been factored into the planning of the department's estimates for this particular budget. According to at least one Minister, this department is consequently overfunded by $300,000. That money is obviously going to lapse, because the Minister said that it is going to lapse. I would like to know where the estimates that the Minister is proposing are going to be different from what they have stated is required under this budget. Where is the money not going to be spent in this current budget, as a result of this increased efficiency in savings?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
A great deal of this is accounted for by projects that we did not do. A lot of the surplus was taken up by the winter works program, such as the work at Faro and places like that.
Mr. McDonald:
What is going to happen here? One Minister has indicated that these savings are going to be carried over into future years, and consequently it will have a very real impact on the government's need to reduce the cost of its payroll. Is the Minister saying that while there may be savings carried over to future years in the government overall, the savings cannot be found in Renewable Resources, and that he needs all of the planned expenditures that he is proposing?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
As the Member knows, we just got this notification last week, and a great deal of it is going to be in the Finance Minister's department - how much he is going to allow each department to make, much as we did in these budgets.
Mr. McDonald:
In fact, the Finance department is a very small expenditure of government - with the exception of all the write-offs the government pursues each year.
Based on the comments made already by Cabinet Members, explaining the new wage rollback legislation, the savings that are newly discovered are savings that will be carried forward in future years, making room for the payroll expectations they are anticipating.
Consequently, we now assume, based on the fact that the government has gone through the process of, in one year, amending this budget 100 times, in order to accommodate $1.8 million worth of expenditures the efficiencies the government pursued last year have increased greater savings - in the $4 million to $6 million range; consequently, we would expect the Minister to be amending his budget to accommodate these efficiencies they have just discovered. Otherwise, we are going to be dealing with a fictitious budget. We will be dealing with a budget that is $300,000 over budget, or one that has $300,000 more than it needs.
Given the fact that there are many competing interests out there for that funding, it would only be appropriate that we amend the budget and accommodate this increased savings we have discovered, that are now in the $4 million to $6 million range, beyond what was characterized before as lapses.
Does the Minister not agree that that is something we should be doing, in order to be budgeting responsibly?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
Our budget for this year is with a two-percent rollback and we made no provisions for the merit rebate, which will be left alone, so our budget is going to be very, very tight again this year.
Mr. McDonald:
The Minister will have to know that one of his colleagues has already said what has happened with respect to lapses. The government has now determined that the lapses are a result of increased efficiency - it has been characterized in that way - and that this increased efficiency was conscious and it created not lapses, but savings, and that these savings will be carried forward to future years. So, if this entailed such a conscious process, then clearly we have a lot of slush, overall, in the budget - slush meaning money that is not required. While we are here, we should be doing something about that.
We discovered that up until today we were going to be expecting $4.5 million or so worth of lapses. We have discovered that what we have come across now is not lapses, but savings, from last year. Because those savings amount to $4 million to $6 million dollars, we are not talking about a paltry sum, given that - as I mentioned before - we went through the process of amending the budget over 100 times to accommodate $1.8 million. We should not feel shy about accommodating a $4 million to $6 million cut in public spending, given that the management wizardry has found these savings and will allow us to perhaps have a better picture of what the real or true requirements of the budget are. Perhaps then we can make conscious decisions about the priorities out there. There are always competing interests for the available funding. Certainly, employee wages are one element of that but there are other elements that we should consider.
Clearly, if we have found savings of $4 million to $6 million, overall, in the government's estimates, we can accommodate all the costs of the two-percent rollback and have a lot of change to spare. That is why I am asking the Minister if, for example, they have found $300,000 through what was characterized by one Minister as increased efficiency, then clearly this Minister can easily accommodate the $300,000 expenditure reduction resulting from the two-percent rollback - if the Minister wanted to.
I would ask the Minister if the $300,000 in O&M lapses from last year are the result of savings from increased efficiency or simply a number of projects that did not go ahead and are traditionally characterized as lapsed funding?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
We have saved considerably on flying. We cut that back to about 48 percent. Some of our projects came in under budget because of efficiency in the department that worked on them. We have had to carry forward some of our projects, because we did not get them finished.
Mr. McDonald:
There are obviously some savings that the Minister was not aware of until recently. We were told that. The savings were not made known to us until last week. They are now called savings; we do not call them lapses any more.
If they are the result of increased efficiency and these savings
Page Number 2709
are going to continue into future years, then, darn it, the Minister does not need the money and he should not be asking for it.
I would ask the Minister what he plans to do. Are we dealing with a fictitious budget here, or are all the assumptions the Ministers are making about these being the result of increased efficiency accurate?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
I can only speak for myself. I feel that the department did a very good job of increasing efficiency. Everyone in the department cooperated and worked very hard to cut things down. A lot of them worked beyond the call of duty, without pay. The department runs a very tight ship.
As for the other remarks the Member made, he will have to talk to the Minister who made those statements; I did not make them.
Mr. McDonald:
I intend to do just that. However, at some point, the government, overall, is going to have to be accountable for some things.
I would first point out that I have no reservations in saying that I am certain that the department personnel did exactly what the Minister said. I am sure that they worked very hard and were diligent in trying to follow the government's wishes with respect to policy guidelines, and so on. I am sure they essentially did as they were told; I have no information to the contrary.
However, even with the planned estimated expenditure for 1994-95, we were informed that no one knew about these savings until after this budget document was tabled. They were characterized as being unexpected savings resulting from increased efficiency - unexpected in terms of the fact that they could not be put into the main estimates in time for this particular budget document. However, the Cabinet spokesperson - this Minister - expects that these savings will be carried forward to future years.
If that is the case, we are giving the Minister - perhaps not in this department, as the Minister might be able to come up with a credible argument that his is the exception - and his overall government $4 million or $6 million more than it needs.
We cannot, in all conscience, do that, because we already have a budget document that has a $6.5 million slush fund in it, and we have claims about there being a deficit to worry about. The problem that we are facing is that, if all Ministers are still under the impression that we are dealing with a deficit, then we had better resolve that right now. Based on what we know to be the case today, we do not believe there is a deficit at all. There is zero deficit. In fact, based on the information we received in Question Period today, we have anywhere from a $2 million to $4 million accumulated surplus. That is what we have.
Some Hon. Member:
(Inaudible)
Mr. McDonald:
The Minister of Education, quite thoughtlessly, typically, says that we should be ashamed that we have a surplus. I am not ashamed that we have a surplus. The NDP government ran surpluses for five of seven years. I am not ashamed of that.
I am trying to figure out what message this government is trying to foist upon Yukoners, because the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission said today that, as far as he is aware, there is still a deficit. This is a Minister who is on the inside of the tent right now and understands full well the financial picture of the government. He is the person I was referring to who made comments about the fact that the government has found money, that this money is a result of efficiencies, and these efficiencies will carry on into future years.
On the one hand, we have a Minister saying that there is going to be an accumulated deficit at the end of the next fiscal year, which was said this afternoon at noon. Then, at 1:30 p.m., we have the Minister of Finance saying that there is a $2 million to $4 million accumulated surplus. We have those same Ministers saying that, through their brilliant efficiency and tough fiscal management, they have been able to find $4 million to $6 million worth of savings that they have not accounted for in this main estimates book here.
I am not referring to the full $8 million to $10 million, because the first $4 million was characterized by everybody as lapses. Now, we have heard that the balance is being characterized as savings. The Minister may be characterizing the full $8 million to $10 million as unexpected savings; if he is saying that, then we have a bigger task ahead of us, and that task is to amend this budget by $8 million to $10 million and reduce the expenditure.
Some Hon. Member:
(Inaudible)
Mr. McDonald:
There seems to be some doubt about whether or not this was said. I have a transcript, dated today, from the CBC Noon Show.
The reporter asks where the money came from for the government to back off in its demands for the wage savings. The Minister says that it is not that they have found money, but that they have saved, in government, the delivery of the service and the efficiency and have found they can run government cheaper than before and, on that basis, they will continue, over the next three years, to operate more efficiently and in a cheaper manner, so the employees are not bearing the burden.
After being asked if these savings would then be carried forward to future years, the Minister says, yes, they will.
Some Hon. Member:
(Inaudible)
Mr. McDonald:
I will certainly table it, but I am sure that, because it was addressed to Dale Drown, it will be in the Ministers' offices. I am more than happy to table it. I have to make copies, though, because I want to keep my copy. I have the more precious quotes highlighted.
What we have here is a situation where the government has decided that, because they want to send the message that they are being more efficient, and because they want to send the message that, somehow, these savings were something consciously done by the government, and because they want to send the message that these conscious savings are then transferable into future years, and because these savings were unexpected and not contained in the main estimates book, we have a dilemma. The dilemma is that these savings - depending on one's interpretation - of anywhere from $4 million to $6 million to $8 million to $10 million, are contained in the operations main estimates and do not need to be there.
We unfortunately have a situation where there are many people out there crying for money. We have a situation where the public servants are saying their wages should not be cut, and we have a government saying it is absolutely essential.
We also have a government saying that it has found savings that it has not applied to this budget. I am afraid I cannot just let the point go because it appears to be a fairly fundamental point. I think the problem here is there are so many different lines coming out of the government - from the Cabinet offices - about why it is doing things, and so many different messages going out there, that there has to be some point where we just sit down and say "Okay, let us roll up our sleeves and decide the question once and for all: is there a deficit or not?"
One Minister said there is still a deficit as of March 31, 1995. Another Minister has said that there will be a $2 million accumulated surplus in 1995. What does this Minister think?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
I have been advised that we will not know definitely until June. The individual on that side knew that the whole thing would not be in until then. I would like to point out that these are the same gentlemen who would not believe the Auditor General - jumped up and down and hollered "none of this is true, none of this is true" - and are going on and on about
Page Number 2710
these things. On top of that, my department reduced spending by eight percent.
Some Hon. Member:
(Inaudible)
Chair:
Order please.
Mr. McDonald:
We have to put up with some more thoughtless remarks from the Minister of Education. Unfortunately, he is not a great role model for the children in this territory.
I would like to...
Some Hon. Member:
(Inaudible)
Mr. McDonald:
...make the obvious point. The Ministers opposite have indicated that when they lapse money, it is through increased efficiencies. When the NDP government lapsed money, it was incompetence budgeting. Based on their interpretation of what lapsing funds are, the NDP government saved probably $100 million over the life of its government. So, consequently, the NDP government was doing extremely well by this interpretation.
Unfortunately, it was not an interpretation shared by the Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes. He felt significantly differently about lapses. He must be swallowing his tongue right now, listening to the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission or anyone else talk about these lapses as being savings. It is the most incredible definition of savings I have ever heard.
These are "unexpected, planned efficiencies". That is oxymoronic - unexpected, planned efficiencies. Now, give us a break. I am prepared to accept their definition, but if we accept the definition, then clearly we have a budget that has too much money in it. If we are to believe that these were planned efficiencies and the government is just being more efficient, then we have a lot more money in this budget that does not need to be there. We should be extracting that money - now - while we are dealing with it. When the Legislature says goodbye, the government might go off and do anything.
The Minister said that the figures that they have at their disposal will not be definite until June. It appears that they are going to be definite enough that the government can make some very significant financial decisions on the wage restraint legislation, and the reliability of the information is significant enough that the Finance Minister can say, with some certainty, that the net savings are going to be between $8 million and $10 million, overall.
These savings, or unexpected planned efficiencies, are going to be worth $8 million to $10 million. So, clearly that is not what the Auditor General is going to report. The Auditor General is going to be more precise than that. When the time comes in the fall to actually see what the audited accounts are, we will know, with some certainty, what the lapsing funds will total.
I realize it is 4:30 p.m., so I will leave this question with the Minister. Even considering the fact that there was some imprecision with respect to the reliability of these numbers, does the Minister not agree that we are facing a budget here that has some slush in it, due to the fact that we were not aware of these planned efficiencies until just last week? Would he not agree that perhaps, in all conscience, the budget should be amended?
Chair:
Order please. At this time, we will take a brief recess.
Recess
Chair:
I will now call Committee of the Whole to order. Is there further general debate on the Department of Renewable Resources?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
We talked to the accounting department and the following is money that the department has lapsed: AES Contaminants, $106,000; wildlife projects, $50,000 - that includes the Aishihik wolf control program; fisheries, $39,000; field services, $64,000; parks, $31,000; land claims, $119,000.
Mr. McDonald:
I appreciate that precise information; it is helpful. I will ask the Minister, based on the fact that all we have been told is that these lapses are unexpected savings resulting from increased efficiency, does the Minister expect any savings throughout the year, or is that going to happen someplace else, not in Renewable Resources?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
Of course, I will speak to the other departments. In the Department of Renewable Resources, we have a management board. We will look at them when something comes up.
Quite frankly, I think that the gentleman on that side cannot pin this down to one thing, and I might also point out, which I neglected to do when I was up before, that they are still working on the variance, so ours could change again.
Mr. McDonald:
I am aware that the numbers are not precise. Whenever anyone says to me that they might lapse $8 million to $10 million, I know that they are looking at some leeway of at least $2 million, or perhaps $2 million at the most. I know that there are still numbers to come in and I am not asking the Minister for precise figures. I was quite satisfied with the $300,000 figure in operation and maintenance, not that I would hold him precisely to that figure, but that is good enough for the purposes that I was seeking in pursuing this line of questioning.
I guess that I am picking the wrong Minister here to pursue this subject with, because even though every department is affected and every Minister is involved in the decision making and helps to determine the line that the government is going to take, the culprits who may have foot-and-mouth disease are not present to pursue any line of questioning. I will pursue this questioning at a later time.
I would want to point out that when we do start debating, in general terms, the budgets and items like the wage restraint measure - and we are standing up tomorrow carrying on and on about the government's finances - it is very frustrating for a person in my position. It has been frustrating for well over a year now to hear Ministers stand up and say that there is a $13 million deficit, or a $5 million deficit, or they make some claim about the finances of government after having spent hours in Committee dealing with those matters and, on many occasions, refuting those matters.
I fully expect someone to stand up tomorrow and say that there is a $6.5 million deficit to deal with, although we know that is not true. We agreed today it is not true. The Minister of Finance agreed that it is not true and that there is a surplus. Mark my words. The Minister and I will just listen tomorrow to see who says there is a $6.2 million deficit. Somebody, on the government side, is going to say it, thoughtlessly, will just let it slip out and it is going to be part of the framework of the debate and people are going to be inclined to believe it and we are going to have to deal with this over and over again with different departments.
I want to make the point that we have to be a bit more precise about why we are doing things. I will certainly take this matter up with the Minister of Finance and the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission - the Minister can be assured of that.
Chair:
Is there further general debate?
On Administration
On Activities
On General Management
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
This is to provide for general management services through the office of the deputy minister and to ensure that the department's programs and activities are well communicated to the public and relevant to the stakeholders. On wages, there is a $4,000 reduction due to the projected effect of the rollbacks.
Mr. Harding:
What is the impact of the new legislation on
Page Number 2711
this two-percent reduction that is written down here?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
We did not calculate the merit rebates in that, so we will be very tight on the wage situation.
Mr. Harding:
Thankfully, the Minister will have this new money - the money from the sky that has come from these new-found efficiency savings. So, he is going to have lots of money and will probably have to bring in some amendments. I will leave it at that, for now. I guess we can move on to the next line.
General Management in the amount of $246,000 agreed to
On Finance and Administration
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
The personnel cost is a $7,000 reduction due to the effect of the rollbacks.
Do you want the Other?
Some Hon. Member:
(Inaudible)
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
Other is: employment travel in the Yukon is $5,100; employee travel outside the Yukon, $2,800; other travel in the Yukon, $2,500; contract services, $20,500; repairs and maintenance, $1,400; supplies, $46,400; postage and freight, $1,700; advertising, $3,000; program material, $58,600; communications, $8,400; non-consumable assets, $2,700; other internal charges, $6,900.
Finance and Administration in the amount of $1,118,000 agreed to
Administration in the amount of $1,364,000 agreed to
On Policy and Planning
Chair:
Is there any general debate?
On Activities
On Director
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
This is for managing the strategic planning policy analyst and program functions of the department, including implementation of the Yukon conservation strategy, resource management and land claim coordination.
Mr. Harding:
Why was there no two-percent drop here? Why was that not factored in here?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
We have someone acting in that position now, and his wage is lower than the position calls for.
Mr. Harding:
They have already had the cut effected upon them, is that what he is saying?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
No. We have someone acting in that capacity right now, but he is being paid a lower wage than the person who was in there before.
Director in the amount of $222,000 agreed to
On Policy Analysis
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
This is to plan and develop a departmental resource strategy and government policy with respect to environment and renewable resources.
Mr. Harding:
Could the Minister explain the 10-percent increase?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
There is a $24,000 increase due to the 1993-94 vacancies.
Mr. Harding:
That does not add up. The 1993-94 forecast is $212,000; the 1994-95 estimate is $233,000. If one adds $24,000 to $212,000, it does not add up to $233,000. What is going on there?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
There is a $3,000 reduction due to some minor reallocations.
Policy Analysis in the amount of $233,000 agreed to
On Program Transfers Unit
Program Transfers Unit in the amount of nil agreed to
On Planning and Resource Policy
Mr. Harding:
What is the two-percent reduction? Is it the effect of the wage legislation?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
Yes.
Planning and Resource Policy in the amount of $142,000 agreed to
On GIS/Remote Sensing
Mr. Harding:
Could I get an explanation of the 17-percent reduction there?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
It is basically because we are doing less work in that area right now.
Mr. Harding:
Why is that?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
In 1993-94, we did a lot of work to get this project going. Now that it is going, we can cut back. There is not that much more work required on it.
GIS/Remote Sensing in the amount of $154,000 agreed to
Policy and Planning in the amount of $751,000 agreed to
On Environment, Parks, and Regional Services
Chair:
Is there any general debate?
Mr. Harding:
I was reading yesterday's Hansard about the Minister's plans for discussion regarding the Kluane Game Sanctuary plans to upgrade or put in new roads - the plans at this point are very vague. The only part I did not understand was the time lines involved. I got a commitment that there will be some consultation. Are there any time lines for the department, or is it all still pretty much up in the air?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
No, it simply was an idea that came up. It is still up in the air. We have not consulted with a lot of people, except the people up and down the road who have talked to me about it during my travels. There has been no decision made of any kind, even regarding where we would want a road to go.
On Activities
On Division Management
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
It is to provide executive level policy and program direction through the office of the assistant deputy minister.
Division Management in the amount of $116,000 agreed to
On Environmental Protection and Assessment
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
This is to develop and implement the Environment Act and regulations to monitor, enforce and promote an understanding of the legislation in environmental protection programs.
Mr. Harding:
Could I get an explanation of the increase?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
We have moved two positions into environmental protection from another branch.
Mr. Harding:
What was the purpose of that move? What were these positions? What are they now responsible for?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
One of them is a secretarial position - there was not one there before - and we moved one from the wildlife branch to be with the environmental assessment people.
Environmental Protection and Assessment in the amount of $681,000 agreed to
On Parks and Outdoor Recreation
Mr. Harding:
I would like a detailed breakdown of the four-percent reduction here, and exactly what does the reduction reflect?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
The $63,000 overall reduction is due mainly to a two-percent departmental reduction.
Mr. Harding:
That is two percent. What is the other two percent? It is a four-percent reduction.
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
There is a $32,000 decrease due to a two-percent departmental reduction - the projects that affected the salary rollback.
Mr. Harding:
I am still unclear. Two percent is $32,000. What else was cut? Which initiative was cut besides the two-percent rollback, to add up to the four-percent reduction?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
There is a $31,000 decrease due to a two-percent rollback in the department itself - in the projects. It is spread throughout. Does the Member want me to list them all?
Employee travel in the Yukon, $55,100; employee travel outside the Yukon, $4,800; other travel in the Yukon, $33,000;
Page Number 2712
contract service, construction, $9,100; contract service, others, $132,200; repair and maintenance, $17,200; rental expense, $9,000; supplies $12,100; postage $3,000; advertising $2,000; program material, $108,200; fuel, oil and lube, $10,400; utilities, $22,400; communication, $16,800; non-consumable assets, $4,500; other $7,200; internal charges, $3,000.
Parks and Outdoor Recreation in the amount of $1,526,000 agreed to
On Regional Services
Mr. Harding:
I would like to have an explanation about the one-percent reduction, please.
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
The $91,000 increase is due to the addition of a secretarial position and the transfer of an environmental assessment analyst from habitat.
Mr. Harding:
Is that the only change in the department? One would assume that the two-percent rollback would have a reduction impact, and we are showing an increase, overall, of one percent. How do the figures compute?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
The $22,000 increase is due mainly to the addition of one regional conservation officer, less projected, effective salary rollbacks. That was a conservation officer we were going to hire when the responsibility for forestry was transferred.
Regional Services in the amount of $2,105,000 agreed to
Environment, Parks and Regional Services in the amount of $4,428,000 agreed to
On Resource Management
Mr. Harding:
This is a very important branch of the department and I have raised some concerns about this over the last little while. The budget, as I saw it, presented to me some alarm bells, because we have a major reduction in resource management - overall, 18 percent; fish and wildlife branch, 18 percent. I should also point out that, from the 1992-93 actuals, there is a considerable reduction, from $4.375 million to $3.61 million this year, and from last year, $4.4 million.
We have underway right now, a very expensive wolf control program in the Aishihik area. It is looking like it is going to be at least $1 million over three years, if not more.
I guess the problem with the wolf management program is, if it is eating up funds that are normally used for fish and wildlife protection surveys, habitat control and observations, then we are not really reacting pro-actively to wildlife management, but rather, reactively. If we are not paying enough attention to other areas, then we can in fact be entering into to a hole in some of the other areas that deserve attention in the Yukon.
Does the Minister share any concerns with me regarding reductions in this area?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
I think I have said it before many times. I would just as soon not have had to do the program. I am firmly convinced that we had to do it. We certainly are not spending the money the Member says we are. No one is taking into consideration the fact that we have radio-collared, counted and taken blood tests and samples, as well. We have studied the pregnancy rate of two or three herds of caribou. We have studied the Wolf Lake area, which is in the Mayo area. No one has taken into consideration the other valuable information we have received by doing these things. Everyone concentrates on the wolf predation which, in terms of costs, is not actually that great.
Mr. Harding:
What I want is the best bang for the buck for the taxpayers' dollars for the study and management of wildlife. I understand that, in the area of the kill, there has also been some work done that gives us some information about the herds in the area. That is useful, but we are concentrating, even if that is done, on one area. It is my understanding that there has been some concern expressed in other areas about game populations. If we are concentrating solely on one particular area, are we losing out or not getting a big enough picture? I understand that the Minister has a crisis situation in the Aishihik area, although I do not know if it is a crisis any more, but when I see a big reduction like this, it alarms me. I think the fear I have is that, as we push forward with the control program in Aishihik, we could be not paying enough attention to other areas.
I will put it this way: would the Minister not like to be doing more investigations, surveys and data compilation in other areas of the Yukon?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
Yes, I certainly would if I had the money to do these things, but one can only do one thing at a time. This is the crisis area right at the present time. I would like to also point out that we are working with the First Nations in the Carcross area to try to bring the caribou back there. We think their first-year program has been very successful. The Member said we were just working in one area, but we also studied at Mayo and Wolf Lake. In conjunction with this, we were at Beaver Creek to help the Americans with their two groups to count the caribou and get some radio collars on them. A lot of the decreases in the budget are from the caribou enhancement project, which drops down more and more every year. Again, it will depend on the count at the end of June and the end of July to see how many calves survive, before we know if it has been a success or not.
Mr. Harding:
The Minister told me that in 1992-93 he was using lapsed funding to fund the caribou recovery program. What is the reduction then? Where is it coming from, if the Minister says that all areas are being looked after? I am just raising concerns here about it. He says if he had the money he would like to be doing more investigations in these areas. The government has the money - they have a bigger budget than anybody else ever had in this territory - so there is a lot of money. The problem is it is just not going into resource management in the Yukon Territory. That is the problem, as I see it.
There is lots of money. We are going to spend $6.5 million, they told us today, on top of what is in the budget, to begin with. They have another $10 million surplus. They wrote off the Faro Real Estate loan and then told us they are expecting to get the money back.
There is plenty of money there - lots of money - more money than any other government here ever had. The problem is priorities, and the priorities for this government do not appear to be resource management. Sure, he could stand up and make the political claims about carrying out the wolf kill and talk about that until the cows come home, but the problem is, in areas such as education, where we have a Minister who has no concept of what education is really all about, we have seen tremendous cuts. We have seen no reflection that education is a priority to Yukoners. The education system is in turmoil here and going down fast and directionless, with no morale whatsoever. We have a Minister who lives up in his castle, fires out orders and has absolutely no concept of what is happening in the schools and just how upset people really are at his Draconian practices.
Some Hon. Member:
(Inaudible)
Mr. Harding:
It is nice to have the Minister of Education here. It is nice to know he is not off jaunting around Florida, being kind of the grand marshall of any parade; it is nice to have him here and I am pleased to have the grand marshall of the Florida parade here to heckle the Legislature -
Some Hon. Member:
(Inaudible)
Chair:
Order.
Mr. Harding:
That is one of the charms of being in here. I get to look straight across at the Minister of Education.
Why does the Minister not share some concerns that we should be putting more money - I mean, we have this huge budget - into resource management here in the Yukon?
Page Number 2713
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
I presume that the honourable gentleman is still talking to me, as the Minister, or is he still talking to the Minister of Education? Does he want me to answer these questions, or does he want the Minister of Education to answer them.
Some Hon. Member:
(Inaudible)
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
I just want to make sure, because I do not want to get into all of the other stuff that goes on here. We would love to have more money, but we do not get it. That is a fact. Maybe you can turn around and say that I am a poor Minister - I do not yap as much as the rest, so I do not get it. That is your opinion and, if you want to keep it, that is fine.
Mr. Harding:
Why does the Minister think his Cabinet colleagues do not put any emphasis on resource management? Why would they not be more supportive of the Minister's efforts to put more money into resource management?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
They do. They support me all the way. They have supported me through all the trouble I have gone through while I have been here. I greatly respect them all, and appreciate the way they have supported me.
Mr. Harding:
Then why did they cut your budget?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
This budget is the budget that we worked on. It is the one we have been able to handle. We have not been able to do everything. To start with, we would not have the resources to be able to do everything. We only have so many trained professionals to do the work. We are doing work where we think that we have a crisis area. We hope that this will really show up in July of this year, and then we will be able to move into some other areas.
We are also doing counts all over the Yukon a great deal of the time. You can only do so much in a year - we have only got so many professionals out there. They are working very hard; they work long hours. We do not have any more staff than is being used right now.
Mr. Cable:
Just looking over the statistics at page 254 of the Minister's budget, relating to trapping, there seems to be a very significant increase in the value of furs, from $200,000 to $500,000. Does the Minister have an explanation for that?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
The prices have risen considerably in the last short period. I hope that they will remain there so we can get some more trappers out there in the field.
Mr. Cable:
The statistics show 500 individuals involved in trapping. How is that collected? Is that the number of licence holders?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
Yes.
Mr. Cable:
It appears the average value of fur taken by each trapper is $1,000. Are we to derive from those two numbers - the $500,000 for the annual value of fur and the 500 for the individuals involved in trapping - that the vast majority are doing it on a part-time basis?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
Yes, most of them are doing it on a part-time basis.
Mr. Cable:
How many full-time jobs would the Minister or his staff estimate are involved in trapping? How many people actually make their living at it?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
I do not even know if we can get the figures for that from the department. For a lot of them, it is a lifestyle, and they are out there all the time. The First Nations are, of course, out there quite a bit. I will see if I can get any information about that. I am not sure that I can.
Mr. Cable:
As the Minister will recollect, some time ago I asked him - I cannot remember exactly the question posed, but he gave me a legislative return back on it - about, generally, what the government is doing to assist or promote the fur industry in the Yukon. Is the department doing anything at the present time?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
Yes, we have put money into the Yukon Trappers Association and the Fur Institute of Canada. We have the trading that goes on every year, and we have an individual who is the chairman of some of the most important boards in Canada. This person is being continually asked by the Fur Institute of Canada to explain the work that he does on the different humane traps required by Europe to be in place next year. We have to get into that or we could lose that whole market. The chairman is very instrumental and travels all over. Every time I turn around, there is a request for him to go somewhere else.
We work very closely with the Yukon Trappers Association. They have a building here where they auction off furs that we get through confiscation. We get a small percentage back, and they keep the balance.
Mr. Cable:
That may answer my last question. On page 256, you are showing a revenue of $5,000. What is that money from?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
It is from animals like bison that have been killed, or animals that have been seized because they are illegal, and some are from our caribou enhancement program. The wolves are brought in and sold there.
On Activities
On Division Management
Division Management in the amount of $1.00 agreed to
On Agriculture
Agriculture in the amount of $556,000 agreed to
On Fish and Wildlife
Mr. Harding:
Could the Minister please explain that 18-percent reduction?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
There was a decrease of $133,000 due to the transfer of an environmental assessment officer and projected effective salary rollovers also, due to the salary portion of recoverable programs. There is a reduction of $708,000 due to a reduction of funding for the caribou enhancement program and a recoverable fisheries program funding. An increase of $27,000 is due to the addition of contributions for the Whitehorse Fish Hatchery, less decreases in contributions to CYI.
Fish and Wildlife in the amount of $3,610,000 agreed to
Resource Management in the amount of $4,166,000 agreed to
On Land Claims
On Activities
On Land Claims Administration
Land Claims Administration in the amount of $169,000 agreed to
On Yukon First Nations Comprehensive Claim
Mr. Harding:
Can the Minister explain this 231-percent increase?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
There is $270,000 identified for the fish and wildlife enhancement fund.
Yukon First Nations Comprehensive Claim in the amount of $400,000 agreed to
On Inuvialuit Final Agreement (IFA)
Mr. Harding:
Could the Minister explain what this reduction is for?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
There is a $258,000 reduction due to the inclusion in 1993-94 of the one-time funding for wildlife studies. That was given to us by the federal government, and it has closed off.
Inuvialuit Final Agreement (IFA) in the amount of $718,000 agreed to
Land Claims in the amount of $1,287,000 agreed to
Department of Renewable Resources agreed to
Chair:
Is it the wish of the Members to recess until 7:30 p.m.?
Some Hon. Members:
Agreed.
Chair:
We will recess until 7:30 p.m.
Page Number 2714
Recess
Chair:
I will call Committee of the Whole to order. We will be discussing Bill No. 15, entitled Second Appropriation Act, 1994-95. We will move into the Department of Health and Social Services. Is there any general debate? Department of Health and Social Services
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
At the outset, and by way of opening comments about figures, I am rather wrestling with parts of the budget as it is before you, because the forecasts are rather old news in terms of the actual expenditures for this year. We do not have the final actuals for this year, the absolutely ironclad evidence with regard to the exact amount of the lapses, but suffice it to say, by way of opening, that the lapses are much larger than were anticipated when the budget was being prepared. In fact, in all likelihood, rather than being in the area of some $3 million, which was anticipated at the time that this budget was being put to bed for printing, they will be somewhere between $9.9 and $10.9 million. I will very briefly talk about some of the major reasons for this.
For one thing, social assistance is lower by a larger amount than was anticipated when the budget address was given.
The anticipated potential lapses from the main estimate forecast would be a little over $2 million, so that the projected actual will be $9,200,000. The other major ones occur in health insurance, which shows a potential lapse of about $4 million at this time - $2.4 million of that is attributable to out-of-territory hospital expenses - is still preliminary, because it is done on the basis of phone calls and what not. I think that a realistic cushion there could be as much as $1 million that we do not have yet. Physicians and out-of-territory physicians amount to in excess of $1 million in anticipated lapsed money, so health insurance is a larger lapse than we had certainly anticipated.
The lapse in program management and health services is quite severe as well - it is $508,000. The forecast speaks of $653,000 - that is money, of course, that is 100 percent matched by the federal government, and it is because of the phase 2 health transfer not getting off the mark.
When I go through my speech, and go through the budget figures, there will be some delay in making explanations, because of the lapses.
The lapses, of course, are different than the impact on the government's budget. Some of these figures are 100-percent recoverable from the federal government, so we do not get anything. In the case of social assistance, I am sure most people know, we get 50-percent funding under the community assistance program. So, the actual final surplus tally for this year in the department would be probably more in the order of $7 million to $8 million.
The speech, then, with those up-front qualifications follows.
I am pleased to introduce the operations and maintenance main estimates for the department. I am requesting operations and maintenance funding of $97,816,00, which represents an increase of $100,000 over the revised budget.
This budget foresees reductions in policy and administration, social services and regional services and modest increases to family and children services and health services. The projected recoveries from the department are down by eight percent. Recoveries account for 25 percent of the department's O&M budget - a significant amount.
Historically, the budget has grown substantially over a short period of time. This has been a reflection of two factors: first, the department has assumed more and more responsibility and has therefore grown in size and complexity; secondly, cost drivers - primarily in the areas of health care costs and social assistance costs - have driven up expenditures.
When we took office, we indicated that we were committed to reforms that would slow the rate of growth in these two areas. The budget before us holds the line and reflects, to a degree, the positive projected impact of those reform efforts.
We must keep in mind, also, that additional financial benefits from reform initiatives will be realized over the long term, as the full impact of the reform measures come into play and help to contain the future growth in costs that would otherwise be realized.
In addition to the major reform efforts associated with health care and social assistance, the department has undertaken a number of changes to increase efficiencies and adjust program service delivery, and to maximize effectiveness.
We are not only holding the line on expenditures, we are responding to, and increasing the quality of, the service we provide to the public in many areas.
I would like to draw your attention to some highlights in the budget. In the family and children services branch, the use of mediation to resolve child protection disputes will be explored during 1994-95. A youth health promotion team will be established, consisting of two permanent half-time positions that will work with Yukon schools and other services for children and youth to increase awareness about health issues.
Funding to the child care program has been increased by $300,000, and this is in response to demands on the subsidy program, which assists with offsetting the cost of child care for lower-income families. This does not include the additional resources that may be required to respond to the reforms to social assistance - the up to $400,000 figure that was mentioned in my ministerial statement earlier. Funds required to support those initiatives will be voted at the supplementaries.
For the second year in a row, the federal government will fund the Yukon child care training project through Yukon College. After a number of years and extensive consultation, new child care regulations will be introduced.
As part of the department's reorganization efforts, the open custody program at 501 Taylor will be closed and replaced by four one-bed open custody foster homes. This is in response to the chronic low numbers in that facility over the past few years. The 501 Taylor facility will continue to be used for other youth programming initiatives. Staff will be redeployed to enhance community non-residential programs for young offenders, and attention will also be paid to preventing crime among people at risk of becoming young offenders.
These and other changes are being achieved through a modest one-percent increase in the family and children services budget.
As Members are aware, since taking office as Minister of the department, our priority has been reform of the social assistance program. Under the direction of an interdepartmental committee, social assistance reform efforts have focused on an examinational program for loss of the service delivery mechanisms, the need for policy and regulatory change and the need to ensure that program expenditures are spent in ways that benefit clients the most.
I expect these reform efforts to have a positive financial impact on the rate of growth in this program area, and this has been taken into consideration in these estimates.
In addition, this budget contains an additional $100,000 that will be cost matched by the federal government through the SAR agreement to enhance large joint efforts at increasing the employability of social assistance recipients.
This brings the combined Yukon government and federal government contributions under SAR to a total of $600,000 - a
Page Number 2715
significant package.
Again, the benefits of these efforts are long term as we move to increase the skills and independence of our social assistance clients.
This year will also see a completion of the alcohol and drug strategy. Presently, we are putting together information from the fall consultations, the health promotion survey and a secondary analysis of the alcohol and drug survey of 1990-91. We will be sharing this information with key stakeholders.
Prior to finalizing the strategy, a series of meetings will be arranged so that people directly impacted by the strategies will have further opportunities for input.
This budget supports the already identified need for increased services with the addition of three new positions in alcohol and drug services, increased funding for child care worker contracts to support services to FAS/FAE clients and increased funding to Crossroads.
Health programs account for 60 percent of the department's O&M budget and 17 percent of total government O&M expenditures. In 1994-95, health services are projected to increase by a modest two percent. This increase is largely due to costs associated with a full year of operation of the Thomson Centre.
Other significant changes include a transfer of regional home support to health services from regional services and increased expenditures to Macaulay Lodge. The phase 2 health transfer negotiations are undertaken; the costs in 1994-95 will be approximately $1,088,000. All expenditures for health transfer negotiations are fully offset by recoveries from the federal government.
In the interest of greater efficiencies and a more suitable use of resources, speech pathology services have been transferred to the rehabilitation services at the Thomson Centre. One position has been transferred to the Department of Education. The former speech and hearing clinic is now known as the hearing clinic.
With respect to ambulance services, more cost-effective and appropriate training would be provided to Whitehorse staff and rural volunteers through a made-in-Yukon training program. The department continues to support mental health crisis prevention through funding to the Second Opinion Society of $100,000.
In partnership with Health Canada, the HIV and AIDS program has been expanded by taking on a cadre of volunteers to provide counselling and support, allowing staff resources through the Yukon AIDS Alliance to focus more fully on community prevention and outreach.
In 1994-95, continuing care programs and services will undertake work with all stakeholders in order to determine ways and means of providing services that are both efficient and effective. This will be achieved through working sessions, including representatives of Health and Social Services, the Whitehorse Hospital Corporation, medical services branch, the Council for Yukon Indians and First Nations communities. In addition, the department will be travelling to the communities to review their needs, and will be working with interest groups to identify options for service delivery, through coordination of facility-based services and rehabilitation services in a manner that best meets the needs of residents and clients.
These changes, in conjunction with the health reforms I recently announced, will contribute to the department's efforts to control the rate of growth in health expenditures while maintaining quality services to people throughout the Yukon.
These are the budget highlights for 1994-95 for the department. The highlights build on the major reforms that we have pursued to ensure sound fiscal management within the department and on the creative efforts to reorganize and maximize efficiencies and program design and delivery. This budget is one that holds the line on health and social service expenditures and one that contains many new initiatives that will improve the quality of services that we provide to the people of the Yukon.
I will table this document showing the new lapses, which are quite recent in terms of their scope. I expect that there will be some discussion about that issue.
Mr. Penikett:
Perhaps I could explain to the Minister how the two critics from the Official Opposition would like to proceed in dealing with the department's estimates. As the Minister knows, I am the critic for health and my colleague, the Member for Whitehorse Centre, is the critic for social services. In general debate, we would like to share the quality time with the Minister and it would be my privilege to go first.
I appreciate the Minister's offer to table the detail on the lapses. I am also pleased to hear him describe them as lapses, as was his wont when he was in Opposition, rather than "savings" - the new terminology, which has been recently invented by the Yukon Party - to describe something that was referred to as "bad management" by the previous Leader of the Official Opposition. The concept has now been reinvented to put a more positive light on it; that is, "savings" and "planned, unexpected efficiencies". I do not want to go into that tonight because I want some time to study the details of the lapses of the department and I will come back to those.
I would like the Minister to take notice of one general question that I would like to pursue in some detail tomorrow and that is if we are talking about $9 million to $10 million in lapses this year, it raises an interesting question about whether we need a similar amount of money in last year's budget and this year's budget. It also raises a question about whether or not we may be over budgeting to the tune of $10 million. I do not want to pursue that tonight, but I do want to pursue it in some detail. I will ask the Minister to remember that last year when we were discussing this budget I tabled a chart that talked about the trend lines, and I raised questions about whether the trajectory of the increases was not very precipitously high.
The Minister also told us during that budget debate that he expected the rate of the increase in costs to be reduced considerably. Looking at the chart, if the costs were not climbing as fast as they had been in the past, clearly - just looking at this chart and extrapolating from the trend lines - there was a possibility that we might be over budgeting, and we discussed that last year. I would like to get into that in a little more detail tomorrow.
Tonight, in general debate, and looking at the health policy questions and health expenditure policy in a very broad way, I would like to begin with the ministerial statement made a few days ago by the Minister and recorded on page 2619 and page 2620 of Hansard. The Minister will no doubt recall his delight at my being cut off in mid-flight in my response to his statement. I want to pay tribute to him; it was the most substantive ministerial statement we have had in this session, and I was therefore doubly disappointed to be denied the opportunity to respond to it fully. I would like to correct that oversight tonight.
The Minister will also recall that the last time we dealt with the budget, I had asked him a number of detailed questions about his plans about savings in a number of areas, everything from chronic diseases, extended care, extended benefits, medical travel and so forth. I want to touch on each of those as we go through this debate, partly to establish - and I say this as much for the deputy minister as anything - what level of expected savings in each of the programs the Minister is looking for. That may be information that can be provided in writing in the course of this debate, if possible.
I want to begin, however, with the most important cost centre in health insurance, which is physicians' fees - in short, those services. I understand that the Minister's proposal is to pay doctors
Page Number 2716
at 50 percent of the established fee schedule - those who arrive here after April 1 - and the limit will remain in place for one year and will be lifted upon the completion of a physician resource plan, which work will be undertaken by the Physician Resource Planning Committee, which represents the Yukon Medical Association - the Medical Council and the Yukon Hospital Corporation.
The Minister is not a doctor, but he has the rare opportunity of being the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Social Services - he has almost all of what we normally call the social policy envelope within his mandate. As a lawyer, he is no doubt very well acquainted with the great American legal scholar, Ronald Dworkin, who has written extensively about justice issues and moral questions as they affect a number of aspects of life on this continent. He has recently written a piece on health care expenditures, which I say to the Minister has impressed me considerably.
I do not want to replicate the piece, but I want to, if I can, try to represent the argument to the Minister. I want to make Dworkin's argument, then I want to take his analysis and make an argument of my own. The Minister will no doubt chastise me for having failed to make it five, six or seven years ago and he would be quite right in doing that, because I only encountered the argument recently, but I want to try it on the Minister.
Dworkin has argued that the problem with our health care system is that it is based on the rescue principle. The idea that any amount of expenditure, any amount of effort, is justified to try to save a life and therefore we should not be at all hesitant to spend millions of dollars to extend, by a few months, the life of someone who may be an octogenarian is, he argues, a wrong principle and that it is, in fact, imprudent. He argues that most jurisdictions in the world that have had to get into the question of financing health expenditures sooner or later get down to the question of rationing or budgeting. Almost everybody knows about the much debated experiment in Oregon, where there were the issues of whether elderly people would get certain kinds of services, or whether the state would cover certain kinds of medical procedures. It was ultimately put to some kind of plebiscite or referendum to the people of Oregon and the state was then mandated after that consultation to make some of the tough decisions.
Dworkin also assumes, as do many critics of the Canadian system, that the health system itself is not underfunded, that that is not the problem. Doctors often argue that it is underfunded, that more money should be put into the system. Many other critics argue that there is plenty of money in the system, but at the moment it is misallocated.
Dworkin also makes the point that many people have made that, right now, health expenditure decisions are controlled by doctors and by patients. In any insured service, whether it is a public-insured service or a private-insured service, neither the doctor nor the patient have an interest in doing things efficiently or economically. They do not have the same interest as the insurer or the insuring company. I think, from my point of view, it is a valid point. It is one, in previous debates, the Minister has not conceded fully, but, I think, partially conceded.
The rescue principle insists, of course, that society provide treatment whenever there is any chance, however remote, that it will save a life. This is a problem, Dvorkian argues, because it means that the system or the insurance agency - in our case, the Yukon health insurance - may be asked to pay for things that an individual, in making decisions about their own life, might not make for themselves, if they were paying for it themselves. In other words, if one looked at a 25-year old and, given an array of choices about how much money they might spend on their education or their children's education, vacation, training, health care and other needs, they would probably not make a decision that it was appropriate to spend, let us say, 50 percent of their entire income, to make sure that when they were 80 years old they would have high technology response to some disease that would allow them to live for another couple of years.
If they were paying the bills themselves, or if they were faced with the prospect in the future of paying the bills, not in a time of crisis, not when the doctor is being asked to respond with heroic measures or the patient themselves in crisis, but if they were rationally planning expenditures, they would probably not make expenditures in that order of magnitude.
Dworkin goes from that analysis to question the tendency, evident here and elsewhere, to have these decisions, even when they are made from a rational planning point of view as we are now attempting to do, by professionals, or to have professionals dominate that decision making.
I stated the view the other day that after watching this debate and having been personally involved for a couple of years but also having been at the Legislature for some time and watched the debate nationally I have come to the view that the one thing that absolutely has to be done in terms of health care expenditures is for the payer, the government, to take control, in the final instance, of the responsibility for planning those expenditures and making the large scale allocations. If, as a government - and any government, not just this one - we respond passively and let it respond like a market, just an accumulation of decisions made by patients and doctors and specialists, we will not achieve the health outcomes that we want and we may not spend the money in areas we would want to if we were behaving rationally and prudently in trying to get the best bang for our buck in terms of health outcomes or health status.
Dworkin argues that, if there is any body, whether called a joint management council or physicians resource planning committee, in which physicians or professionals are overrepresented, you will not get the commonsense element, the commonsense decisions, that a person who is not a doctor or a financial expert, but an ordinary citizen, may bring, which says, "I am not sure it makes sense to spend that amount of money on having a CAT scan at Whitehorse General Hospital because it will be under utilized" - no matter how much political pressure may be put on the Minister to have some kind of high technology or no matter how much pressure there may be from a grieving family to make some kind of heroic measure to extend the life of a seriously ill person for a short period, that we should not be spending our money that way but should be spending it in ways that improve the health status of the whole community. We should be spending it more for younger people and we should be spending it more on health promotion, disease prevention and the whole idea of wellness - whatever.
We know from all the evidence from all health care economists everywhere on this continent that a far larger portion of our health expenditures - whether it is private or public insurance - goes to high technology, expensive pharmaceuticals and specialists - all designed to keep elderly people alive a little longer - than is the case in Europe, Asia, or many other places, where they do make some planned allocations about expenditures.
Dworkin argues - I do not excessively depend upon it, but I share this view and have expressed it in the past, long before I encountered Dworkin - that there is a danger in having not just departmental experts or the professionals involved, but some kind of objective, economic, or financial, analysis on these things, to ask yourself if - and Dworkin suggests a reasonable philosophical one - you were making these decisions, or spending this share of your total income for yourself or your family, as opposed to spending it on other things - whether they are social or economic needs - would you make this expenditure?
Page Number 2717
In analyzing the way in which private and public insurance companies are spending the health dollar now, he suggests these are, in many ways, not rational decisions, and do not contribute to a just allocation of the resources in the health system.
Perhaps I will sit down now. I hope I am not making the argument badly. If I gave the article to the Minister to read, he would probably get more out of it than my precis.
The narrow question I want to ask is about the representation on these two committees, an issue I have raised before in respect to the Joint Management Committee. The Physician Resource Planning Committee is a new body. In a general way, has the Minister considered some other structure for the membership? Does he think there may be any validity to arguments that some disinterested, but intelligent, people might bring a perspective to these allocation decisions that might be more oriented toward the public interest, or a just allocation of the resources, than the professionals who are dealing in it from an expert, or interested, point of view?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
Let me say, at the outset, that I was really not all that delighted the Member was cut off in his response to the ministerial statement. I am sure, under any circumstances, no Speaker would have let him go on quite as long as he has just now with his additional comments.
Regarding the point the Member is making, I do not know where to begin. The issue about the lapses and so on will take up some time a bit later, I am sure. I have given these figures out, but I must say that some of them are rather tentative and probably overstated in the other direction, as we do not have all the bills from the biggest lapse of all, which was not anticipated - the out-of-territory hospital lapse of $2.4 million. I am advised by the financial people that it could be as much as $1 million too high by itself.
In terms of the Member's comments about the allocation of resources in the health field, the issue of whether or not the so-called experts in the health field are the best ones to make those decisions and whether or not the particular committees that we cited are appropriate or if we should have a broader membership of those two committees, let me say that we are trying to achieve a number of goals. We have to make certain distinctions. I really see - and firmly believe in - a holistic approach to social problems. The Member has said that I am somewhat fortunate or unique or something to have Justice and Health and Social Services under my ministry. Education would also be good. Really, Economic Development also plays an important role in dealing with the whole person, especially in the smaller communities, where the greatest social problems are evidenced and where I think we can make the greatest gains in terms of health care.
It seems to me that the bang for the dollar, in terms of small communities - and we could name almost any one - achieving or taking over a feeling of ownership of justice, health and at least some of the counselling services, which are perhaps health related and perhaps are not, bring in the greatest results. This is true even if one looks at it in crass dollar savings over the next 10 or 15 years, in terms of having healthier people in the broadest sense of the word, living in those communities.
We are moving in a direction of working closely with community-based individuals and groups, with a view of having them make really important decisions about how money might best be spent in the community, in order that they really have the voice and make the decisions about how to allocate scarce resource dollars.
We are going to communities like Teslin, Pelly and Carcross and talking to a broad range of people to discuss the use of some money to train or hire resource people for those communities. Some of the demand, broadly speaking, is for people with broad counselling experience who can counsel those who are having trouble because of sexual abuse and family violence. There is also a need for counsellors in the alcohol and drug services area and counsellors in the victims-of-crime area, and so on.
It is a very painstaking kind of slow process of empowering the communities to make those kinds of decisions.
With regard to the Joint Management Committee, which seems to be given quite a lot of publicity, the Joint Management Committee of physicians was struck with some limited objectives. The argument that convinced me to move in that direction - and there was some resistance from within the department - is to have physicians really determine such things as setting some objective criteria and standards for how physicians ought to respond to demands from patients.
The argument was made to me that one of the severe, ethical problems facing an individual physician is to have a client come to them and demand all kinds of testing, such as CAT scans, et cetera, and the physician normally views himself or herself as an advocate on behalf of the patient. It really helps if the peers, in conjunction with the Department of Health and Social Services, help them set some objective standards so the physician can then say to the patient, "Now look, a CAT scan in these circumstances is simply not on. I am sorry. These are the rules."
That is just one example of many that was given to me. They also, in a rather narrow application of their profession, had lots of ideas about how they could make some savings to existing programs. That is essentially the kind of things that that committee has been engaged in. The concepts of the formulary for the chronic disease program was an idea that came out of that Joint Management Committee. They have been working on some criteria - I forget the real word for it - under what circumstances patients ought to be entitled to certain kinds of tests and certain kinds of second opinions, and so on.
The scope of the kinds of things that committee is doing is rather narrow. The Physician Resource Allocation Committee - I think it is called - that has been mentioned has been done with the full cooperation of doctors. It was not done, in my view, for the purpose of raising their fees, but out of a concern about what has been happening very recently in the provinces to curtail the growth of the number of physicians in each province, and the fact that many of these people would be forced to come here to open up clinics in order to have any work.
British Columbia moved into this two-tier system just ahead of us, and we moved in self-defence. One of the reasons is, according to information I have been given by the department, that each additional doctor, for whatever reason, means an increase of somewhere between $100,000 and $200,000 in the global billing in the Yukon, when they enter into practice here. There is not the kind of marketplace phenomenon that people are normally expecting. I hasten to add that I have noticed the same marketplace phenomenon in effect with regard to the numbers of lawyers and the increased costs of lawsuits and so on - justice in Yukon. It seems that, again, the more lawyers that you have, the greater the billings are.
It does not seem to have been the trend that more lawyers meant lower fees charged to clients.
With regard to those two committees, I really feel that the membership is appropriate for the narrow objectives of each of those committees. We have a lot of lay people on the hospital board, and I see that corporation expanding its role. We certainly see the development of structures within regions in the Yukon, which may or may not fall into what was contemplated in the new Health Act with regard to boards. I have some concerns about that. I think we have to be more flexible than the act allows. That is detail, and I have to do some more thinking on it. However, I
Page Number 2718
suspect we are going to see a range of responses to how Health and Social Services and Justice programs are going to be operated and delivered in communities.
I know, for example, that some First Nations feel that they do not want anything to do with a board or anything else, that they would like to do it. In other cases, there may be a better argument for a non-government organization, under a very clear contractual arrangement, to perform certain services to a standard set by government. In some cases, there is an argument for a regional board that might, for all intents and purposes, have most of the authority of government, in terms of determining standards, and so on.
If you believe in bottom-up development of community ownership of these areas, I think flexibility is really demanded. I very much doubt, in the near future, that there will be a serious community-based demand for a huge amount of authority, as is envisaged in the Health Act boards, as I see it. Most of the people I have talked to - in my travels, at least - really want to go step by step. There is certainly a feeling in some of the small communities that there are too many boards and committees as it is, and there is the burn-out factor in a place like Carcross or Teslin, where a very small handful of people seem to be called upon to do everything.
I do not know if I have much to answer the rather broad-ranging dissertation of the Member opposite, but his comments about the allocation of resources to health - the idea that a younger person may not, given choices, want to put most of his resources into his last couple of years of life in his eighties - are certainly not at odds with my thinking on some of these issues. It seems to me that we are dealing in the first instance with programs and things in place that are not going to be changed very quickly - there is a hospital; there are physicians; they do certain things or are expected by the public to do certain things - and we have to get a control on obvious waste within certain programs.
At the same time, we have to move toward more empowerment of the communities to take responsibility and ownership of the programs that are there for them. The whole idea of other approaches or other factors of health being more important than open heart surgery and such is a concept I certainly share wholeheartedly.
Mr. Penikett:
I thank the Minister for his comments. Let me begin by saying that, with respect to the question of the idea of community control, we are going to have nothing but a furious agreement. My own view is that the community health and social service boards do not have to be bureaucratic monsters. In fact, they could proceed with quite limited powers, if that is all the community wishes, and I think the Health Act provides that they do not have to take on the whole hog. They can, in fact, as a regional board begin to administer their social services.
The usefulness was brought to me the other day, in talking to a social worker from a rural community, when he told me their own truthful assessment about their own role was that, once land claims are settled and self-government powers are implemented, the community might be better off without them; that if they had a local health and social services board or some local governing body like that, even if it was block funded and did not have legislative powers, they were simply administering programs, and if they had some power to reallocate the resources they would likely hire an alcohol and drug worker or a counsellor rather than a social worker. I agree with the Minister that, if we gave the communities the power to make those decisions, as long as we gave the protection to the employees like there is in the Education Act that if the local school council does not want them any more they still can move within the territorial system so that they could stay on the territorial payroll but essentially be governed by local boards. We do that in education; I do not see why we cannot do it in health and social services as well.
I do not see why it would necessarily be hugely bureaucratic.
If we want to be truthful - Roger Mitchell always gets mad at me when I say this - we spend $1 million per doctor in the present system. I am not suggesting that the doctors all generate $1 million but, if we are looking at cost drivers, I think we could make the argument that, in comparison with other jurisdictions, it is not $100,000 one adds, but $200,000. By the time we add the specialists, the hospital services and every doctor, we may add $1 million to the system. If we look at the number of doctors now and the expenditures, it is something like that relationship. Dr. Mitchell will probably be calling me in the morning.
I want to be clear when I talk about the Physician Resource Allocation Committee, or the Joint Management Committee. I am not making an argument against physician involvement. I think we absolutely have to have a partnership with professionals. In that group, I include the nurses and technicians. Often, their advice is ignored in areas where they could be very helpful.
The point made by the Minister on questions about providing some professional judgment on technology questions is extremely important. If we can get the physicians to say that such and such a technology at the hospital is not needed or not appropriate here, it is a lot easier to have them do it than to have petitions signed by 5,000 people saying that they want a CAT scan, when every person who has examined the question advises against it.
I have been a Minister of Health, and I know that one can get pressure from Opposition MLAs, at times, to make expenditures that one's advisors say are not appropriate but, at some point, the public will have their way in a democracy. However, that expenditure may not be in the public interest. That is the great irony of the system. I am not arguing against having physicians involved at all - quite the opposite.
I should say about Dworkin first, lest the Minister gets nervous, that I understand that he is a Liberal. Dworkin is not a Social Democrat or a Conservative, so neither of us should feel defensive about his position. In fact, we can look at his ideas for a bit, and then reject them completely, if we like. We have no obligations to him.
I am very much a crow when it comes to ideas. If a good idea comes from another quarter, I think we should use it.
I guess I am trying to make a point that it is not necessarily with respect to those two committees. I want to make an argument in terms of the larger allocation questions. I would make the argument first that government should be making them. We have to bite the bullet and face the fact that, if we are going to provide the money, governments and legislators are going to have to take the responsibility for making large decisions. Just simply voting a line of total expenditures, or approving an item for a health insurance budget, does not meet our obligations to future generations. Expenditures rising as fast as they have in Canada could not just kill the system and threaten medicare, but they could also threaten the financial viability of some provinces. It is serious stuff.
What I want to argue is that I think Dworkin makes a good case for saying that, in the large resource allocation decisions, you need to have some way of reflecting not just the professionals' priorities and the expertise of people in the department, but also the public's sense of priorities and sense of appropriateness. That may be an argument for public consultation. It may be an argument for, from time to time, putting questions about how we are spending our health budget to a body like the Health and Social Services Board and, perhaps, even allowing them to hold conferences, or invite some input on the question. I think the hospital board also has to deal with these questions, in another way.
I think it has two advantages. If we really did get a good quality
Page Number 2719
public discussion about these things, rather than just getting people in a reactive mode when things are cut or programs are changed, we would all be better off. In the end, we would also have a better sense of responsibility about personal health decisions, if people knew what the cost implications for them were, which is a point I want to get to later.
Rather than focusing on the two questions about the specifics of the Joint Management Committee, or the Physician Resource Allocation Committee, or even the hospital board, could the Minister tell me if he is open to the idea that we should perhaps try to provoke some kind of dialogue with the public about how the health dollar is actually spent, and whether that makes sense to them, whether, if it was their dollar - and, ultimately, it is in this territory, or in Canada - and they had control over those expenditures, they would make them in the same way, which is really the kind of question on which I would like to invite some public input.
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I do feel that we ought to be, and we are, looking at some processes that would invite that kind of participation.
I want to say a couple of things about the Health and Social Services Council. Firstly, they were asked to comment on the detailed proposals that were going into the Cabinet documents not the actual Cabinet documents but the concepts, before the reform measures went to Cabinet. We invited their participation and will be inviting that participation in all of the major reforms that we are undertaking.
Secondly, we encourage them to generate more consultation with the public at large, which is something they are doing. That is one of the directions they are moving in.
I think that body has been used a lot more in the last few months, since it was created to be involved in a meaningful way with the initiatives - certainly my initiatives as the Minister; my priorities - but also in terms of seeking input from the public. I think that that is a healthy trend, and that you will see it on more and more occasions, when they have members of the public coming to speak to them after the meetings.
I suspect that we may have some disagreement about the nature in which the consultations, discussions and dialogue ought to take place. I do not have any firm views about how to proceed on the methodology. I think some of the initiatives, however embryonic, are looking like they may become quite worthwhile. We are going to be spending quite a lot of time between the two departments in consultation with the outlying communities, because I really feel that it is there, and in areas such as the Kwanlin Dun where some of the biggest social problems are and where some of the best gains can be made from a holistic point of view.
We were quite concerned, because initial reports on the secondary analysis of the alcohol and drug survey, for example, seem to show an increase in drinking among the First Nation youth in the communities, and some problems like that.
That is one of the reasons for the delay in our alcohol and drug strategy. We need more consultation with NADAP, CYI and community groups.
So, there is no question that we are going to have to establish some priorities from those kinds of groups and get their view on how we can best proceed together to try to deal with some of these various issues.
Chair:
Order please.
Mr. Penikett:
If I could just briefly comment and maybe close discussion, I would like to move on to another topic, which are the other areas of cuts in the Minister's statement, after the break. I would just note that Professor Dworkin argues that allocation decisions - when one gets down to questions about who gets kidney dialysis machines and who does not and what technology should be made by some agency, which includes not only doctors and professional managers - should also be made by ordinary people from various ages and walks of life and different parts of the region in which the service is operating, just as a way of balancing the professional point of view. I am not making a particular argument about how it should be done or the kind of structures. In fact, I have no fixed view on that at all. I just thought the general point being made was a good one and I wanted to convey it here in the House.
Chair:
At this time we will take a brief recess.
Recess
Chair:
I will now call Committee of the Whole to order.
Is there further general debate on Health and Social Services?
Mr. Penikett:
I am going to move on to another area. Just before I do, I want to ask the Minister to take notice of a question for tomorrow when we are dealing with the lapses. I have had a chance to glance at the sheet that he provided in the first hour, and it is not clear to me whether the lapses are net lapses or gross, and I would like to know that. I ask because, as I look at the column, it seems to me the lapses are in the order of magnitude of 11 percent of the total budget, but the department is asking for a 12.7 percent increase for the next year. We may want to debate those two numbers tomorrow.
I would like to spend a few minutes going back to the Minister's ministerial statement and the previous debate we had in the last sitting about the areas where the Minister was considering cuts, and I would like to ask him about some things that did not find their way into the ministerial statement.
In passing, I would note - because I did not get a chance to say it in response to the ministerial statement - that, on the extended care benefits, as he probably has been told, the previous government was considering the problem of being the insurer of first resort and wanting to become the insurer of last resort. We do not have a problem with that change. I wanted to make that clear, although I noted that much of the rest of the statement was about the chronic diseases program, the costs of which have been rising fast. One reasonably expert person told me that trend was unlikely to continue; that, in fact, it had plateaued, or was close to plateauing, without any intervention by the department. I do not know if that is the case, and there would be no point in debating it, because I think we would be speculating, in any case. I will just pass that on to the Minister.
I want to ask about some of the other areas that were mentioned in our previous debate, but which did not find their way into the Minister's statement. I know, from other sources, that Pharmacare for seniors was under review. Could the Minister indicate if he has reached any conclusions as a result of that review?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I am pleased to advise that the decision has been taken not to make any changes to Pharmacare, and there will be no changes in the foreseeable future. Regarding the issue of the formulary, and whether or not some aspects of that concept might be incorporated into Pharmacare is sort of an open question. That review is completed, and so is the review of the pioneer utility grant, and the decision was taken not to make any cuts to that.
Mr. Penikett:
I thank the Minister for that information. He will understand our interest and also understand our curiosity since it was not in his ministerial statement. It may not make any difference to the Minister, but, for what it is worth, I count myself as a supporter of the former idea, if that makes any difference in the discussions.
I want to ask about one other area where the Minister had indicated in the previous debate that at some stage he felt they were going to have to look at the problem of medical travel. I noted that
Page Number 2720
the chronic diseases program is subject to a $250 deductible, which somebody had told me was also the number that the department is looking at in terms of the deductible for medical travel - I do not know whether that is the case. I know the Minister probably has a fine eye for that kind of symmetry and I was curious as to whether he was close to a decision on that point.
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
What I can tell the Member is that we are looking at the issue of medical travel. We are looking at some things that I hope will cap the growth. We realize, however, that because of the way in which the present act is worded - it is very specific in detail about how much one gets for doing certain things - any change in policy will require changes to the act - either putting some of these things into regulation and then a policy thing, or whatever. For technical reasons, we are not going to be able to do anything about that until next fall.
However, do not expect huge cuts to most aspects, particularly out-of-territory travel. With regard to in-territory travel, we have not come to any firm conclusions about certain aspects, but anything we do will have to be done by way of introduction of amendments to the act.
Mr. Penikett:
Another area that I know had been examined is the question of client registration. I believe the Minister will remember my mentioning that I think the staff believed, during my time as Minister, that there may have been as many as 1,300 people on the medicare lists who were not really residents of the Yukon and were probably not eligible for coverage, but who may have continued to claim membership because we had no medicare premiums, whereas British Columbia did. A disproportionate number of 1,300 seemed to be residents of British Columbia. I think someone in the department had called that the snowbird problem at one point.
Somebody had mentioned that part of the problem was a problem of eligibility criteria, and perhaps they were not precise enough or clear enough. I do know that the author of the original legislation believed that he had written it in a perfectly satisfactory way to guarantee that he could continue to be a member of the system for life. He and I had a frank and comradely exchange of views on the subject - I think that is what they say in the diplomatic world.
Could the Minister tell me where they are in looking at that? Have they had any thoughts about tightening up the eligibility, cleaning up the lists and effectively removing anybody who really might not be eligible?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
They have some methodologies with regard to monthly reviewing the bills coming in. The whole issue is under review, but there has been no real new policy developed yet with regard to some other kinds of policing measures. The issue of snowbirds, of course, was part of the ministerial statement really. If a person is not here for more than half a year, they are off the list for chronic disease, for example, and have to reapply. It takes 90 days to get back on. I must say, I would have liked to have been a fly on the wall, as they say, when the conversations and communications took place between the self-professed father of medicare in the Yukon and the Member opposite when he was Minister.
Mr. Penikett:
I am sure the Minister has known both of us long enough to be able to write the script.
I will tell the Minister why I think it is a problem. I am not an expert and I do not claim to be, but my reading of the statistics coming out of the Government of Yukon, which still use the health care system as our population data, suggests to me that, at a time when our economy has been in recession and the population has evidently been going down - I have observed vacancy rates and things like that in my constituency - there has not, using medicare registrations, been the same kind of movement in the population statistics. This suggests to me that there probably are a number of ghosts who have continued to be residents only for the purposes of medicare.
I know that problem should exist for the three-month period in which people continue to be registered in the province or jurisdiction of their previous residence before they establish themselves in British Columbia or Alberta or wherever they moved to, but the economic situation here that we have experienced since Faro closed is now well over a year old and we should have seen some greater adjustment than we have in those population numbers.
I could not hazard a guess as to what the real number should be, but just my looking at those lists suggests that there are some people there who continue to be registered for medicare who probably would not meet the Minister's residency rule.
I just wonder if he has looked at that.
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
In the course of the next few months, I hope we will be addressing that problem directly. We are looking at a number of things. We are concerned about the proximity to Alaska and the fact that medical costs here are cheap in comparison with American standards. To my mind, there are a few people who might be residing, at least for part of the time, in places like Skagway or Juneau, and may have medicare cards. We are looking at the whole issue of photographs or chips on cards, such as has just been introduced in Ontario.
I share the concern. It is just one of those things we have not addressed yet. It is high on our list of priorities.
Mr. Penikett:
There are two more things on this subject. When we talked about the problem of out-of-territory medical costs before, a related issue we spent some time discussing was the availability of specialists and the belief by some in the department that, if there were a range of specialist services here in the Yukon, the need to send people south would be reduced.
This is a close call, because I think it can be very expensive to maintain a specialist here who is under utilized. Recently, we have seen some evidence of people leaving after awhile, because their incomes were just not enough to justify their continuing here.
It would be fairly easy, given the data available to people in the department, for a reasonably competent economist to develop a computer model on the optimum number of specialists, or the type of specialists that we would have here, and the point at which we would achieve real savings in terms of offsets of medical travel as compared to the costs of having a specialist here. Has that kind of fine analysis been done?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
Of course the Physician Resource Allocation Committee will be looking at that issue. I am advised that our data is not up to speed, because we have just taken over the hospital and some of the necessary information that we should have is not in existence.
Of course, the other variable is that we have the experts coming here on a regular basis, every three or four months. I look forward to seeing the direction taken by the new committee on that issue.
Mr. Penikett:
The question of utilization is partly answered by the ministerial statement, and will no doubt be redressed by the Physician Resource Allocation Committee, but I wonder if the Minister could share with us his current thinking on the question of caps on physician utilization and other questions in relation to those areas.
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
That is a rather sensitive topic with the physicians and it is something that is under discussion. As you know, they did accept a freeze, and they claim they took a substantial loss, because their costs, they claim, were something like a four-percent increase over the previous year. There is no doubt that they did incur some kind of loss in that perspective.
The whole issue of utilization of caps is under discussion. One of the good signs is that in the figures that I did release before I
Page Number 2721
went into my opening remarks, under health insurance, about $890,000 is a reduction in actual physician costs in the territory. I think the reduction is about $90,000, thus far, for out-of-territory physicians. Because these figures are quite recent, we do not have a breakdown. It is encouraging that our actual costs did go down last year.
Mr. Penikett:
I have one last thing on this subject. I previously suggested that, once in awhile, or once a year at least, every client in our system should get a statement showing what it has actually cost, or that we should simply put posters up, which would cost about 30 or 40 bucks in every doctor's office saying what a visit and different procedures cost. As I explained to the Minister previously, some doctors did not like this idea. One of the most ingenious arguments I heard was that people would then be appalled to discover that doctors got paid less than plumbers. I confess that, as a Minister, I was not terribly persuaded by that argument, but my time in the department did not last long enough to make any change.
I am pleased to see that some learned person writing in The Globe and Mail recently argued, and I will just quote this, "First of all, residents should get a yearly sobering statement detailing how much was spent on their personal health care. Some or all of this amount...". This person is going on suggesting remedies about how it should be covered, but suggesting that, for relatively little cost, we send statements out to people when we send out the annual renewals of the card. We could actually send them a little statement; it is not a bill; it simply tells them what they cost the system every year, which might, I think, be more effective in terms of reducing unnecessary benefits than the plain benefits of user fees and so forth, which I understand do not work.
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
Perhaps the Member will be not surprised one bit. I have been approached by people on the street and in the stores with that very suggestion, that we should look at sending out a statement. In fact, I just very recently had a phone call from one of our retired Commissioners in town, making the same suggestion. It is something we are looking into. The one problem with it has to do with confidentiality. Would sending these out compromise the position of a teenage girl who goes to see about pregnancy tests, or getting the pill, a venereal disease check-up and so on. There is a problem. There are several ways we can examine doing this, though. The issue of advertising and getting the message out as to the cost, generally, of each visit - that it is much better to go to the doctor's office than to Emergency and so on - is one that we are going to be pursuing as well.
An alternative to sending these things out might be - and there are several options - insisting that the patient sign the bill before he leaves the physician's office, which seems to come up against a certain amount of opposition from some of the physicians - surprisingly enough.
Mr. Penikett:
Let me suggest one additional remedy that might have two benefits. If the statements were sent out by registered mail, then you would protect the confidentiality of the teenage girl - for example - who went to get some advice from an obstetrician or gynecologist and had not wanted to share that information with her parents or anyone else. The other advantage would be that it would be a very good check on whether they were actually a resident here, because if you mailed it to a Yukon address and they did not turn up to collect the registered bill, it might give you a reason to temporarily remove them from the list, until such time as they showed up. There might be some actual, real savings in it.
Let me move on to another issue. The Minister will forgive me for dealing with the commanding heights of these issues, and not yet getting into the dark valleys. I want to ask a few questions about this document - volume four of the Yukon health promotion research program in accounting for health, which came from the department and, even though I might be accused in some sense of having originated this project - not in this form - but of having started the work that may have led to it, I want to say that I was actually very impressed with this report, and I commend the work of the people who produced it. I would like to ask a few short questions about it. This is not going to be a quiz about the contents; I am going to ask about how it is going to be used. I would like to know specifically how the Minister and the department are using the results of this survey, both the qualitative and quantitative research, and how it might be guiding policy developments or management decisions that they are making now?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
As I understand it, there is a secondary analysis ongoing right now with that information. We are just receiving the secondary analysis of the original alcohol and drug survey. There will be longitudinal studies, and the information will be incorporated into our policy creation and priorities with regard to certain issues. I have moved a long way from being openly skeptical about the whole thing. I, too, feel the work was really well done, from my limited knowledge of stats and how these kinds of surveys are supposed to be conducted. In the areas in which I was most keenly interested at the outset of my tenure in this rather unexpected post, I can see the value in what we are learning about alcohol and drug problems in the communities. I suspect, from what I have read, that there are a lot of other things to be plumbed from this kind of survey. It will not be ignored, and it will be used as a very important tool by the department, in terms of setting priorities and developing such things, for example, as where we go with the alcohol and drug strategy.
Mr. Penikett:
I thank the Minister for his answer. I noticed that, earlier this evening, he reaffirmed his belief in a holistic approach to Health and Social Services problems.
I note, on page 40 of the document, that the authors assert that most Yukoners have a holistic concept of health, which incorporates three or four dimensions. I guess this means the social, physical, metaphysical and psychological aspects, which are detailed later in this document.
On page 41, the report states, "Recognition of the importance of health within these perspectives is fundamental for health delivery and promotion. The implications for health promotion are unclear at this point, but the patterns expressed may inform new means of education promotion or the understanding of the different concepts and the responses to health and health promotion. Further research into this area will proceed, but there appears to be some interaction between the way one conceptualizes health and the way health is experienced or expressed".
This really touches on the point we were making earlier about the links between social policy, health policy, justice policy and so forth.
I want to ask the Minister if, in a very general way, he is acting on this kind of observation? Does he plan to, or had a chance to discuss it, particularly in terms of its impact on the delivery of health and the implementation of health promotion programs.
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I guess I am nibbling away at the findings as expressed by the Member. I am doing some thinking about them.
The whole area of health promotion is one that I have not, I must confess, spent a lot of time thinking about or discussing with the department. It is an area, of course, that we are moving into.
I have been quite impressed by the public response and enthusiasm to the few things we have done that are clearly health promotional activities that we have funded and encouraged through the health investment fund. An example of it is the heart and health display during Rendezvous. The kind of enthusiasm that was expressed through it, as well as the kinds of initiatives
Page Number 2722
that were funded largely through the HIF, and sometimes in partnership with Health Canada, are areas that we certainly intend to expand. However, I do not have a lot of well-thought-out views at this point in time.
Mr. Penikett:
An even cruder measure of that kind of public interest, I am told, is that health or health related stories are now the leading subject matter, or topic, in North American media today - if one looks at everything from magazines to newspapers to television and radio. I note in this report that on page 36, the authors state that the Yukon research shows that self-rated health exhibits a classic relationship to income - i.e. the higher the income adequacy group, generally speaking, the higher the perceived health status.
I mentioned this in debate on the Liberal Leader's motion some weeks ago, and I note that, also on page 38, self-rated quality of life is even more strongly and directly correlated with income adequacy. Pages 66 and 67 shows that income adequacy is directly related to the proportion of women having pap smears and doing breast self-examination, page 70; the need for dental care, page 76; good eating habits, page 143. And on page 126, the most important influence Yukoners cite in making improvements in their health is basic health information, which is the other topic the Minister was talking about just now. The most frequently cited source of knowledge of health risks, interestingly enough, is the media. What I find significant here is that government materials are considered to be the least important source, which is a bit of a message for us all.
I do not want to get into a long philosophical debate with the Minister about income and health, because I think I made my point before about the concern that cutting income support, or changes being made in social assistance, could produce some costs for the health system. These costs, from a holistic point of view, would produce no benefits at all for the ministry or the government. That may be a phenomena that only has expression over time.
I wonder if I could ask the Minister if he might express himself on the issue of public information for which, as he has pointed out, he has discovered an appetite for, as well as how he might respond to what seems to be indicated in this report - that government-related information is either suspect, not available or not well disseminated, but that information in the popular media is consumed avidly - and whether that knowledge will have any bearing on the department's activities in the next few months.
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I do not think anything, in the next short while, except to say that we are interested in the kinds of initiatives that we have been funding through HIF, whereby non-government organizations are getting funding to take on promotional campaigns and information dissemination. That is everything I wanted to say.
Just anecdotally, certainly the Newsweek-type magazines - Time, Newsweek, and the last Maclean's that I saw - were all cover stories on such things as vitamins, cancer and oxidants. There is no question that there is a lot of media coverage, which is probably one test of the appetite of the public for it.
Mr. Penikett:
The reason I was asking the Minister to respond is because it seems to me that there is both a problem and an opportunity. I am not suggesting that the Yukon government can easily access the pages of Maclean's, much less Newsweek or Time, nor would I suggest that we should simply allow the debate to be carried on at a national or international level. There are clearly some dimensions of health problems indicated in this report that, while not unique to the Yukon, are particularly prevalent here.
I note, for example, that smoking is the biggest problem, adequate dental care for certain groups in the community or certain age groups or income groups is a problem.
The normal, government, Dale Drown-type press release is clearly not adequate to the task of reaching people on some of the health issues. My colleague, the Member for Whitehorse Centre, tried to do something, which nobody else in Canada had done at the time, and that was to put warning labels about FAS on bottles and so forth. That was a different way of trying to communicate.
Obviously, some of the initiatives with community health workers in First Nation communities can have some benefits in dealing with some of the problems.
Some of the things that we have done on issues like smoking have been the kind of Draconian measures of forcing the smokers out into the cold by the doors, to spend a delightful time with the Minister of Community and Transportation Services, which is a very important kind of bonding between the political and the public service class. Unfortunately, this takes place near the air intake for the building, which is something that I must speak to the Minister about later.
There are obviously some difficulties. There is a huge need for information; there is a public demand for it. There are some difficulties with communicating through the normal, conventional means that the governments have, but somehow it seems that if you can get a story into the newspapers or on the radio, there is an audience for those stories.
I know that the department was looking at the problem of public education with respect to costs, as the Minister mentioned, and informing people about the costs in the system and the cost of doctor's visits and certain procedures. It seems to me that we have not only a financial but also a public interest in health promotion information. I asked the doctor about some prostate cancer information. It just so happened that, in the week before, a whole group of older men had told me that they had experienced problems with it. I was not aware of it up until that moment, and almost at the same time, there were a bunch of magazine stories.
The people who spoke to me told me about some new tests that were relatively painless and easy. They just wondered if some of the people - as people do - who are worried about it may not go to the doctor and have tests for fear that they would discover the worst. However, if there was a painless way of discovering whether or not one had a problem that was the same as, say, the testing of blood for HIV, tests for HIV transmission or for certain kinds of cancers, such as a mammography, would be a good health promotion initiative. I think a lot of citizens sometimes need to be sold and effectively communicated with before they will take advantage or respond to such things. I am really just asking if the department is spending any time thinking about this. It is, I think, an important finding in this document.
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
Well, it is certainly an area that will be becoming a priority, once we get through some of the other areas that we have identified. There has been discussion of some of the issues raised by the Member. It may be that we could get some free stuff going, if we get some newspaper articles, and the two local newspapers discussing some of these issues, just as news items, and also on the radio.
Mr. Chair, I move that we report progress on Bill No. 15.
Motion agreed to
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I move that the Speaker do now resume the Chair.
Motion agreed to
Speaker resumes the Chair
Speaker:
I will now call the House to order.
May the House have a report from the Chair of Committee of the Whole?
Page Number 2723
Mr. Abel:
Committee of the Whole has considered Bill No. 15, entitled Second Appropriation Act, 1994-95, and directed me to report progress on it.
Speaker:
You have heard the report from the Chair of 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 9:29 p.m.
The following Sessional Papers were tabled May 25, 1994:
94-1-132
Business Development Fund Loan Status Report, dated April 30, 1994 (Ostashek)
94-1-133
Government contracts, 1993-94, by department (Nordling)
94-1-134
Government contracts, 1993-94, by type (Nordling)
The following Document was filed May 25, 1994:
94-1-45
Forestry Cooperation Agreement cuts under the Canada/Yukon economic development agreement: Letter dated April 29, 1994, to the Hon. Anne McLellan, Minister of Natural Resources, Government of Canada, from Mr. Ostashek, Minister of Economic Development, and Mr. Brewster, Minister of Renewable Resources (Moorcroft)