Whitehorse, Yukon
Monday, June 6, 1994 - 1:30 p.m.
Page Number 2851
Speaker:
I will now call the House to order. We will proceed at this time with silent Prayers.
Prayers
INTRODUCTION OF PAGE
Speaker:
I would like to inform the House that Christ the King Junior Secondary School has selected an additional page to serve the Legislature for the remainder of this spring session. Please welcome Adam Molleson.
Recognition of Canada Remembers program
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
I would like to take this opportunity today to share with you a new national program that honours and remembers the wartime sacrifices made by Canadians overseas and at home. The program, entitled Canada Remembers, will encourage Canadians to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the major events leading to the end of the Second World War.
These events include that fateful day in 1944, 50 years ago today, when Canadians, as part of the allied force, stormed the beaches at Normandy through to the terrible battles of Northwest Europe and Italy and to the final victory and peace in the summer of 1945.
Today, on June 6, 1994, we will remember all Canadians who fought and died on land, sea and in the air. Over one million Canadian men and women joined the forces. Of those, 100,000 were wounded and 45,000 gave their lives. Approximately 100 people now living in the Yukon served in the Second World War, including Yukon First Nation people.
As well, millions of Canadians at home devoted their time and energy to ending the Second World War and bringing their loved ones home.
Canada Remembers focuses on the men, women and children who rallied to support Canada's war effort in homes, factories and schools.
This new two-year national program will give Canada's youth an appreciation of how their world has been shaped by the efforts of our veterans. Canada Remembers will reach out to those who have not experienced war.
Canada Remembers will recognize the positive legacy of the Second World War. Major social and economic changes evolved from Canada's participation in the war. These changes were fundamental to Canada's post-war development and growth.
As well, we recognize Canadian forces in peacekeeping. Canada's role in establishing and supporting international peacekeeping efforts came into being through its wartime experience and subsequent commitment to maintaining peace.
I hope this program will create a renewed understanding among all Canadians about the causes and consequences of war, the price of an enduring peace and the hard questions surrounding the ideas of duty, patriotism and sacrifice.
Earlier today, a luncheon was held at the Royal Canadian Legion No. 254, to commemorate the 50th anniversary of D-Day.
I hope we can now take a moment from our busy lives to honour and remember the wartime sacrifices made by Canadians overseas and at home so that we can enjoy peace today.
DAILY ROUTINE
Speaker:
We will proceed at this time with the Order Paper.
Are there any Introductions of Visitors?
Are there any Returns or Documents for tabling?
Reports of Committees.
Petitions.
PETITIONS
Petition No. 9 - response
Hon. Mr. Nordling:
I would like to respond to Petition No. 9, which was tabled earlier -
Speaker:
Order please. I would like to announce to the Member I have not yet said, "The hon. Member responsible for the Public Service Commission".
Hon. Mr. Nordling:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will start again.
I would like to respond to Petition No. 9, which was tabled earlier in the Legislature. I would like to thank those who took the time to read the petition and to provide their input to the Legislative Assembly through their signatures on that petition.
Speaker:
Are there any Introductions of Bills?
Are there any Notices of Motion for the Production of Papers?
Notices of Motion.
Are there any Statements by Ministers?
This then brings us to the Question Period.
QUESTION PERIOD
Question re: Devolution process, consultation with CYI
Mr. Penikett:
The federal Minister of Northern Affairs has indicated that he does not intend to proceed with the devolution of federal jurisdiction or federal programs to the territorial government until Yukon First Nation claims are enshrined in law, yet - as I think the Government Leader is aware - the Council for Yukon Indians has read the Minister's commitment as also guaranteeing First Nation's full consultation and participation in the devolution process. Can the Government Leader give us his understanding of the current federal position in this regard: is it his understanding that the position is simply that claims must be settled, as indicated by Mr. Irwin, or is it the larger position, as indicated by Ms. Gingell, that not only do claims have to be settled, but there has to be a commitment for full consultation and participation by the Council for Yukon Indians as well?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I am sure that the hon. Member opposite knows that it would be very, very difficult for me to speculate on what the federal Minister thinks pertaining to devolution at this point. I know that in my discussions with him, he wants to see the land claim legislation through the federal Houses of Parliament before he proceeds with devolution.
Mr. Penikett:
Perhaps I can ask the Government Leader what his position is in respect to the claim by the Council for Yukon Indians. As we all know, the Government Leader has consistently spoken, in the past, about devolution in terms of two-sided negotiations involving mainly the federal and territorial governments.
I want to know if there has been any change in the territorial government's thinking in this regard. Does the Minister now see devolution as a matter that also includes the First Nations as well as the federal and territorial government, and does he agree with the proposition put forth by the Council for Yukon Indians that there should be a three-sided devolution agreement before programs can be devolved?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
The position that we have always taken is that devolution of programs from Ottawa should follow the terms of reference that are set out in the umbrella final agreement. We have always stated that, and that is something that we have pursued. I know the Member opposite also pursued that, and was
Page Number 2852
not very successful with it. We have not been successful with it to this point either, but we are going to continue to pursue it. Devolution must take place as laid out under the umbrella final agreement.
Mr. Penikett:
As the Government Leader knows, not only do the First Nations believe that YTG has not lived up to the requirements of consultation as defined by the umbrella final agreement, but I think that we here have obtained legal opinions that suggest that they need to have their status upgraded. All parties - the federal government, the territorial government and the First Nations - have talked about the health transfer model established by the previous territorial government, which consists of a series of bilateral agreements witnessed by the third party, as a model for subsequent devolution agreements.
Could the Government Leader explain to us why, if that model is seen as acceptable by all three parties, we have not proceeded further along the road toward agreements constructed in the same manner?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
That model is certainly very acceptable to this government - very, very acceptable to it - and we have stated so quite clearly in correspondence with the Council for Yukon Indians. We stated that we were prepared to proceed on the basis of the hospital transfer model. CYI has not responded to us that they are prepared to proceed on that basis, but it is something that we have put on the table and we are quite prepared to work with them on a similar model for the process of devolution.
Question re: White Pass and Yukon Route, head office
Mr. McDonald:
The Minister of Economic Development is aware that the company, White Pass and Yukon Route, has told its employees that it intends to move its head office out of the Yukon and into Alaska. I would like to ask the Minister whether or not the government has been informed of the move and whether it has made any representations to the company to encourage it to keep its head office in Whitehorse and keep the jobs at the head office in the Yukon.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
We have been aware that White Pass, for some time now, has been talking about moving their head office to Skagway, where they claim they do their major business now - in Alaska rather than the Yukon. There still will be personnel left in the Yukon at their petroleum division but, with the retirement of their chairman, it is their intention to move their head office to Skagway.
Mr. McDonald:
Well, I am aware of that. I am, however, uncertain as to what representations the Yukon government has made to White Pass to encourage them to keep their head office in Whitehorse. The Minister will be aware that the Yukon Party had encouraged the NDP government to put up a fight when Bell Canada had purchased Northwestel and was anticipating moving its head office to the centre of its operating district, which was not in Whitehorse, but in Yellowknife. So, what representations has the Minister of Economic Development made to White Pass to encourage them to keep their head office in Whitehorse and in the Yukon?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I have had meetings with the chairman of White Pass and had those discussions and raised my concerns. I think there is quite a bit of difference between this move and the Bell Canada situation, where Northwestel has substantial business dealings in the territory. White Pass now has very, very little business here, except for their petroleum division. They have said that they are going to leave their petroleum division here, and if the circumstances change in the Yukon, there will be more personnel posted here.
Mr. McDonald:
As the Minister knows, Bell's operating district - when it purchased Northwestel - which was bequeathed to Northwestel, included all of the Northwest Territories and into the northeastern part of Canada. So, clearly the operating district that is currently Northwestel's is substantially outside the Yukon, and yet, the head office remains in the Yukon.
Is the Government Leader telling us that he made no representation at all to White Pass to encourage them to keep their head office in the territory?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I have had meetings with White Pass and I have listened to their rationale for why they are moving their office to Skagway. They already have an office in Skagway; they are not starting a new office there. They have a basic head office in Skagway at this point. They are amalgamating the head office into one, rather than having two head offices.
Question re: Yukon Energy Corporation, privatization of
Mr. Cable:
The Association of Yukon Communities has filed a complaint under the Public Utilities Board Act, asking the board to investigate the actions of the Minister responsible for the Yukon Energy Corporation, in relation to his privatization efforts.
Last week, the Government Leader indicated he would not obstruct that investigation. The jurisdiction may be a little thin to hear that sort of problem by way of a complaint. Is the Minister prepared to take other than a passive posture and instruct the board by way of directive to hear the privatization issue and investigate the matter, as he is permitted to do under the act?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
Our position, on this side, is that there will be no conclusive deal made without appropriate and thorough consultation with the Yukon public. The process under which that consultation will take place is something that has yet to be determined. As for the timing, it would be rather foolhardy to look at a process for consultation until we at least have an agreement in principle about which to consult.
At this point in time, it is very premature. My answer is that there will be a process developed for consultation. Whether or not it will necessarily be the Public Utilities Board is something we have not yet decided.
Mr. Cable:
The Minister wrote a letter to me, dated April 13, 1994, on a related matter: the investigation of the operations of the corporation by the Auditor General. He indicated that he expected the terms of reference for that investigation in the near future, and that he would question the Yukon Energy Corporation about whether or not it would release the terms of reference.
Have the terms of reference been struck, and will they be released to the public?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I will have to get back to the Member about that. When I last talked to people from the Yukon Development Corporation, they were working on the terms of reference with the Auditor General. I will ask them whether or not they have been struck yet, as well as what their position is with regard to releasing the terms.
Mr. Cable:
On a final matter relating to the corporation, the Minister, at some juncture a few months ago, indicated that he would be acting to withhold the principal and interest payments to the federal government. Did the Minister follow through with that threat?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
No. Our position is that we want to negotiate, both on behalf of Yukon Energy Corporation and in consultation with First Nations. It was our considered opinion that the best strategy would be to make the December payment.
Question re: White Pass and Yukon Route, head office
Mr. McDonald:
I have another question for the Minister of Economic Development on the subject I just presented to him. I am a bit surprised at the Minister's response on behalf of the
Page Number 2853
government respecting the move of the White Pass head office to Skagway.
The Minister indicated that he simply bought the argument that was presented to him: that the move was ultimately justified. He is, I am sure, certainly aware that the Chief Executive Officer of White Pass is reported to have blamed the recession as being responsible for the move.
Did the Minister not try to convince the CEO, Mr. Taylor, that this move was premature and that the decade of prosperity was upon us, that the good times are coming and that things could only improve over the next decade in the Yukon? Did he not indicate to him that this head office change was not justified on economic terms?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
The Hon. Member for McIntyre-Takhini is trying to come across as if this is a great surprise to him. The Member was part of the government that bought the head office of White Pass a few years ago. They have been contemplating for quite a few years the amalgamation and streamlining of their services. I do not know why the Member would think that this is such a big surprise at this point.
Mr. McDonald:
I can honestly tell the Minister that when the Yukon government bought that historic train station at the bottom of Main Street we were not helping White Pass to make a decision to move its head office outside the territory. There was an operating assumption that there was other office space in town and that they could relocate their computers and lands development officers elsewhere.
Obviously, the Minister has not tried to convince White Pass to stay in the Yukon. Can the Minister tell us whether or not he knows how many jobs will be lost as a result of this move?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I will get the exact numbers of jobs for the Member opposite. I believe it is in the neighbourhood of five to seven jobs, but I am not exactly certain about the numbers.
I would like to point out that the winding down of White Pass did not start with this government. The wind-down started when they lost the ore contract from Faro in 1985. The trucking division was dramatically reduced as a result of losing that contract.
The previous government's assistance in purchasing Totem Oil certainly did not help the good fortunes of White Pass.
Mr. McDonald:
The White Pass and Yukon Corporation, from time to time, has not had the opportunity to haul ore from the Faro mine, whether it be due to temporary closures that took place in the early 1980s or strikes. There are other occurrences of this happening.
I think the assumption of most Yukoners would be that if White Pass, an historic company in the Yukon and one of the companies that helped build the infrastructure of the territory, had been contemplating moving for short-term reasons, then there is a feeling that the government would at least put up some resistance to such a move. I am surprised, shocked and upset that the Minister has chosen not to do that.
Could the Minister tell us when he anticipates this move to take place, and ultimately, when he comes back with the information about the number of jobs lost, can he tell us what percentage of jobs that are controlled by this company will remain in the Yukon?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I will certainly bring that information back for the Member opposite, but surely, the Member opposite must agree with me that the previous government's actions with the Totem Oil deal did nothing to put out a welcome mat for White Pass in the Yukon.
It is no surprise that White Pass is moving their head office to Skagway at this point, since the previous government was prepared to subsidize a company to go into competition with them.
Question re: Lottery funding for heritage organizations
Ms. Moorcroft:
I have a question for the acting Minister of Community and Transportation Services. Last week the disbursement of Lotteries Yukon funds for sports and recreation was announced, and once again it did not include any funding for heritage groups. The Yukon Historical and Museum Association has been working with the sport and recreation branch of the Community and Transportation Services department to try and make lottery funding available to heritage groups and for heritage-related projects. Why did the department sign an agreement with Yukon Lotteries that apparently leaves the question of funding for heritage organizations in limbo for a further three years?
Hon. Mr. Nordling:
When I was told that I would be filling in for the Minister of Community and Transportation Services I was told not to worry, that it is a name only, and I would not have to do anything tough. However, I thank the Member for the brief notice that she would be bringing this up, and I will try to answer it. I think the Minister of Tourism may know a little more about the issue than I do. My understanding is that there is a review currently underway as part of a recreation funding review, and that there is a meeting on June 21 that the museum society has been invited to attend. Submissions with regard to funding will be listened to at that time, and there will be final recommendations made in October of this year. Perhaps I will stop there, for fear of getting myself into trouble.
Ms. Moorcroft:
The Minister is going to wait for the supplementary question before he determines whether he will get himself into further trouble, I guess. I am aware there is a meeting scheduled for June 21. YHMA is quite concerned that lotteries funding would continue the way it is, excluding heritage. Is it the intention of the Yukon government to continue the exclusion of heritage from access to lottery funds?
Hon. Mr. Nordling:
I do not think it is an expressed intention. I think that they are waiting to see what the review committee comes up with, and we will follow their recommendations. My understanding is that the Yukon Lottery Commission does use 52 percent to fund community groups and community projects, and museums may be eligible to apply under that percentage, and the other 48 percent is used by government for sports and arts.
Ms. Moorcroft:
The announcement of the list of funding grants that has come forward includes sports and recreation groups, but does not include heritage groups. The Yukon Historical and Museum Association is looking for some comfort that its concerns will be given proper consideration. If there is a new three-year agreement in place that leaves heritage out of the funding, we would like to look at a policy change for it. Is that a possibility?
Hon. Mr. Nordling:
I hope they will find some comfort in attending and making submissions to the meeting on June 21. If, at that time, they are not successful or if recommendations come out in October that do not assist them, then perhaps the policy can be looked at, or a lobbying effort made at that time.
Question re: Employment standards legislation
Ms. Commodore:
My question is for the Minister of Justice. On December 8 of last year, the Minister of Justice told this House he would be tabling amendments to the Employment Standards Act in the spring. He stated, "Our intention is to table a bill in first reading, mail it out to all interest groups and not debate it even in principle for at least four or five weeks after tabling it." As we know, he tabled the bill in the House on May 24.
I would like to ask the Minister if he intends to honour the commitment he made to the House and allow at least four or five weeks for people to express their views before the bill is debated in the House.
Page Number 2854
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I am looking at that issue at this present time. We have received some briefs and, by tomorrow, I will be announcing whether or not we intend to postpone until the fall going ahead with this bill.
Ms. Commodore:
Is the Minister telling us that because of a letter from the steelworkers union and other groups who have expressed some concern with regard to the lack of time, tomorrow he will probably be telling us that he is going to be holding off the bill for another length of time?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
Exactly.
Ms. Commodore:
I would just like to ask the Minister if he would provide for me, some time in the next little while - and I am sure it will be easy for him to do this - a list of all the groups and organizations who were sent letters inviting them to express their views on the bill and a list of the organizations who received all of the information. I know some were delivered and some were possibly mailed.
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I will. I must say that in response to a question from a colleague regarding the lack of receipt of the information, I am advised that officials did hand deliver packages to those two unions, but both offices were closed.
In any event, I am more than pleased to provide a full list to the Member.
Question re: Social assistance recipients, transient policy
Mr. Penikett:
Perhaps their representatives were here in the gallery. Since we are in a period of social assistance cuts, investigations and hard times for many low-income people in the territory, I would like to inquire about the Minister of Health and Social Services' policy in respect to granting audiences to social assistance recipients who wish to make representations directly to the Minister. As a rule, does the Minister agree to see social assistance recipients in his office at their request?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
It depends on what the representation is. If a recipient wants to see me about a matter that ought to be appealed through the appeal process that is set up, they are encouraged to take that avenue. If, on the other hand, it is about a substantive issue regarding policy, I am always prepared to listen.
Mr. Penikett:
On the question of substantive policy and ministerial listening, as the Minister knows, he has used the Charter of Rights to justify a potential foreign takeover of the outfitting industry in the territory, but he may have also noted advice to the effect that his department may be violating the Charter and putting federal cost sharing under the capital assistance program at risk by a social assistance policy that discriminates against transients. Has the Minister made himself aware of court cases - information that has been in the department for years - that are now moving toward the Supreme Court on exactly this point in other jurisdictions?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
We are cognizant of the issues and of the progress through the courts regarding issues affecting transient policy, if that is the question.
Mr. Penikett:
Would the Minister be willing to grant an audience to a social assistance recipient who would like to make representations on exactly this policy point: the actions of the Government of the Yukon, the Charter, and the situation of transient recipients on social assistance?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
Yes.
Question re: Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment, minutes
Mrs. Firth:
I have some questions for the Government Leader regarding some outstanding commitments he has made to this Legislature.
The Government Leader stood up in this House and told us that, in his personal opinion, he thought the minutes of the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment should be made public. In fact, the meetings were all public and he thought we should be provided with copies of the minutes.
Has the chair of the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment given the Government Leader permission to give us copies of the minutes yet?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
At the last meeting I attended, it was my understanding that the minutes will be made available to the Legislature and to anyone who wants them.
Mrs. Firth:
Are the minutes that are now going to be made public to Members of the Legislature and members of the public going to be vetted by anyone prior to their being released, or will they be the actual minutes of the meeting?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
My understanding is that when the council first sat down to meet, it made a consensus decision to keep all meeting minutes confidential and publish reports. As a result of the furour that was raised in the Legislature, they had second thoughts about that, but they want the members to review the minutes before they are released, to make sure they had not said anything that might be embarrassing.
Mrs. Firth:
I would hardly call MLAs asking for information to be made public a furour.
I want to get a very clear commitment from the Government Leader about the minutes, because I do not want them vetted or condensed, particularly by the communications advisor to the Cabinet, or by any other individual.
II would like a commitment from the Minister that the minutes we get will be the actual minutes from the meetings, and that they will not be a condensed version that some public relations person has had a chance to fix up - like the economic report we were supposed to get that was going to be fixed up a little bit.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
That was one report that could have used a lot of fixing up, after we saw how close it was. After a winter in the Yukon, it could have withstood a lot of fixing.
I have reviewed the minutes and I cannot see any reason why they should not be released in their present form.
Question re: Business development fund, loans outstanding
Mrs. Firth:
This just gets worse and worse.
We will wait until we see the minutes. We know who is making the decisions with respect to the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment. I will ask the other follow-up question I had for the Government Leader.
The Government Leader has also stood up in this House and said that he believes that the names of clients who had borrowed money from this government and not paid it back should be made public. I would like to ask the Government Leader if he has permission from his Cabinet colleagues to now do it.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I can tell the Member opposite that this matter has gone to Cabinet. Cabinet has approved that an aggressive collection schedule be put into place - something that was not there under the last administration. The names of delinquent clients will be published, as a last resort, once a year in the fall.
Mrs. Firth:
I have three words for the Government Leader: wimpy, wimpy, wimpy.
This is what this government does all the time. He stands up and indicates that he is going to be the tough guy. He tells us he believes in publishing these names and that it should be done.
If there is one issue that the public is upset about, it is finding out who is not paying back the money this government has given them. This Government Leader was going to tell all. Wimpy.
I want to ask the Government Leader if - after this aggressive
Page Number 2855
collection schedule, the names are going to come out, as a last resort, in the fall - he can tell us why they have chosen this route?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
The issue here is not to publicly embarrass someone. That is not the issue. The issue here is to collect outstanding monies that are owed to the government. That is the issue. We are trying to address the issue. If we have to publish the names as a last resort, as with taxes, we will do so.
At the same time, I caution the Member opposite that when there is outstanding money owed to financial institutions, and most of the people who have borrowed money from the government have money outstanding to financial institutions, if we were to haphazardly make a unilateral decision to place their names in the paper and make it public, it could cause financial difficulty for some of the people who have loans at other financial institutions.
In fairness, people have to be given the opportunity to get their accounts in order.
Mrs. Firth:
This government publicly embarrasses itself every day.
I can appreciate the government not wanting to embarrass anyone, but there is no more effective a collection procedure than the threat of names being published.
Perhaps the Government Leader could answer this question for us: just who is he trying to protect by not making the names public?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
We are not trying to protect anyone. As I said earlier - if the Member opposite was not so enthused about making speeches during Question Period and would listen to my answers rather than writing speeches for her next supplementary, she would have heard me - the issue is to collect the money. That is what the issue is.
Question re: Woods Christian Home, contracts
Ms. Commodore:
I have a question for the Minister responsible for Health and Social Services.
During debate in Committee of the Whole, I asked the Minister about a list of contracts awarded to Woods Christian Home in Calgary. The Woods Christian Home was awarded five contracts amounting to $900,000.
Would the Minister tell us what the government is getting for that amount of money? Also, since I have not heard back from the Minister about questions that I asked in Committee of the Whole debate, would the Minister table those contracts in the House?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I hope to be filing a written response to the Member's questions shortly.
Ms. Commodore:
The largest contract out of the total amount was for $796,000 for residential treatment for young people.
That amount, as we discussed before, is sent to the Woods Christian Home in Calgary. I would like to ask the Minister how much the wing of that facility, Northern Network of Services, receives from the $796,000? Would the Minister include that figure in the information he will be providing to me?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
Certainly.
Ms. Commodore:
I find that amount an awful lot - $796,000 for one year for one group outside the Yukon. Last year, the government sent 10 people out to Woods Christian Home in Calgary for treatment. They were referred to Woods Christian Home. Out of the $796,000, I would like to ask the Minister if he could also provide me with how much of that amount was paid to Woods Christian Home for the treatment of 10 young people. I am trying to determine the total cost for each person who goes out there, because we are a little bit concerned about the high amount of contracts awarded to that one home in Calgary.
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I am pleased to hear this concern, particularly when it was her government and the previous Minister who entered into the process that led to the selection of Woods Christian Home to deliver the programs at Northern Network of Services. We certainly went along with their choice and their decisions and have implemented their decisions and their choice at the rates they determined were feasible and appropriate; but if they are now having second thoughts about the wisdom as to whether or not their decisions were responsible, we understand and will try to reassure them.
Question re: Decentralization of employees
Ms. Moorcroft:
I have a question for the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission, who is also filling in for the Minister of Community and Transportation Services.
In early March, the government unveiled plans to relocate two community planning positions from Dawson City to Whitehorse due to operational requirements. One of those positions is occupied by Ann MacDonald, who took the position in Dawson in good faith less than two years ago. Can the Minister explain the consultation process undertaken with employees outside Whitehorse before their positions are centralized, and whether the employees in this situation were given the courtesy of proper consultation?
Hon. Mr. Nordling:
No, I cannot, but I will get back to the Member on that. I do not know exactly what was done in the case of Ann MacDonald or whether there is a policy or strategy in dealing with all employees in that situation.
Ms. Moorcroft:
It is unfortunate that the Minister of Community and Transportation Services is not here to answer specific questions, but I would like to ask the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission a policy question. Ms. MacDonald was denied the right to appeal under section 135 of the Public Service Act on the grounds that the planned move was a redeployment rather than a transfer. For other government employees who may be faced with a sudden policy shift, can the Minister explain clearly the distinctions between a transfer, a redeployment and a relocation, and how those terms affect an employee's rights?
Hon. Mr. Nordling:
No. Again I do not know the circumstances surrounding Ann MacDonald's move, but it is a personnel matter, and I do not want to get into a discussion on the floor of the Legislature about how Ann MacDonald is being handled. I am prepared to do that with the Member on an individual basis, if she has concerns about it. I will find out whether it was a redeployment or whether it was a move. I am not certain of the circumstances leading up to that decision.
Ms. Moorcroft:
This is the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission and I am asking him about policies of the Public Service Commission. He does not even know what the transfer policies are, and this is an issue that has been asked about in this Legislature before. The Minister should have some understanding of it. No matter what term you use, the effect on an employee and their family is the same. Can the Minister tell us if the wording chosen reflects anything other than an example of this government again ignoring employee rights and bypassing the collective agreement with its employees?
Hon. Mr. Nordling:
I certainly hope it is not, but I will get back to the Member with information with respect to that particular move.
Speaker:
The time for Question Period has now elapsed. We will proceed with Orders of the Day.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
GOVERNMENT BILLS
Bill No. 94: Third Reading
Clerk:
Third reading, Bill No. 94, standing in the name of the
Page Number 2856
Hon. Mr. Nordling.
Hon. Mr. Nordling:
I move that Bill No. 94, entitled Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act, 1994, be now read a third time and do pass.
Speaker:
It has been moved by the Hon. Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission that Bill No. 94, entitled Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act, 1994, be now read a third time and do pass.
Hon. Mr. Nordling:
We, as a government, tried to address, in that bill, the needs of all Yukoners and the Yukon as a community, with minimal impact on our employees. There was a need - and there is a need - to control government expenditures, and our payroll costs are a large portion of those expenditures.
In her second reading speech, the Member for Riverdale South expressed serious concerns about the way the issue of wage restraint was dealt with, and the timing of it. She also expressed concern over the split in our community. Her concerns are difficult to rebut. They are valid. But, we did listen - we did enter into collective bargaining in good faith with the Yukon Teachers Association, and we did receive input from a lot of Yukoners, as well as our employees. I believe that we came up with legislation that does not unduly penalize the less experienced teachers, the lower-income government employees and those who are not at the top of their wage scale who are getting their lives and careers started - those who would be hit by merit freezes.
I hope that the benefits of the legislation, in terms of expenditure control for the government, job security, labour stability, a more equal sharing of the burden across employee groups and the maintenance of all other provisions in the collective agreement for the benefit of employees will outweigh the upset and concern over the initial proposal and over the subsequent handling of the issue.
Ms. Moorcroft:
The previous speaker has said that he has listened. I do not believe that this government has listened at all. I think that this is a very sad day for democracy.
I would like to tell the Minister and his Cabinet colleagues over there that even with a majority government, they are supposed to try to make a reasonable, consistent argument. This government has not proven its case. Their so-called arguments for justifying this wage restraint legislation have been completely debunked. They have claimed financial crisis. There is no financial crisis. It is clear the government cannot anticipate expenditures in three years' time and over a three-year period, but it is going to continue forward with legislating a wage rollback for public sector workers for three years.
Even though the government has no arguments left, they are going to ram the legislation down our throats. They are looking ashamed of themselves over there, and so they should.
I would like to speak for a moment about the issue of pensions. I have had calls from constituents. I wonder if the Minister and his Cabinet have even thought about the effect this legislation will have on public servants who will be retiring before the freeze is lifted. The two-percent wage rollback over a three-year period will reduce the average income on which pensions will be based.
In Question Period today, the Government Leader was talking about fairness and opportunities to get the accounts in order. This legislation is unfair to all employees. It is particular unfair to those employees who will have their average income reduced over three years and, therefore, their pension reduced. This Draconian legislation will have an impact on the public sector workers who retire at any time over the next three years until the day they die.
This government does not respect democratic rights. The issue here is collective bargaining, and the issue here is that they have failed to engage in collective bargaining. All this government has demonstrated is a closed-minded, autocratic approach.
Again this afternoon, we saw the Minister stand up to thank the hundreds of Yukoners that took the time to sign a petition, opposing this legislation. What kind of a response is that?
The Minister who is sponsoring this bill is an Independent. He is not a member of the Yukon Party, so I would like to make sure he knows about something the Yukon Party plan included in its electoral campaign when they talked about restoring freedom of speech and association. They said they would, "ensure that all Yukoners would enjoy freedom of speech and freedom of association, irrespective of their political affiliation".
We have certainly not seen any respect by this government for the Yukon Teachers Association, the Public Service Alliance of Canada or the working people in the Yukon. That extends to other legislation, as well, such as the amendments to the Employment Standards Act.
Another Yukon Party promise was to, "ensure that the abuse of authority and intimidation of Yukon government employees stopped" - that is what they wrote. I would like an assurance, both from the Minister responsible for the public service and from the Cabinet that the many Yukoners who have signed the petitions opposing this legislation and the many Yukoners who have been coming in here regularly to watch the debate on the wage restraint legislation and on the departmental budgets - where their personal income is at stake - will not be facing retaliation in the workplace for observing the Legislature in action.
I would like to know, for a fact, that this government will in no way be taking punitive measures against the employees who have signed a petition opposing the wage restraint legislation.
It is a shameful piece of legislation. There is no reason for it being introduced. Our arguments have been made, but this government has not made any arguments justifying its position. I think they should be ashamed of themselves.
Mrs. Firth:
I have heard very much about this issue from Yukoners in general, from my constituents, from businesses in town, from Yukon Party supporters and from other Members in this House, and I have listened to my own philosophical beliefs. There is a turmoil going on in the community about the wage rollback - about whether it is necessary or not.
The biggest struggle I see going on is coming from this government. It is a struggle to define logic. The real turmoil is over consistency. It is all about saying two or, sometimes, three things at the same time, all contradicting each other, and it is about trying to sort through all the rhetoric to find the truth. It is truly mystifying. It defies all logic.
I used to sit with some of the people on the other side of the House and work with them, because I thought we had similar philosophical beliefs: things like the cost of running government is too high and must be kept low if we are to balance our books at the end of the day; things like, the huge wage spread between the private sector and government workers was seen as something that needed to be challenged and fought against. The spread is too big, and I would be one of the first ones to say that, even today.
We need controls. When the New Democrat government brought in the 19-percent wage increase, I spoke up publicly against it because I have a firm conviction that the huge gap in wages and benefits makes it very difficult for the private business person to get and keep good staff. I felt I was speaking on behalf of my constituents at that time and even though many of them are public servants I spoke with them and explained my position to them. Do you know what happened? I weathered that political storm.
I took a five-percent wage cut for myself because I was told that there was a huge deficit - a $64 million deficit - and I was more than willing to pay my share in the cutting of the MLA pay.
Page Number 2857
Now we are facing a piece of legislation that, philosophically, I believe in and agree on with the government, but on this issue there is one place where Conservatives on that side of the House and the lone Conservative on this side dramatically disagree.
One has to talk to and listen to the people and be consistent and stick to one's beliefs. Mark my words, if that is not done, there is going to be a price to pay. I believe very strongly that people have to be treated fairly.
I have had my disagreements with the Members opposite over the years. I have tried to point things out to them in a practical and in a constructive way, but they just do not see it. It is as if they are on a railway track and just do not see the train coming.
On one hand, the government says they have to raise taxes and cut back, and on the other hand they say they have all this money. The Government Leader even stood up in this House and said that he was going to try to milk the federal government for all they could and then cut back on services so that they could have a whole bunch more money.
People used to say to me, when the Yukon Party government and the NDP were arguing over whether or not there was a deficit, that they, as voters, were confused. They did not like the two parties going back and forth and they felt they could talk to me because I was an Independent and did not have to toe a party line. They used to say to me, "I do not know whom to believe. The previous government wasted lots of money and gave their employees a 19-percent pay increase, when some of the private businesses could barely afford minimum for their employees." My constituents wondered whether they should believe the Opposition Members when they questioned the deficit and questioned that there would be lapses in money and that at the end of the day there could be a surplus.
We stuck with our questions, as Opposition Members. The Official Opposition charged the government with cooking the books because they found out there was no deficit and no debt and that in fact we had a $30 million surplus. The government even held a big press conference to explain to the public why they had the big surplus of money - a press conference that I maintain shredded any last bits of credibility that this government may have had.
That is not only my personal opinion; that is what I am hearing from the public.
The Members on the government side love to blame and ridicule Opposition Members, saying that we are out only to score political points. Well, what I and a lot of Yukoners want to know is what use they are going to make of all the money they are stashing away from all of these recently discovered slush funds and surpluses. What is the government going to use this money for?
We all know what they are going to use this money for. They are going to use it for the next election campaign. For what? For political points.
Taxpayers really object to this government's thinking it is its right to accumulate money, and spend the money the way the government wants to spend it, and everyone has to assume they are going to spend this money in a wiser manner than the previous government did. People just do not believe that of this government.
I think the honourable thing this government should have done was admit that they did not know what they were doing when they raised our taxes - which were the charges that we as Opposition Members made in this House - and give the money back to the people from whom it was taken.
We have asked the government to do the honourable thing and we have met with no response from the government, only silence.
The Government Leader, as with everything, says he would like to do that, but he cannot or will not, with no explanation as to why.
I have not heard from any Yukoners who are willing to say "Sure, keep the money; I do not mind paying increased taxes." They do not stand around saying it is okay that Cabinet Members cannot decide among themselves whether or not the savings are going to last for years and years, like the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission says or, as the Government Leader and Minister of Finance say, it is going to be a short-term loan for three years, because then the territory is going to be broke again.
I do not know where the Government Leader musters up the confidence to stand up and say these things, but he does it.
I do not hear any of my constituents saying that they are prepared to give this money up. What they are saying is that this is no way to run a business and it is no way to run a government.
Many businesses, and many conservative-thinking business people, tell me they would never treat their employees the way this government has treated their employees.
How this government has attacked the morale of government employees is absolutely unforgivable.
This is not the way one treats one's employees and then expects them to continue to do a good job. This government does not have a clue when it comes to dealing with its workers. They do not even know the fundamentals of good, basic labour relations. I hear that from the business community - that criticism comes from the business community. People in the Yukon know how to do good business. They are quite capable of putting ideas into practice, balancing their books and keeping employees on. So, when the same people look at how this government is running the business of government, they are shocked. I have consulted with these people - and they certainly were not supportive of the last government's practices - and they thought that this government would do a better job. I am here to tell the government that these people are telling me that they cannot support this government any longer. They see the bungling in the accounting, they see the unfair way that the employees have been treated and they see them treating the taxpayers as if we are stupid and cannot see through this charade.
They can no longer lend the government any credibility because they see what a sham the government is making of good business practices. They are giving business people a bad name - they do not like it. The business community does not like being tarnished with the practices of this government. Some people believed in, and voted for, this government. Now, they are angry and upset and have lost faith in them because they feel that they have been betrayed.
Not only the betrayal upsets the business people. The comment I hear the most is that this government, through its actions and the way it handles the issues, has made it a whole lot easier for the NDP to get back in power. This government has managed to whip the NDP supporters - the NDP, who are looking at two leadership conventions - into an election frenzy. As well, they have whipped the general public into a huge anti-government sentimentality and mood. I have never seen anything like it before.
We hear, in the middle of the two-percent rollback announcement - which I think should have been five percent - that we are not broke at all, that government is still going to take some money away from these people, but because we have some extra money that the Government Leader was really surprised about, he is going to give $8 million back - it is not as bad as we thought. We are still going to keep the taxes that we took from people. The electricity bills are going up and taxes have gone up. This legislation has lost its integrity. It is becoming a joke, every time one or two Ministers stand up and try to defend it.
People are trying to figure out what this wage restraint legislation means, and they cannot figure it out. It simply had a divisive, negative, devastating impact on the community, just like the "we
Page Number 2858
are broke; we are broke" issue did - the Government Leader standing up and saying, "We are broke, we are broke."
I like to pride myself on having a fairly good memory, and I do not forget things very often. Back when the negotiations with the union were breaking down, and I received a phone call from the Government Leader, he asked me if I would support him if he refused to accept the conciliator's report. I gave him my word that I would. Why did I do that? I did that because I agreed with him when he said that there was a need to cut costs in government. I urged him to do what he had to do in order to get rid of this deficit. It would have been the honourable thing to deal with that issue at that time.
Because none of us on this side of the House have the access to the government books that the government Members do, I was prepared to believe the Government Leader when he said there was a deficit. There was a question about the amount, but I was prepared to believe him when he said that. Even if it was just designed to make the previous government look bad, I was prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. He held up the negotiations with the teachers as an example of how committed the government was to making the deficit line stick. The government said that they had made concessions on their contract, and they had bought into their position. We all went along with it, because we conservative types believe that there needs to be less government, and that there is room within the public service to cut back on costs.
The Minister of the Public Service Commission wrote to all the employees and told them that they were going to have to share the burden. Many of them were willing to give up their pay so that there will not have to be layoffs. Where are the financial burdens? Why will there be layoffs if there is a surplus? How does the government expect people to buy their arguments when it is a different argument every time, and an argument that cannot be supported?
The impact that this decision had on the community was devastating. I do not want to let the union off scot-free in this because, frankly, I was quite appalled at the reaction of the union representatives - the kind of blackmailing, scare tactics, and playing one business off against the other that they used.
I completely and absolutely disagree with that. I found it quite disgusting and hated the effect it had on the business community, the constituents I represent and on Yukoners in general. I do not think that I should not make mention of that particular activity.
An interesting thing is happening in my consultations regarding this piece of legislation. I am getting calls from people and phoning people in my constituency. I am also getting calls from a few people - a few - who are blaming me for making the Yukon Party look bad. They say that as a Conservative I should not go about making other Conservatives look bad, and that I am not supposed to criticize.
I am here to tell the other Conservatives that I do not have to do that very much. All I have to do is ask a few questions, in the hope of getting some straight answers, but I am not getting them. Why am I not getting them? It is because this government continually tries to cover up what is really going on. The story keeps changing from day to day.
The Member for Mayo-Tatchun recently said, "If you always tell the truth, you do not have to remember what you said". Is it a deficit or a surplus; is it cutbacks or streamlining? I would like to hear the Government Leader stand up in this House and tell the people of the Yukon, with a straight face, that he can honestly predict, with any certainty, that there will be a deficit in three years' time. He continually stands up and says that - not only here, but publicly. He cannot defend that statement.
The government Members are giving themselves a bad name in this community, and they are doing it all on their own. I do not write their speeches for them. I am not developing their policies or strategies. I am not advising them. It is not I who am making them look bad; they are doing a good job of that all by themselves.
When I ask people about this government, they tell me that they hate it and do not want me to support anything it does. They do not want me to lend any credibility to this government at all.
I have tried not to be that strident with respect to some of the initiatives, although I notice that the Minister of Justice is going to pull another issue, the Act to Amend the Employment Standards Act, and we will probably put that off again. That issue has been handled in a rather spectacular way.
I want to get these points on the record, and I want to make this specific point, so there is no mistake: I support now, as I have in the past, wage restraint and rollbacks. The government does cost too much to operate, and the discrepancy between the public and private sector is too great.
However, I also believe in just cause. There must be clear proof that when you raise taxes you need the money. There must be clear proof that when you say there is a deficit you are able to prove it.
When they bring in legislation and cite reasons for it being here, like the deficit, you have to be able to rebut and defend it. The government could not do that.
They cannot just go around doing things like this just to be bullies and throw their weight around. You cannot do things like this to people without an honest reason. It is not an honourable way to run a business or to run a government.
The choice I have to make is between two clear principles. The first is wage restraint, which the government cannot defend, refute or rebut. The second principle is the fair treatment of people.
I will vote the way I think the majority of my constituents want me to vote, and that is on the side of the fair treatment for people. I have no other choice but to vote against this piece of legislation.
Speaker:
If the Member now speaks, he will close debate. Does any other Member wish to be heard?
Hon. Mr. Nordling:
I am disappointed that the Member for Riverdale South has seen this as a matter of confidence, as opposed to a matter of wage restraint. However, I respect her right to do that, and recognize the fact that she has consulted with her constituents and is voting the way she thinks they want her to.
I, as an Independent, believe that this wage restraint is necessary and appropriate at this time. I am also concerned with the NDP approach and the Yukon Party approach to federal funding. It seems that the federal deficit is not part of our problem and that it does not matter whether we are spending federal money or not because somehow it is not ours, it is somebody else's.
I hope there are savings from this wage restraint, and there is going to be, and will continue to be, income from the tax measures that were brought in last year. I hope these savings will be used to maintain services by the Yukon government for Yukoners. I hope it provides economic benefits and economic stimulus, that it creates jobs in the Yukon and that the money does do something to help lower the high unemployment rate.
In response to the Member for Mount Lorne, we will work with the unions on issues that do not pertain to wages, with respect to working conditions, with respect to transfers, with respect to early retirement, with respect to all those things that were hard fought, negotiated and exist in the collective agreements that are now in place, and I will assure her that no action will be taken against those who signed the petition she tabled in the House.
With respect to the business community, I understand how upset they are. The reason they are upset, I think, is that the unions threatened, challenged them and blackmailed them. I think that
Page Number 2859
was the wrong approach for the unions to take.
The Yukon Teachers Association withheld services to children because they did not like what I was doing, and I think it was unfair to hold children hostage to achieve their demands or to try to change my mind. It has been a divisive time these last two months.
The Member for Riverdale South spoke about the negotiations. She, at that time, was willing to back this government with respect to wage restraint legislation, and, if in fact there was a strike, to legislate unionized employees back to work. Hindsight is 20/20, and I do not think it is fair to say that things would have been any better or any less divisive had that happened.
Businesses were being threatened last year. There were ads in the newspapers telling employees not to do their Christmas shopping because they may be on strike in January.
If they had been on strike last January and the government had not accepted the conciliator's report, there would have been real hardship for our employees. It was a difficult decision not to fight the fight at that time.
I do not think that this would have been any less painful, or any less of a concern for businesses, had the government taken this stand last year.
The conciliator's report was accepted, but it was clear that government expenditures still had to be controlled and that payroll was one of the areas that needed to be reviewed.
The Member for Riverdale South is right: there is a huge wage gap between government employees and private sector employees. That, along with the other reasons that we have discussed over the last two months, made a difference as to where the government would look for savings.
In the end, despite the upset, I think, in hindsight, this move will be looked upon as being the appropriate legislation at the appropriate time and that we would have had a lot more upset.
Our employees now have good wages, job security and some confidence that they will continue to have jobs for the next three years. I think that is important and it will be recognized by our employees, other Yukoners and other Yukon businesses that government employees will continue to be employed, will continue to receive a good wage and will be able to purchase goods and services from the private sector, keeping them in business.
Speaker:
Are you prepared for the question?
Some Hon. Members:
Agreed.
Some Hon. Members:
Disagreed.
Division
Speaker:
Division has been called. Mr. Clerk, would you kindly poll the House.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
Agreed.
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
Agreed.
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
Agreed.
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
Agreed.
Hon. Mr. Nordling:
Agreed.
Mr. Abel:
Agreed.
Mr. Penikett:
Disagreed.
Mr. McDonald:
Disagreed.
Ms. Moorcroft:
Disagreed.
Mr. Harding:
Disagreed.
Mr. Cable:
Disagreed.
Mrs. Firth:
Disagreed.
Clerk:
Mr. Speaker, the results are six yea, six nay.
Speaker's Casting Vote
Speaker:
Our Standing Order 4(2) states that in the case of an equality of votes, the Speaker shall give a casting vote. In general, the principle applied to motions and bills is that decisions should not be taken except by a majority. In this case, however, the Chair is aware that the passage of this bill is a test of the confidence of the Assembly in the government. It is my view that questions of confidence are of such importance that an expression of non-confidence should be clearly stated by a majority. The Chair, therefore, votes for the motion.
The motion for third reading is carried and Bill No. 94 has passed the House.
Motion for third reading of Bill No. 94 agreed to
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I move the Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve in Committee of the Whole.
Speaker:
It has been moved by the Hon. Government House Leader that the Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve into Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to
Speaker leaves the Chair
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Chair:
I will now call Committee of the Whole to order. Is it the wish of the Members to take a brief recess at this time? 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.
Bill No. 15 - Second Appropriation Act, 1994-95 - continued
Women's Directorate
Chair:
Is there any general debate?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
The 1994-95 operation and maintenance budget for the Women's Directorate represents a total of $404,000 to carry out its mandate to integrate the concerns and priorities of Yukon women into government policy and planning, and to improve the status of Yukon women in the social, cultural, economic, political and legal arenas.
The O&M expenditures for the Women's Directorate fall into two categories: policy and program development and public information. The allotments are as follows: for personnel, there is $238,000, reflecting three full-year equivalent positions. They are the director, the coordinator of policy and programs and office administrator. In addition, until the beginning of January 1995, the directorate is fully funding a secondment of its previous director to the Dena Nets' edet'an group.
The Women's Directorate continues to work closely with the Yukon's First Nations women to ensure their concerns and priorities are being addressed.
I would like to reiterate, at this time, the cooperative efforts that have been made by many departments to assist the directorate in carrying out its mandate, despite the reduced level of staffing.
The Department of Education seconded an employee to the directorate for six months on a cost-shared basis. The Public Service Commission agreed to sponsor a one-year training corps position. The recruitment for this position is currently underway.
Health and Social Services and the Yukon Bureau of Statistics have also agreed to provide some policy expertise on a project-by-project basis to the directorate. Justice has also provided some assistance in the area of family violence.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all these departments and, again, express my appreciation and the department's appreciation for the collaborative efforts that are being made to ensure that the important work of the directorate is not diminished by the secondment out of the department.
Page Number 2860
The other $139,000 reflects the funding of the directorate to carry out its mandate. In the area of policy and program development, the director is developing a training package for policy analysts in all government departments. It will provide a checklist of questions that must be considered to determine the impact of policies on Yukon women. This training package is based on the concerns and priorities identified by Yukon women during the directorate's territory-wide survey.
The amendments to the Yukon Advisory Council on Women's Issues Act have been introduced this session. I will be appointing new members to the board in the near future.
The Act to Amend the Yukon Advisory Council on Women's Issues Act ensures that the role of the Yukon Advisory Council on Women's Issues, as an advisory body to government, is more consistent with the role of other advisory bodies. Funding of $28,000 has been allocated out of this budget to ensure that the newly appointed council members benefit from a board training workshop, and that there are sufficient funds for them to hold quarterly meetings and carry out research on a variety of issues identified by Yukon women.
The Women's Directorate continues to work closely with many community groups and organizations in the prevention of violence against women and children. It also continues to have the mandate to implement the government's public awareness on family violence.
Yukon women throughout the territory emphasize the importance of public awareness in the area of family violence. Over the past year, the directorate has focused on three areas in its public awareness campaign: the wellness and empowerment of youth to create healthy attitudes and relationships; reducing women's vulnerability to violence; and beginning the healing process. To continue these campaigns, $40,000 has been allocated.
I would like to say at this point that the public awareness campaign that ran from January through May, 1994, was extremely well received. I heard from many people, including the Member opposite for Mount Lorne, that the school-based workshops were an excellent tool for empowering youth. The response to the self-defence workshop for women and the relationship workshops for women and men were also extremely well received. It is the directorate's intention to expand on these successes for its fall campaign. The campaign will again focus on empowering youth, reducing women's vulnerability and the healing process.
The directorate continues to work closely with the Department of Education on a variety of issues, including the development of two policies: one on violence in the schools, and one on equity in the education system. In addition, the directorate has spearheaded a community-based committee to work on improving the quality of the lives of young women in the education system. Toward this end, a four-phase project is underway. Phases 1 and 2, which involve both qualitative and quantitative research, and phase 3, which involves in-servicing teachers through the territory, have now been completed, and a report will be released in the fall. Education and youth-related projects have been allocated $10,000 as the directorate's financial contribution to these efforts.
In addition, the directorate will again sponsor an awards banquet in October to celebrate Yukon women's contributions to Yukon society, and $5,000 has been set aside for this purpose.
In the category of transfer payments, a total of $27,000 is allocated. Of this, a grant of $5,000 will be provided to the Victoria Faulkner Women's Centre. In addition, the Women's Directorate and the Victoria Faulkner Women's Centre co-sponsored a course for young women at the Baha'i Centre as part of the sexual assault prevention month in May. This conference - Proud and Aloud - featured workshops on empowerment, self-esteem, goal setting, and self-defence. Fifteen young women attended, and from reading their evaluations, it is evident they found the workshops quite inspiring.
It is the hope of Victoria Faulkner and the directorate to make this a yearly event. Five thousand dollars was provided to the Victoria Faulkner Women's Centre in a contribution agreement for this conference.
In the area of family violence, $6,000 has been allocated to community groups and organizations to carry out public awareness activities in the area of family violence prevention. The Dawson First Nation has been provided with a $2,000 grant toward a healing conference and cultural gathering this summer. An additional funding of $11,000 has been allocated to provide grants for events such as Image, a conference for young women, the annual math and science experiential conference for girls, and the women's conference, the annual Yukon Indian Women's Association annual general meeting and special activities that arise throughout the year.
This concludes the breakdown of the Women's Directorate budget.
Ms. Moorcroft:
I am sure there were a number of useful activities carried out or sponsored by the Women's Directorate. The Minister has spoken of the secondment of the director's position to Dene Nets' edet'an, which indicates the Minister feels a need to liaise with First Nations women. I wish I could see more evidence of the Minister's concern for their need to liaise with other women's groups in the community.
We need to examine the overall set of values and priorities informing the work of the Minister. Before reviewing this government's record with regard to women's issues, it is timely and important to create a context that will allow for the kind of meaningful discussions we badly need to engage in.
Women's issues, so-called, have enjoyed considerable media and public attention over the last two to three decades, and this has been both a good thing and a bad thing. It was not so very long ago that Margaret Mitchell was subjected to jeers and laughter when she stood up in Parliament and raised the need for more shelters for battered women. This would not likely happen today, but what we do see happening today are cuts to the funding for women's shelters.
We also see what can be called the Oprah Winfrey level of consciousness, where people can tune in to almost any daytime talk show and hear sensational accounts about the horrors of wife abuse. The issues has certainly received lots of air play.
The problem is that the underlying attitudes, values and social structures that give rise to men's violence against women are almost never discussed and never examined. It is still not safe to do so, and we need to talk about why that is. We need to make a contribution to break through the murky rhetoric that distorts and obscures what is really happening in the lives of so many girls and women.
When Margaret Mitchell was jeered in Parliament, we were still struggling to have the fundamental truth about women's experience recognized and validated. In many ways, that continues today. Whenever women seek to accomplish this task, there are certain kinds of responses that are typically encountered. There is a history to the way that the state and its institutions respond to women's issues, and it is vital that we know that history and analyze it if we are at all serious about changing the status of women in our society.
I want to briefly go over that history, from the perspective of women who have worked very hard for many years and suffered hostility and ridicule, speaking out and working for change. I am not talking about cosmetic change, not the kinds of small alterations in thought and behaviour that leave us all still feeling very comfortable and self-satisfied when modest goals have been accomplished;
Page Number 2861
I am talking about the kind of real fundamental change that challenges our deeply held concepts and beliefs, that challenges cherished institutions and opens them up to a scrutiny that requires honesty and courage because it asks us to examine our own intimate interactions and relationships. This can be very difficult and unsettling.
Is it any wonder that when feminists, when frontline workers and activists first raised the issues of rape, of wife battering and of father/daughter incest, we were met with profound resistance and denial?
This is very typical when women try to influence the state to act in ways that would alter our social condition for the better.
The entire process goes something like this: a relatively small group of brave, concerned women, gradually increasing in size, attempt to raise an issue such as wife battering and are met with denial that the problem exists, or met with the denial that it is very not serious; or they are met with denial that the problem is nearly as wide-spread as claimed; or they are met with the concern that some men are battered, too.
Attempts to expose the seriousness and the dimensions of the problem are alternately ignored, ridiculed and attacked.
Finally, when enough voices are raised, there is some grudging recognition of the problem. When this happens, governments and institutions begin studying the problem for themselves.
What this means is that the tremendous amount of work produced by women's organizations, who deal with the issues on a daily basis, is ignored. Their work in defining and raising the issues is undermined and then appropriated to an institutional framework. This is done in a number of ways.
New studies have to be conducted by a whole new host of experts who claim to be objective, unbiased and professional in their approach.
One of the first and most dangerous things that they do is to create a new vocabulary in speaking about the issue. As many feminists have pointed out, language is a tool of ideology.
Government documents will use terminology that is neutral, vague and distant. What was once a women's issue becomes disguised as something else. In article upon article in professional journals we begin seeing terms such as "spousal assault, family violence, abusive couples, the assaultive party, the incestuous family" and "the problem of family sexual misconduct".
When the issue has essentially been buried in jargon and divested of any potential to change, then governments have no problem ordering special task forces, panels, surveys and commissions. The purpose of these is to demonstrate how the issue at hand can be quite adequately dealt with using society's existing institutions and resources.
There will be some talk about fine tuning our present system, and maybe some initiative to further raise public awareness of the issue now that it has been compromised and accommodated to the dominant interests.
Then money may be found to throw at the problem, or more frequently, the same old money will be reshuffled and relabeled, and made to appear to be new. Government will present itself as having taken action and the status quo will be preserved intact.
In recent years, governments have created special departments or ministries to make recommendations to other branches of government concerning issues of importance to women. The overall effect of all these reports, surveys, commissions and policies has been to short circuit the fundamental challenge posed by the issues the women's movement has tried to articulate and have dealt with. These documents adopt the language of the state and rework women's experiences and demands into forms that are more palatable to the interests they serve.
This has not always been a conscious intent on the part of those who work for women's directorates, who certainly have the best interests of women at heart and feel they are making a valuable contribution, but in addition to some of the useful projects they sponsor from time to time, they also bring things like conferences on violence against women, where it is unsafe to talk about men's violence in our lives and where survivors are exhorted to smile and forgive.
We need to remember that an unwavering, and, I suppose, inevitable, focus on acceptability, modest reform and fine tuning has been at the expense of real social change. Nothing less than real change will remove violence and injustice from our lives.
It is because of all this, that governments, and especially the Minister and the Women's Directorate, need groups like the Advisory Council on Women's Issues. It is important also that the Minister listens to groups like the Yukon Council on the Status of Women, the Canadian Congress for Learning Opportunities for Women and the Victoria Faulkner Women's Centre.
Women in these organizations, and the organizations themselves, challenge us. They shake us up; they refuse to speak in ways that leave us feeling comfortable and content. Without that, we are left with government lethargy and complacency. We cannot have a naive self-satisfaction about all the wonderful work that is being done when that work serves only to disguise the fact that it is change that we need, and that change has yet to be accomplished.
I think it is a shame if the Minister uses the survey to discredit, rather than listen to and work with, feminist voices in the Yukon. The Minister and the Women's Directorate need to pay attention to the issues that have been raised and the concerns that have been raised by women in the community.
We have to not protect the status quo, but act in the interest of women. The budget for the Women's Directorate lacks any outstanding features, but it does reflect something of the Minister's priorities. I am struck by the reductions in public information and family violence programs, which should, if anything, be expanded to reflect this government's stated commitment to zero tolerance of violence against women.
I am concerned to see that the public information program may be geared to the results of the women's survey, without also having input from women's groups that work with critical issues in women's lives on a daily basis. I note that the contributions to the Victoria Faulkner Women's Centre remain very low and, given the tremendous amount of work they accomplish in the community, that is unfortunate.
Like many other non-profit groups, they are forced to divert time and energy from program delivery to development of project proposals to bring in dribs and drabs of funding, which allow them to keep their doors open.
Without core funding, the contributions these groups are able to make toward significant action on social problems is seriously curtailed. This government knows that very well.
I would like to ask the Minister to explain some of the reasons for choosing the directions we see reflected in this budget. Perhaps, as a start, I could ask the Minister what his position has been in a number of actions that have been taken, which have changed how the government deals with women, or deals with women's groups. One specific example would be the Public Service Commission reorganization.
The Minister stated that employment equity guidelines, to determine when and how employment equity is to be applied to the staffing process, was in draft form and would soon be finalized. We also see the Public Service Commission reorganization changing how employment equity is dealt with.
Have any groups outside of government been consulted on the guidelines, and when can we expect to see them?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
That question would have been better
Page Number 2862
directed to the Member responsible for the Public Service Commission. I know that we work from time to time on issues such as this with the Public Service Commission and discuss it, but, as for the consultative process they carry out, that would be better answered by that particular Minister.
The Member, in her opening comments, commented on the direction we are going in this government, specifically in relation to the budget and where the budget is seeing reductions. I will be prepared, when we get more into the line-by-line debate of the budget, to explain the reductions, but what I tried to do in my introductory remarks was to point out to the Member how we were getting enormous cooperation from other departments, so we have become a lot more efficient and have actually saved money. In fact, with the secondments and with the First Nation trainees coming on board, it will allow us to do more with less and not diminish the programs we are carrying out now.
In fact, the Member would have to admit that in the last year or so there have been more public awareness campaigns than ever before and that the government has been very active in that. For the first time, we are taking action where action should be taken. We are not just doing another study. We are moving into the school system. We are involving the people within the Department of Education, who are very much a part of developing these programs. We are involving young women in the schools, and we focused on these issues.
These types of issues have never before been brought into the Yukon school system in the manner that they are now. This will be the first time and I think it will highlight in a much better way the issue. In fact, we are quite pleased - I am quite pleased - about the actions we are taking with respect to the programs that are now starting. We have just completed the A Cappella North study of young Yukon women in the last few years, which should give us a lot of information to work on. The survey we conducted ourselves gives us a wealth of information to deal with Yukon women's issues, and I will continue to listen to the feminist side of the women's issues. Many people told us, in the focus studies, that their views were not being heard - mainly, it was the First Nations women, who said they were not being heard and wanted to have a stronger voice. We are listening to that as well. We have to listen to all the groups.
Our focus in the last year or so has been on violence against women. We believe it is important that the attitudes of young men are changed at a young age. That is why our focus is on youth. Many of the programs that we have run in the last few weeks, and will be running this year, will be dedicated to youth.
The Member mentioned that we have to consult other groups. What groups do we consult? I can tell the Member that we have consulted many groups over the last year. We have membership on the Women in Government Committee, the PSAC Regional Women's Council, the Canadian Congress for Living Opportunities and we speak to the offices of the Status of Women Council on a regular basis. I can tell the Member that I believe I have not had a written letter of complaint from the Status of Women Council for at least a year on any issue. We have a very good working relationship with the Victoria Faulkner Women's Centre. I think they are happy with the relationship, as well, although we have not funded them as well as they have wanted in the past. However, I think they feel that the cooperative work that has gone on between the directorate and other agencies in government has been very productive and has helped them carry out many programs.
Perhaps it is a different way of doing things, but I think that money does not solve every problem out there all the time. The role that we have played in the last year is working with other departments, and making them realize the importance of the role of women in the workplace and in Yukon society. We have been successful in getting our message out with the help and cooperation of other departments. They have had the opportunity to see, as well, that we have to work together. I think we have been successful there.
Ms. Moorcroft:
I hardly know where to start. What a lot of hogwash we are hearing from this Minister. He talks about enormous cooperation with other departments. I can agree fully, because I have seen evidence of the directorate, as a department, cooperating and working with other departments; however, he then stands up and says that they are doing things that have never been done before. I have asked questions about the progress made on sex education in our schools and whether they are developing a family life curriculum. There was a vacated position that has not been filled for a long time, and that work could have continued had the department filled the position.
The learning for living curriculum, which I understand is the new sex education and family life curriculum, has one mandatory component that deals with AIDS. Can the Minister tell us how many schools are currently offering sex education, and what representations, if any, he has made to school councils to encourage implementation of that portion of the curriculum, because the whole idea of recognizing healthy relationships and healthy sexuality is the only way that we can stop the destructive behaviours that are so widespread today?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I can bring the detail back to the Member, but my understanding is that the Department of Education has encouraged all schools to develop the family life curriculum.
Ms. Moorcroft:
When it comes to specifics, I think the Minister should try to be a bit more prepared for things, especially on issues he has been asked written and oral questions on before. Can the Minister give us any information on whether eating disorders is recognized as a problem and addressed as an issue that our young people need to be educated about?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
The eating disorders issue is in the family life curriculum and, if it is being used in the school, then the issue is being addressed.
Ms. Moorcroft:
Perhaps he can bring back specifics on that.
I would like to ask about women's safety in the workplace. The directorate brought a speaker up to conduct some safety audits and to educate government workers about workplace safety. There are valid concerns in the workplace about the safety of the work environment.
Some time ago, there was some work done on new and leased buildings the government has its operations in. I would like to know whether inspections have been carried out, and whether changes have been made to those buildings, in order to address the safety concerns that were identified.
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
Yes, there has been some work done. For instance, I believe that there were assessments done of the visitor reception centre, the Whitehorse Elementary School and this building. It is my understanding that work has been carried out in those three areas, and assessments are ongoing.
We are working with the Department of Government Services, Department of Community and Transportation Services and the Workers' Compensation Board. I have asked the directorate to work with the Department of Tourism and the Department of Education in carrying out assessments of all tourism facilities and all educational facilities over a period of time. Some of the renovations can be quite expensive and some are quite minor in nature, such as adding another light, changing a workstation, a lock or the configuration of the office.
We are doing these audits as people are available to do them. I believe there was a training session to train several women in government to carry out these types of audits. The audits will be
Page Number 2863
carried out on an ongoing basis, and I think there is some money in the last capital budget in Tourism to finish the visitor reception centre, to address the needs of that particular building.
Ms. Moorcroft:
I am glad to hear that some of the renovations have been carried out, because I can tell the Minister that a number of women who work for the government were very concerned when the RCMP conducted a report and then said that the report could not be made available, because there are some safety problems identified. They were concerned that, by making the report public, the criminal element may be able to take advantage of the fact that some of the buildings are not safe places to work.
I would appreciate an assurance that personal safety will be an important consideration in government workplaces. The changes needed are not necessarily very expensive.
The Minister has been speaking about cooperation with other departments. This government has taken a number of actions that have hurt women and I want to ask the Minister what stand he took when those decisions were being formulated. What recommendations did the Minister make when this government decided to discontinue the victims of crime compensation program?
That program is of great benefit to women victims of male violence and affords them real choices and increased opportunities to regain autonomy and control in their lives. What did the Minister have to say about that initiative?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I do not completely share the view of the Member opposite that women are going to suffer greatly because of the change in the program. The Minister who was on his feet has talked to us about that program - and will, when we get to the Justice department - and the reallocation of funds and a better delivery of the program. I think, in some cases, it may benefit women more and I guess it is just a difference of opinion that the Member and I have. There are different ways of delivering specific programs and I think the Minister is looking at all these programs and is certainly taking women's concerns into consideration when he develops changes to the programs.
Ms. Moorcroft:
One different way of delivering programs that this government seems to favour is to discontinue the program. I am not sure that I can agree with the Minister that that is going to improve women's lives by actually discontinuing the program.
Can the Minister share what some of his thoughts were when the decision was taken to freeze the direct operating grants to day home and day care centres?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
These are questions dealing with another Minister. Maybe the Member should address those questions to that other Minister.
Ms. Moorcroft:
The Minister certainly seems to get rattled when he is asked to be accountable for being the voice at the Cabinet table for women to have equal status in society.
Women cannot participate in the workforce when there are no child care opportunities available for them to have their children in child care centres when they go to work. The freeze in the direct operating grants to day home and day care centres hurts the women who are parents of children, it hurts the women who are employed in those centres, and the whole notion of having a Women's Directorate is that it has to be collaborative with other government departments.
I would refer to the objective of the department, as stated in the budget book: "to co-ordinate a government-wide policy development focusing on concerns and priorities of Yukon women in the areas of education equity, equality in the workplace, equality in the justice system, women in the economy, prevention of family violence, education and training for women."
All of those initiatives cannot occur without this Minister taking an interest and working collaboratively in the decisions that are made in Justice, in Education, in Health and Social Services, the Public Service Commission and Economic Development. Did the Minister have anything at all to say when the direct operating grants to day home and day care centres were frozen?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I think the Member was here - I certainly was here - when the Minister of Health and Social Services was debating his budget. The budget amount for the day care space has, I believe, increased, not decreased, providing more day care spaces.
Ms. Moorcroft:
The Minister does not even understand the issue, and he is not answering the questions, so I can gather from that that he did not have anything to say, to stand up and defend the women affected by the cuts to the direct operating grants to day home and day care centres. That is really unfortunate.
Where was the Minister's voice when changes to social assistance were being made, which forces single mothers of two-year old children back into the workforce and off social assistance, even when there are very few jobs available?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I supported the Minister of Health and Social Services on that initiative, and I still support the Minister, and that is where the increase in funding for the day care spaces has come from. I will have to wait and see how the changes affect the people. The way it was before was also a bit unreasonable. This is a positive change. It is a change that is happening in other jurisdictions, and we will just have to wait and see.
It was not done without some compensation, or concern, about providing a number of child care spaces for these young women.
Ms. Moorcroft:
I would agree that it would be a positive change if women were able to lead independent lives. Their ability to lead independent lives depends on their ability to be economically self-supporting. I do not agree that forcing single mothers back to work is going to increase their independence, when there are no jobs available to them, and when there are shortages of child care spaces.
Did the Minister provide any input to the government regarding the removal of women's groups, such as the Yukon Status of Women Council, which advocates for women's equality, from bodies such as the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment? Did the Minister have anything to say about that?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I was in the House, as I am sure the Member opposite was, when the Government Leader talked about the makeup of that body. At that time, the Government Leader asked the Yukon First Nations Women's Association to be a member of that body. That was the group that was chosen to sit on that board.
There are many women's groups and organizations out there, and many other groups and organizations that would have loved to have had a seat on that particular board. To make the board functional and reasonable, and to be able to operate within a reasonable cost, we decided to keep the board small; therefore, not every single group could be accommodated. I think the First Nations women on the board are representing Yukon women very well.
Ms. Moorcroft:
I was in the House, but it seems that the Minister did not listen to the answers of the Government Leader. The Government Leader said that no women's group could represent all women.
We certainly agree that the Yukon Indian Women's Association is a valuable organization to have on the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment to represent the interests of First Nations women. I would point out to the Minister that the department whose budget he is defending right now exists to increase the participation of women in decision making and to work toward achieving economic equality for women. Why would
Page Number 2864
the Minister support having a representative of First Nations women on the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment but not one of a second women's group?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I thought I just answered that. I think that the First Nations women who are on that board can represent all the women of the territory.
I do not know what the Member wants me to do. Does the Member want me to take the other three or four women's organizations in the territory and insist that they be on the board, as well? I think that the Yukon First Nations women who are on that board have strong representation. They are making the views of not only First Nations women, but of all women, known on that board. I do not think they are the only women on the board. I think there are other women on the board, aside from the First Nations member.
Ms. Commodore:
The Minister is really missing the point in response to the questions from the Member for Mount Lorne. There is no doubt that the Yukon Indian Women's Association is a very valid and exciting organization of which to be a part. They do a lot of things. However, there is a big difference in the philosophies between what they and other women's groups represent. The Minister has to understand that.
I agree with the Minister when he says that the person who represents them on the committee is quite able to sit on the committee and do a good job, but he is really missing the point about what women's groups stand for and the kinds of things they are doing. When he says that a woman representing the Yukon Indian Women's Association can well represent all the women of the Yukon, that is not true. I speak as an aboriginal person, knowing that my philosophies and priorities are not exactly the same as others, because of the differences in the two organizations.
Ms. Moorcroft:
One of the most disturbing funding cuts that this government made was to shelters for abused women. I would like to know what the position of the Minister responsible for the Women's Directorate was when those deep funding cuts to shelters were made.
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I think it is unfair to say that these were the deepest funding cuts, because some of the increases were to these centres. I believe the Dawson centre saw an increase. Some of the centres that had funding reduced were used a very small portion of the time - they had full-time staff for five- or ten-percent occupancy. We are looking at finding another way to deal with that issue, which is a very serious issue, but not at a cost of having somebody there 24 hours a day, seven days a week. There should be another way to respond very quickly to that need, without having it fully staffed. I supported the Minister in that reasonable approach. We built a building in Watson Lake, for example, that cost an enormous amount of money and rarely gets used for the purpose. There has to be some help in Watson Lake for when it is needed, but I think we have to look, as any responsible government does, at a way of dealing with it so that we can deal with the issue at the time - meet the emergency - but not overdo it by having staff there all of the time, when there is no one in the facility.
Those are the kinds of changes that were made by the Minister, and I think that they are looking at ways of accommodating the needs of the women in the communities where there have been reductions in hours to find a fail-safe way of responding very quickly to those needs. I hope that that is what we can do.
I think to just look at it the other way, and just provide the funding and not be responsible - not look at the usage of the facility - is an irresponsible way to deal with it. I think that we should look at other ways of dealing with this issue, and that is what the Minister is doing.
Ms. Moorcroft:
So, 24-hour staffing of women's shelters is overdoing it. Let me tell the Minister that women are not abused between nine and five, Monday to Friday. Let me tell the Minister that if a woman has to plan ahead to make her escape from an abusive household, she cannot do it on set hours. What happens to the women who are often bringing their children with them when they come to a shelter; they get there and it is the middle of the night and the doors are locked? What happens? What other ways are they looking at doing it so that the Minister can stand up and blandly say that he hopes that they will accommodate the need? What reasonable approach has he got?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
One of the specific centres we are talking about had a four-percent usage. What they are looking at is other ways of quickly responding to that four percent and dealing with it in an efficient manner. That is what I am talking about. There may be a system in place, or will be a system in place, that will be able to respond on a 24-hour basis, but it may not be a person sitting in the shelter for 24 hours to respond in that way. There are other ways to do these things and still respond and meet the need when the emergency arises.
I agree with the Member that these things do not happen from nine to five; they happen at random at any time of the day or night - and usually later at night, I suppose, rather than the daytime as a result of other social problems. What we are looking at is just a different, more cost-efficient way of providing the same service but delivering it at a heck of a lot less cost than having somebody sitting there all day long for weeks on end with nobody coming to the transition home. In this particular case, in Watson Lake, that was the issue. There was a four-percent usage of the building over a period of time and they are looking at a more efficient way to deliver the service.
If the Member feels that that is wrong and that we should staff these buildings 24 hours a day, seven days a week, regardless of whether they are used or not, that is the Member's opinion, but I think we should look at other ways of providing a quick response on an emergency basis to the women in need. That is my concern - the response has to happen when the woman is in need and not a day after or a couple of days after, but there are other ways to do it.
I am not the Minister of Health and Social Services looking into this, but it was one of the concerns I raised with the Minister. I am hopeful that whatever they work out, they will take into consideration the wellbeing of the women who have to use these types of shelters.
Mr. Penikett:
I did not intend to get into this debate, but I am fascinated by the remarks the Minister just made.
What exactly does he mean by "four-percent usage"? I have heard statistics used in quite interesting ways over the last few months, but the way in which the Minister used this number does not convey any information at all. What does he mean by "four-percent usage"?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I believe the Minister tabled a document addressing the three transition homes and why the funding changes. When we talked about this one particular transition home, I believe that, over a period of several months, there was someone there for only four percent of the time. Some of the other figures were 23, 24, 28 and 30 percent, but this home was utilized about four percent of the time and they were looking at a different way of delivering the service.
The building requires a huge operation and maintenance expenditure. Many of the beds in the facility were rarely or never used. They were looking at a different way of delivering a similar service.
I can ask the Minister to get a hold of the document provided for the Member opposite, but I think it is the total time the building was actually used over a given period of time. This was not a one-month snapshot; I believe it was over a two- or three-month
Page Number 2865
period, which showed an increase in Dawson, a decrease in Watson Lake and Whitehorse figures remained similar to past years.
Mr. Penikett:
Let me record my concern about using this type of pseudo-statistic in this manner. If you say that a transition home is only used four percent of the time, it does not tell us whether it was a purely random event with a whole group of people being there during that four percent of the time, one or several victims.
It also bothers me because it seems to me that if Members opposite were true and sincere to the objective of zero tolerance, which was articulated in a motion put forth in this House, the objective ought to be zero percent usage, but still have the homes available and staffed for families in crisis.
The consequence - and not only in terms of cost to the justice system and health and social services system, but also in terms of human costs - of not having a shelter or sanctuary for people in crisis or under threat of violent assault seems, to me, to be enormous.
I am especially bothered by this knowing the absolutely vicious attack that was mounted on this shelter by Conservative forces in Watson Lake during the last election and during the period following the election. Reading the local newspaper from that community would make you sick. The personal attacks on the staff and the kind of pig-headed, red-neck hostility that was conveyed in the newspaper toward the shelter was really appalling.
I can well understand that a shelter in a small community can be a subject of controversy, that men whose spouses or children have sought sanctuary there feel embarrassed and enraged about it. But, that is not the problem of the women and children; that is not the problem of the shelters. It is the problem of the anger of the men who are the victimizers.
I want to say to the Minister that it seems to me that we ought to be very careful about the way we use a pseudo-statistic, a number like, "the shelter was used four-percent of the time over a certain brief period of time", to decide funding levels, because I had thought we had long passed that point. I thought we had reached the point in the House where we understand that in communities the size of Dawson, Watson Lake, Whitehorse and others, there had to be sanctuaries and that we had to pay the cost of the sanctuaries; we had to make sure they were staffed so there was support for families who arrived at them in crisis and that the whole notion of partial funding or part-time operation for such a sanctuary is just incompatible with the idea of sanctuary, with the idea of safety and with the idea of women's shelters. I am not asking the Minister a question; I just want to make that representation.
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I certainly support the Member's statement about achieving zero tolerance, and it would be nice if that is what we could achieve, but I think what we are trying to do in this particular case is to deliver the same quality service at lower cost. I think that is what the issue is here, a different method of delivering that service.
The test of time will tell, but one of my concerns is - and I am sure it is shared by the Members opposite - that we are able to respond in a timely matter to these issues, because that is the nature of the issue. They have to be dealt with immediately; that is when the women need shelter. To wait another day or a day or two to respond to it is not good enough. One has to be there at the moment. I think that all we are looking at here is a different way of delivering that service in some areas where there has been less of a demand for that service in the past.
I do not think that is bad. I think we will have to wait and see whether that meets the needs of the women in the communities, but I think that it will prove, in the long run, to be a more efficient way to deliver the same service.
Mr. Penikett:
I would just make this point, as the Minister did not respond to it: I believe that we need to have an increasingly wholistic approach to the problems of health, social services and justice, not a more departmentalized approach. I had hoped that the Government Leader, in absorbing his bible, Reinventing Government, had read the sections on that.
The Minister talks about quality of services, but I want to tell him that my belief is that these services, programs and situations for families at risk are linked. The probable consequence of cuts to the Watson Lake shelter, for example, will be to add costs to other programs in the health, social services and justice system. In fact, reducing the funding for a shelter like that to the point where it is not accessible to women and children in need, 24 hours a day, will probably simply be more costly to the government over time.
I am not expecting the Minister to agree with me, but that is my view.
Ms. Moorcroft:
I share the concerns the Leader of the Official Opposition just articulated. I, too, read a number of the letters to the editor in the Watson Lake newspaper, which were very hostile toward shelter workers, the women who dared to leave abusive relationships, and to the previous government for putting funding into providing shelter for battered women.
The Minister is talking about greater efficiencies, that they are trying to take a more reasonable approach, and accomplish the same thing in a timely and effective manner. However, the Minister has still not answered the question: how do they anticipate responding to an abused woman who comes to the shelter, and no one is there? What method do they have in mind for responding to the needs of abused women in the communities?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I think that question would be more properly answered by the Minister responsible for Health and Social Services, who will be preparing the response and putting the system together in Watson Lake that will deal with these issues. It is an unfair question to ask me. I have been assured by the Minister that women who run into these problems and difficulties will be responded to in a quick and efficient manner. If the Member wants details of that, it would be better if she asked the Minister responsible.
Ms. Moorcroft:
What I think is not fair is that the Minister can stand up and speak ad nauseum about safety for women, and say that this government supports a policy of zero tolerance of violence against women. One of the problems with phrases like that is that you do not have any definition of what it is going to mean. This Minister is defending a budget department that is supposed to advocate and coordinate government-wide policy on the prevention of family violence, but he is not prepared to answer specific questions about how they are going to accomplish that in the face of budget cuts to the Watson Lake women's shelter.
That is just one example of what I think is unfortunate about it. I do not have any further questions on that, because the Minister is unable to answer them.
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
The Member should know that, as a Minister in this government, or any government, you are responsible for your departments, and you are not responsible for all the details of everyone else's department. You deal with them on a more global basis, and you discuss the issues with them. I can tell the Member that the Women's Directorate has had a strong influence on many of the departments in this government, and on implementing programs that will aid Yukon women in the future. I am quite pleased with the work that they have done.
I cannot stand up and provide the Minister with details of a specific program, because it is not in my department. I cannot get into as much detail as the Minister can. In all fairness, the Member should have dealt with these kinds of questions with the Minister
Page Number 2866
responsible for Health and Social Services when he had his budget here last week. She never asked any questions then, because it was not an important issue.
Ms. Moorcroft:
We can see how important this issue is for the Minister responsible for the Women's Directorate, when he is prepared to sit there at the Cabinet table and say, "Okay, you have to cut the funding to the women's shelter down in Watson Lake there. I am only responsible for advocating for preventing family violence, but you say that you are going to deliver more efficient service, so that is good enough for me. Go ahead and make those funding cuts." That is what I think is really unfair.
I would like to move on and ask the Minister another question about another matter. This department, along with other departments, has been working on drafting a sexual harassment policy for public schools. The Minister has indicated he hopes the policy will be ready before September of next year, and that they have been talking to some young women at the Riverdale junior high regarding that policy and what is contained in it. Could a copy of the draft policy be made available to the critic, when it is ready for some input?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I have no problem doing that.
Ms. Moorcroft:
I know that when I talked to a number of young women who attend junior high schools in the territory, what they were looking for was really straightforward and should have been relatively simple to accommodate. They came together as a group to present a problem. They wanted to be able to ask an offender who calls them names, or threatens them, to apologize to them. They would like to see the other student having to sit down and apologize for calling them names in the school yard. I hope the really sensible suggestions that victims make, when they are faced with those kinds of harassing activities, can be addressed. I hope their recommendations can be adopted, and that there is not just lip service paid to the concerns of the students, because those concerns need to be taken seriously.
Ms. Commodore:
In the paper today - the Member for Mount Lorne may have asked this already - the Lady Beware course, which is part of the PACE program, has been scrapped. The Minister may or may not be aware of it. I would like to ask him a little bit more about it.
The course is open to women in their teens and older, and it focuses on teaching women to be aware of their surroundings, to listen to their intuition and to be conscious of their own skills in preventing, or escaping, an attack. Participants are also taught a number of self-defence manoeuvres.
I know PACE comes under the Department of Justice, and I will be pursuing this further in the budget debate on Justice. I would like to ask the Minister responsible for the Women's Directorate whether or not he was aware this was part of the PACE program that was going to be eliminated. As a matter of fact, they are having their last course tomorrow night. It offered a good service to women, who would have benefited from it.
I was told that the PACE program was going to be moved around and be more efficient. How can that be, if this is being removed from it?
Was the Minister aware of this? If so, did he make any comments about it?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I was not aware that tomorrow night is the last program. The Women's Directorate and the Department of Justice are working on other programs, but I would have to check with the department and see, if that program is ending, what programs they are putting in place to replace it.
Ms. Commodore:
Could the Minister let us know, if his department develops the program and implements it, when he expects that to take place, because a service that was benefiting women is being eliminated and if something is going to take its place and be as effective, certainly, women would like to know?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I will do that. I would have liked to have had that information here for the Member, but the deputy unfortunately had to catch a plane to go to a conference that I am leaving for tomorrow; she probably would have had that information for the other programs on which they are working. I will get that information and bring it back to the Member.
Mr. Cable:
There was an interesting article in one of the newspapers last week about the glass ceiling and where women's advancement potential in business is hindered by the fact that most businesses are run by males. Some statistics were quoted that the rate of business formation by females is higher in Canada. Does the Minister's department, the Women's Directorate, collect information relating to business formation by gender, here in the territory?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I suspect that that kind of information would be collected by the Bureau of Statistics. I am sure they would have some information on businesses owned by women and that kind of thing. I do not recall seeing any of that information recently, but I would imagine it is available, because they do extensive statistics on that kind of thing.
Mr. Cable:
There was also an interesting comment or statistic to the effect that more women were employed by women-owned businesses than by businesses owned by males. Has the Minister's department done any work whatsoever in relation to this thing that is called the glass ceiling - the promotion of women in business?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
We are always working with various groups like the Women's Business Network and other groups in promoting women in business. I believe we worked with the Department of Economic Development and put together a course on home-based business, because many women now are getting into home-based businesses. We have worked with them on those kinds of programs, but I am not aware if any program like that is running at the present time.
Mr. Cable:
The purpose of the article was to indicate that perhaps the glass ceiling problem may eventually resolve itself by the fact that women's business formation rates were higher.
There is another problem that has been identified with respect to women in business and that is the lending practices by the banks. If I recall it correctly, I believe the Yukon 2000 exercise identified this as a problem for women who approach bankers. Women believe that they are treated differently by bank loan officers. Is there any work being done in that area by the Women's Directorate?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I believe that there were some comments made like that in the focus group testings that we carried out with Yukon women. That is an area that we will be looking at addressing in the near future. That is a concern that I have heard from women, time and time again - that they are treated differently when they walk into the bank and require a loan for their business. It seems that they require more collateral or have to have a man sign a loan form to get the loan, which is quite ridiculous. I hope that this will change and we are looking at that through the focus group testing.
Mr. Cable:
Has the Minister approached the local bankers? There are only five local banks to deal with the issue.
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
Not that I am aware of.
Chair:
At this time we will take a brief recess.
Recess
Chair:
I will now call Committee of the Whole to order. Is there any further general debate on the Women's Directorate?
Ms. Moorcroft:
Can the Minister tell us what is on the
Page Number 2867
agenda for the conference he is about to depart to for Ministers responsible for the status of women? Also, what is the Minister going to say on behalf of Yukon women at that conference?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
Off the top of my head, violence against women is one issue. Another issue is the proposed social changes by Mr. Axworthy. There are several other issues on the agenda. What I can do is get a copy of the agenda and make it available to the Member. I will certainly be representing the Yukon's views on all of these issues. I can provide a briefing to the Member when I get back regarding the position we take on various issues and the results of the discussions.
Ms. Moorcroft:
I have to say that, given the previous debate we have had here on the Women's Directorate budget today, I am concerned about what the Minister will have to say about violence against women, for one. I have no further questions for general debate. I am prepared to clear the lines if the Minister gives us a brief explanation as we go through them.
On Policy and Program Development
On Activity
On Policy and Program Development
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
The increase to four percent is a net result of the following: the decrease of the directorate spending of $6,000 through reduced Yukon bonuses and reduced wages; an increase in personnel of $20,000, reallocated from within the directorate budget to cost share the six-month secondment from Education; and further reduction in employee and other travel of $3,000.
Policy and Program Development in the amount of $279,000 agreed to
On Public Information
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
The decrease of 15 percent is as a result of reallocating contract dollars to personnel for the purposes of cost sharing the six-month secondment from Education. The rationale for reallocating dollars to personnel is as follows: the funding for the director's salary was provided for a one-year secondment. The Department of Education agreed to cost share a six-month position to the directorate, and the Public Service Commission has agreed to provide the directorate with a one-year native training corps position. Through these arrangements, the directorate has actually increased its staffing for this year and will require less funding to provide for outside contractors for project work.
Ms. Moorcroft:
I would like to clarify that. On the public information reduction of $21,000, is that $21,000 going to be applied to personnel elsewhere? Can the Minister explain that?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I believe the $20,000 has moved from the public information line to the policy and programming line to provide for part of the salary of the secondment from the Department of Education.
Ms. Moorcroft:
What publications and public information initiatives is the department planning to carry out through the coming year?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I would have to bring back a list of the projects we are going to deal with in the next year for the Member.
Ms. Moorcroft:
I would appreciate the Minister bringing back that information, as well as a breakdown of how the $46,000 in family violence is going to be spent. I also want to note that there is a $21,000 reduction in public information, and there is only an $11,000 increase in policy and program. I understand that there is a transfer of funds from the public information line to the policy and program development line, but there is a lesser increase in policy than there is a decrease in public information.
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I think we will be able to provide a better service, because we will now have two more people in the department - a secondment from the Department of Education, plus the native corps worker. The First Nations worker will be someone who is paid for by the Public Service Commission, which will cost us nothing, and Education is paying half of the other individual's salary. We are going to have more resources within the department to work on some of our campaigns and activities, so I think we are going to be a little more efficient in providing information from the department.
On Activities
On Public Information
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
There is a decrease of 21 percent as a result of the reallocation of contract dollars to personnel, and reductions in general advertising and program materials.
Public Information in the amount of $79,000 agreed to
On Family Violence
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
The two-percent reduction in the area of family violence and public awareness is the transfer of the administration of the sexual assault/family violence information line from the Women's Directorate to the Department of Justice.
This line is staffed by the family violence prevention unit and operated through their telephone numbers. It is more efficient to administer this line through the Department of Justice. This does not decrease the level of service in the area of family violence, but increases the efficiency in delivering a service.
Family Violence in the amount of $46,000 agreed to
Public Information in the amount of $125,000 agreed to
Women's Directorate agreed to
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I move that you report progress on Bill No. 15, entitled Second Appropriation Act, 1994-95.
Motion agreed to
Bill No. 33 - An Act to Amend the Yukon Advisory Council on Women's Issues Act
Chair:
Is there any general debate?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
The amendments that we have before us are minor. Basically, the amendments have been presented to make the Yukon Advisory Council on Women's Issues an advisory body to the Minister and to reduce the number of required meetings from six to four.
Those are the basic changes in the act. They are minor in nature. We see the Advisory Council on Women's Issues as being an advisory body to the Minister, providing advice about issues affecting Yukon women, as well as recommending to the Minister various projects that should be funded in the future.
Ms. Moorcroft:
The Minister specifically characterizes these amendments as being minor in nature; nonetheless, the effect of these changes is to reduce the number of meetings that the Advisory Council on Women's Issues will have. It is also to reduce the ability of the advisory council to conduct, research and complete projects and develop programs. The initiative is in the opposite direction to what the previously appointed Advisory Council on Women's Issues recommended to occur and the amendments are making the advisory council less of an arm's-length advisory group and more of a group over which the Minister can keep control. The amendment repeals the council's ability to obtain project or operating funding from the government, and it also represents cost-cutting measures.
I wonder whether the Minister will be appointing women to the Advisory Council on Women's Issues who take a position of believing that women should have equal status in society, or whether that philosophical belief will not be one he necessarily thinks women on the council should hold.
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
That is a philosophical belief that I believe in very strongly and of course I will be appointing women with that belief to this board.
Mrs. Firth:
Could the Minister just tell us what the status of
Page Number 2868
the board is? Are there any members left on it? The last we heard, there was one member from the previous board. If there are no members on the board, could he tell us when he is planning to get this board re-established and all the appointments filled?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
The last time I looked, there was one member left on the board. I will be looking at establishing a new board. As for a time line, I would hope that advertisements asking for women to put their name forward will be going out very shortly, within the next couple of weeks or so, and that the board will be up and running by mid-summer - maybe sooner if possible - but I am not sure how long it takes to go through the process of advertising. I would imagine it would take six to eight weeks to get things up and running, but as soon as possible is when I would like to get the board established.
Mrs. Firth:
Advertising for membership is something that other boards do not do. How is this process going to work?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I will be writing to all the various women's groups in the territory, as well as asking independent, individual women in the territory to submit their name, if they are interested in sitting on a board that would provide advice to the Minister on issues relating to women. That is basically how we will receive names and submissions.
I do not intend to strike a board made up of women just representing a group, but I have no problems with groups nominating women to sit on the board.
Mrs. Firth:
The Minister is going to write to women's groups. I am interested in the comment he made about approaching independent, individual women to sit on the board. What does all that mean? Who is he going to approach?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I mean other Yukon women who may not necessarily belong to a women's group or organization. I will also be writing a letter to the MLAs, asking them to suggest names of women who may sit on this board. We will just be asking Yukon women to put their names forward, if they wish to sit on this board.
Mrs. Firth:
The reason I am following up on this is because the government does not have any clearly defined policy with respect to recruiting membership of boards. It is something about which we have asked the Government Leader. The last time we had this discussion was when we discussed the Yukon Update, and the membership for boards was advertised there. I am curious about the Minister's comments with respect to his process for recruiting the membership for this particular board.
I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens. I will follow up with the Government Leader later and see if there is any consistent policy in place for recruiting board members. I know it is not the practice of the government to advertise for membership on the boards in the newspapers, or to use that kind of procedure. I will just wait and see. Obviously, this Minister has a different approach.
Mr. Penikett:
I am pleased to see the Minister will be inviting other nominations, but I also notice that this government has not been appointing anybody but Tories to boards. Can I ask him if being a feminist or being a New Democrat would be an absolute prohibition to membership on this board, or is there a possibility of someone who is an articulate member of the left or a committed feminist getting on this board under the Minister?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
All Yukoners will be considered for the board. In fact, if the Member looks at the boards and committees that I have had anything to do with, he will note that there are many people who I know are supporters of the party opposite that are on these board and committees. I certainly would not consider their political stripe as making them either favourable or unfavourable candidates. I think all Yukoners have a role to play on a board such as this, and all Yukoners will be considered.
Mr. Penikett:
I thank the Minister for his remarks. Perhaps he could give us a list of these New Democrats, because we cannot find any on these boards. If we get a list, we can go check them out.
Ms. Commodore:
I find this really interesting. The Minister is going to be writing to all women's groups and he is going to be asking for nominations for people to sit on this advisory council. He is also going to be asking independent women if they are interested in sitting on this council. I would like to ask him how he determines which independent women he is going to be writing to to find out if they are interested in sitting on this council. He also said that he was going to be asking MLAs to provide nominations to him as well. If he ends up with possibly 50 names, how, in the end, is he going to determine who the board people are going to be? If each MLA provides him with a nomination of some kind - maybe one or two, or whatever - how will he finally determine who those council members will be?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
It will be done the same way as it was by the previous government. We will look for a rural/urban balance; we will look for First Nations and non-natives on the board; we will look for business people and others on the board. There will be a balance on the board. That is how it was done in the past, and that is how it will be done now.
Maybe I used the wrong term when talking about the independent women. Other Yukon women will be invited to sit on the board, whether or not you describe them as independent. They are independent of organizations. Perhaps they do not belong to the Status of Women Council or the Yukon First Nations, or the Indian Women's Association. There may be Yukon women out there who are not a member of any Yukon women's association but who have genuine interests and concerns about women's issues in the territory and would like to serve on the board. When we place the advertisement, these women can submit their names and a resume, saying that they feel they can play an important role, and we will certainly accept nominations from other Yukon women who wish to participate on this board.
Ms. Commodore:
I guess I am a little concerned about these women whom he is going to be writing to, and how he is going to decide who he will write to. Also, is he setting a precedent? Are we going to be requested by that Minister, and other Ministers, to submit nominations for other boards, because this is a wide range from which to seek nominations for this committee. In the end, who knows what is going to happen.
It appears to be new, and possibly could end up causing him a bit of a problem. If he ends up with maybe 50 nominations, and he ends up choosing eight, or whatever - I cannot remember the number - somehow or other he is going to have a list of criteria about what he expects these women to be - he says he is going to have some rural, some urban. When he writes a letter to the MLAs asking for nominations, is he going to include the terms of reference for the council members?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
Yes, there will be terms of reference, but they are fairly broad terms of reference: women in the territory who are interested in forwarding the goals and aspirations of Yukon women. It will just be general.
I am not going to write to individual women. If I left that impression with the Member, I did not mean to. I will be writing to the groups that are out there now, and asking them to send in nominations, if they wish. I will be writing to the MLAs, asking if they want to recommend somebody, and I will be asking Yukon women, in general, in an advertisement, if they wish to participate. I will not be writing to anybody individually, saying that I think she would be a good candidate. The women will have to take the incentive on their own, when they see the ad, and that was the intent of it.
Ms. Moorcroft:
This bill indicates to me, sadly, that the
Page Number 2869
Minister is determined to block progressive action on women's issues in the Yukon. He refuses to recognize the need for input and independent work by an advisory council that is truly at arm's-length, that can set its own agenda and determine its own priorities in its support of, and cooperation with, other women's groups working on equality issues.
Then, the Minister stands there and talks about wanting to approach independent women about serving on the council. How will he determine a genuine interest in women's issues, and what does he consider to be the test of how women are forwarding goals and aspirations of Yukon women?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I will be looking for a cross-section of Yukon women who have worked in, are involved in, and are concerned about, issues that affect women in the territory. All this board has to do is to set up an advisory council to the Minister - to whichever Minister, whether it be myself or someone else in the future - to advise the Minister on issues pertaining to Yukon women. I think it is an important body, and I think it will cover the wide scope of issues that affect women - from violence against women, to employment equity, to the programs we develop in our schools, to working with other women's organizations in the territory. So, I see it as performing a broad role on any issue affecting Yukon women - bringing it to the attention of the Minister, making recommendations, or working with the various groups and organizations that are assisting women in the territory. I see it performing all those roles.
Ms. Moorcroft:
The Minister says this is going to be an important body, but I would like to point out that, so far, this government has demonstrated a total disregard for the needs and concerns of women in this territory. The Minister completely tarnished his credibility this afternoon by standing up and refusing to come forward with any information about how they are going to meet the needs of abused women in the territory. He is supporting the funding cuts to the shelters on the basis that a 24-hour transition home service is just not efficient. I have a lot of concerns about this government further tarnishing its credibility by failing to pass the Yukon Advisory Council on Women's Issues Act, before seeking passage of the amendments that are going to weaken the council's role and effectiveness. How the Minister can stand there and say it is an important body, when he has before us, right now in the House, amendments to weaken the act, I do not know.
Can the Minister tell me if he will need Cabinet approval for the people he chooses to serve on the advisory council?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I will seek Cabinet approval for that. I can tell the Member that I really take offence at her comments that this government is doing nothing for Yukon women. In fact, we are doing an awful lot for Yukon women. I did not want to have to get into this and go through it all afternoon but, as the Member keeps saying we are doing nothing for Yukon women, I will have to list the things we are doing.
First of all, we had a series of workshops in the last little while - Proud and Aloud. This two-day workshop was co-sponsored with the Victoria Faulkner Women's Centre, for young women ages 12 to 20, and covered such topics as children growing with abuse, emotional wellness and self-esteem, self-defence for women, dealing with social pressure and peer pressure, goal-setting for teens, the Theatre of the Oppressed and the Yukon Educational Theatre, which the Member herself attended and said was great but, all of a sudden, this government is now doing nothing for Yukon women.
Creating Chance - this was a program where two black belts in karate conducted a one-day workshop for women on understanding the art of self-defence - defence first, yourself, the body weapon, recognizing the uniqueness of a situation, and after an attack. The People's Forum - this was a three-hour evening workshop for parents and teens at Hellaby Hall. It was also held at an assembly at Porter Creek Junior High School and facilitated by the Yukon Educational Theatre. This presentation was based on a participatory theatre concept, whereby the audience was invited to enter a number of scenes to change situations of oppression to ones of mutual respect.
Life by Design is a 10-hour workshop, facilitated by Nansi Cunningham for F.H. Collins, as part of the family management program at the Teen Parent Centre. Some of the topics covered were the following: brainstorming on life by design; procrastination and obstacles; line mapping; action steps to make change and reach goals; characteristics of an effective goal; and recognition and appreciation.
Another program was called I Stand for Peace. This workshop was facilitated by Devon Taylor, addressing the forms of verbal, physical and sexual violence between teenage peers. The primary goals of the workshop were to create awareness on the scope of peer violence, provide alternative attitudes and behavioral choices to teach specific skills that empower teens to make appropriate choices in facing violent situations, and to create a way to end the cycle of reoccurring violence. The workshop was presented to grades 7, 8 and 9 at G.A. Jeckell.
Shirley Lockwood facilitated a communications workshop for F.H. Collins, called Building Bridges, as part of the family management program of the Teen Parent Centre. This was on perceptions, feelings, language and usage, listening and speaking skills, body language, attitude, intention, individual clarity, and cultural and individual predispositions. The workshop was conducted over a 10-hour period.
In the Name of Love was facilitated by Arlin McFarlane, of the Yukon Educational Theatre, and Carl Dorman, conducted two workshops in the evening, each three hours long, on relationships between adults and teens. Some of the topics covered were the following: commitment; respect; communication; history; projection; dating violence; and sexual assault. This was a very successful workshop, and continuation over a longer period of time was recommended by the participants.
The workshops were very successful, and the evaluations were glowing with positive feedback from all the participants, but perhaps not from the Member for Mount Lorne, who thinks that we are doing nothing for Yukon women and young Yukon women. However, all the participants who sat in on those programs thought they were great programs. Many participants requested that some of the programs be continued.
As well, we did the A Cappella North study about Yukon women, and the Canadian Teachers Federation sponsored a series of regional conferences in January of 1993, that brought together resource people from schools, government, community groups and organizations.
The Yukon was left out of the initial study, but the Women's Directorate is spearheading this project now and, in May of 1993, the director hired a student, who consulted with 20 young women, aged 13 to 19. These young women developed a series of scenarios for facilitators to carry out the study on northern Yukon women.
I can go on and on, if the Member wants. I have a briefing book available where I can go page by page, and we will be here for hours and days, talking about the programs that we are carrying out for Yukon women.
I am extremely pleased and proud of the work that the Women's Directorate has done, and of the cooperation that we have received from other departments, but it seems that it is just not enough for the Member opposite.
I am sorry, but I think that we are doing an outstanding job. I think that there is a lot more work to be done, but I think that we are doing an outstanding job and getting a lot of cooperation from
Page Number 2870
many of the groups which, a few months of ago, were very upset and concerned about what this government was going to do for women. Many of those groups are now quite pleased with some of the activities taking place, and we are seeing real movement in many areas.
I take offence when the Member stands up and pretends that absolutely nothing has happened and nothing has been done since her government left power. In fact, much more has been done now. We are adding to many of the programs that were started by the previous Minister and we are going a lot further when it comes to youth. As for violence against women and sexual assault, we are moving much further than the previous government in those particular areas.
I know the Member supports that, but one would never know that by her comments in the House. She rises and says that we are doing nothing for Yukon women. That is an unfair statement and a slap in the face to the women who have worked so hard with the Women's Directorate and other organizations to develop and deliver these programs to the young people and the women of the territory.
I really take offence to the Member standing up and saying things like that. If the Member wants to stand up and say we are not doing anything for Yukon women, she had better be prepared to qualify it. I will go on and on. I have a briefing book full of a dozen or more issues that I can talk about today.
We are involved in various public awareness campaigns - sexual assault prevention month is an example.
There is a class set on sexual assault prevention. Booklets and teaching guides have been sent out to all Yukon schools. Perhaps the Member did not know what happened last month, sexual assault prevention month. Perhaps I should refresh her memory. She has a mindset that we are doing nothing for Yukon women.
The Member says we are not communicating with others, but the directorate is sharing an ad hoc community-based committee with representatives from mental health, the family violence prevention unit and the Victoria Faulkner Women's Centre.
Some of the activities planned for this month are as follows: class sets of sexual assault prevention booklets and teaching guides have been sent out to all Yukon schools. Again, I mentioned the Proud and Aloud conference. There was a series of posters and print ads developed that address youth and communications. A series of brown-bag lunchtime presentations for the general public are being co-sponsored by the Women in Government Committee and the Women's Directorate. If the Member opposite took the time to attend some of these lunches, she would see that the Women's Directorate is actually doing something. The Member claims we are doing nothing. Perhaps if she attended some of these lunches, she would see things differently.
The businesses were encouraged to participate in the monthly events. Several have indicated an interest. Hougens will carry out a promotion, with the proceeds being donated to the transition homes. The Women's Directorate has contracted the Yukon Educational Theatre to present participatory forum theatre on dating violence for the general public. F.H. Collins MAD students are the actors for this theatre event. I could go on and on and on.
I do not think the Member wants me to do that. I think she may now have a different impression, that the Women's Directorate is active, that there are some very positive things going on out there for women in the territory. We have not solved all the problems, not by a far cry, but we are working on solving many of the problems and we are doing it in a more cost-efficient manner than was done before. I think that striking this Advisory Council on Women's Issues to provide more input to the government and to let more women have a say in what government does, is an important step. I urge the Member to support it. It appears now, from what the Member is saying, that she does not support an advisory council to the Minister, and I am disappointed in that. We will have to wait and see when it comes time to vote on it, if she really is prepared to support such a program.
I can go on. We are working on and developing a few more programs. I can go on and talk about them if the Member wants me to, but I think the Member should be very careful when she rises in her place and says we are doing nothing, because, in fact, we are doing a great deal.
Ms. Moorcroft:
What a lovely little tirade to respond to. I did not see the Minister at any of the brown-bag lunches that I attended at the Women's Directorate during sexual assault prevention month. In fact, I did not see him at any of those events that I attended, and I can assure him that I attended more than one of them.
The Minister referred to the class sets they had delivered to the classrooms during sexual assault prevention month. That is exactly the kind of information I have been asking the Minister to bring back to us - to know how many classrooms actually used those class sets and delivered curriculum that will help change society's violent attitudes toward women. I think that that tirade was a very classic example of a disrespectful attitude. We can hear the Minister stand up and read off his briefing notes when he has them prepared for him. Those workshops and programs were all ones that we were talking about during the debate on the Women's Directorate.
The Minister is saying that I think that they are doing nothing. No, I do not think they are doing nothing. I know that the Women's Directorate is delivering workshops and programs, and we have been talking about that in the budget. I know, too, what this government is doing - what they are doing is demonstrating a disregard for the needs and concerns of women in this territory.
What did the Minister have to say when I asked him where he stood on the elimination of the victims of crime compensation program? He thought they could do it more efficiently. What did he have to say about the social assistance cuts to single mothers? He supported those. He supported the cuts to the transition home funding. He supported the cuts to the direct operating grant funding for child care centres.
This Minister should just stop and think about the effect of his words when women want to know what this government is doing. This Advisory Council on Women's Issues amendment, which is the bill before us, is where I expressed concern about the fact that they are undermining the independence and effectiveness of the board. They are yet again turning their cost-cutting scissors to a women's advisory group; they are reducing the minimum number of meetings from six to four; they are changing the act so that the council will have less independence and not be able to set its own agenda - to strictly be advisory to the Minister. Frankly, I have a lot of concerns about that, given the record that this government has for cutting programs that affect women's lives.
Chair:
Is there further general debate?
On Clause 1
Clause 1 agreed to
On Clause 2
Clause 2 agreed to
On Clause 3
Clause 3 agreed to
On Clause 4
Clause 4 agreed to
On Clause 5
Clause 5 agreed to
On Clause 6
Clause 6 agreed to
Page Number 2871
On Title
Title agreed to
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
Mr. Chair, I move that you report Bill No. 33 out of Committee without amendment.
Motion agreed to
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I move the Speaker do now resume the Chair.
Motion agreed to
Speaker resumes the Chair
Speaker:
I will now call the House to order.
May the House have a report from the Chair of the Committee of the Whole?
Mr. Abel:
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has considered Bill No. 15, entitled Second Appropriation Act, 1994-95, and directed me to report progress on it.
Further, the Committee has considered Bill No. 33, entitled An Act to Amend the Yukon Advisory Council on Women's Issues Act, and directed me to report it without amendment.
Speaker:
You have heard the report from the Chair of the Committee of the Whole. Are you agreed?
Some Hon. Members:
Agreed.
Speaker:
I declare the report carried.
GOVERNMENT BILLS
Bill No. 33: Third Reading
Clerk:
Bill No. 33, standing in the name of the Hon. Mr. Phillips.
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I move that Bill No. 33, entitled An Act to Amend the Yukon Advisory Council on Women's Issues Act, be now read a third time and do pass.
Speaker:
It has been moved by the Hon. Minister responsible for the Women's Directorate that Bill No. 33, entitled An Act to Amend the Yukon Advisory Council on Women's Issues Act, be now read a third time and do pass.
Motion for third reading of Bill No. 33 agreed to
Speaker:
I declare that Bill No. 33 has passed this house.
ASSENT TO BILLS
Speaker:
I would like to inform the House that we are now prepared to receive the Commissioner, acting in his capacity as Lieutenant-Governor, to grant assent to certain bills that have passed this House.
Commissioner enters the Chamber announced by the Sergeant-at-Arms
Commissioner:
Please be seated.
Speaker:
The Assembly has, at its present session, passed certain bills to which, in the name of and on behalf of the Assembly, I respectfully request your assent.
Clerk:
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act, 1994; An Act to Amend the Yukon Advisory Council on Women's Issues Act.
Commissioner:
Thank you, Mr. Clerk.
Mr. Speaker, Members of the Legislative Assembly, I am pleased to assent to the bills as enumerated by the Clerk.
Commissioner leaves the Chamber
Speaker:
I will now call the House to order.
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I move the Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve into Committee of the Whole.
Speaker:
It has been moved by the Hon. Government House Leader that the Speaker do now leave the Chair and that the House resolve into Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to
Speaker leaves the Chair
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Chair:
I will now call Committee of the Whole to order.
We will recess until 7:30 p.m.
Recess
Chair:
I will call Committee of the Whole to order.
Bill No. 15 - Second Appropriation Act, 1994-95 - continued
Department of Tourism - continued
Chair:
Is there any further debate on Tourism?
Mr. McDonald:
There are a few little points that I would like to discuss before we clear this line.
Firstly, I would like the Minister to provide us with the lapses from last year to provide us with a sense of the base requirements for this year in operations and capital.
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I can provide that information in a couple of minutes when the official arrives.
Mr. McDonald:
The cavalry is coming, so I am sure that we can get information in short order.
There are a number of items that are funded under the economic development agreement and presumably there is some dependence built upon economic development agreement funding.
First of all, as a general proposition, could the Minister tell us what happens when the economic development agreement no longer exists? Does the Minister have information that the federal government is going to sign a new agreement? Does he have information to the contrary? Can he tell us what organizations are currently being funded by the economic development agreement that we might have to anticipate if this agreement is not signed?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I have no idea what is going to happen with the economic development agreement. I believe that the federal government has told everyone that these kinds of programs will be phased out. There is talk about the Yukon eventually being involved in the western diversification fund, which has been used in British Columbia, Alberta and, I believe, Saskatchewan, set up to do extensive marketing in Europe.
At this time, there is no confirmation one way or the other. This year I believe there is $1.9 million in the economic development agreement. This decreases a bit next year. This is the largest year for the tourism economic development agreement.
Mr. McDonald:
I guess the fundamental question is what is being done with groups that have been gaining access to funds through the economic development agreement. What is the government doing to prepare them for the tap for that particular funding source being turned off? Has the government or the department given any consideration to some strategy that would allow the groups that are worthy of continued funding to access it? Will there be a program established for that purpose? What is the government's thinking on that front?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
Certainly, many groups that are involved in the tourism economic development agreement are aware that the five-year agreement is expiring. We will have to let them know shortly if there is no hope of that program being continued.
Page Number 2872
However, we are exploring other avenues within government for programs that might deal with tourism and tourism-type infrastructure in the future. There have been no decisions made at this time.
One of the areas we are looking at is the western diversification fund, and whether or not we can access and use that in the future. There are other Yukon government programs, as well.
I can tell the Member that, over the next couple of years, one of the priority areas of the economic development agreement will be anniversaries - the upcoming gold rush centennial and the other anniversaries - and we will try to put in place the necessary infrastructure for the future.
Mr. McDonald:
Perhaps the Minister could tell us what the funding terms for the western diversification fund are? What kind of discussions have taken place in an effort to gain access to that particular fund?
Clearly, there is probably some support in this Cabinet for cutting the economic development agreement, given the lecture we heard this afternoon about not wanting to burden the federal government with high demands, such as infrastructure program funding or perhaps the economic development agreement. There does not seem to be a lot of support in the government for loans and grants for that matter, which would really characterize a whole lot of what the economic development agreement provides. I am always intrigued by the messages I receive from the government side with respect to these matters, because it always seems to be a bit of a challenge to piece them together and get some consistent position. I would like to ask the Minister, after he provides me with some more information on the western diversification fund, what the department is planning, or whether or not the department has given any thought to planning for the closure of this particular funding source.
The Minister is saying that the anniversaries are going to be drawing heavily on the economic development agreement. Clearly, if the economic development agreement does not exist in a short while, that is going to eliminate a funding source that would obviously be fairly critical for anniversaries - even though the anniversaries are primarily taking place in 1996 and 1998. Can the Minister elaborate a little further on that point, particularly with respect to planning for the tap being turned off.
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
With respect to any of the funds the Department of Tourism might be accessing to supplement their marketing budget, many of those programs are in their first or second year, and we will be evaluating those programs after this next year, and then determining whether or not the funds should be in the A-base budget in the future and whether we can continue in that marketplace.
The economic development agreement has provided an avenue for the department to look at; for example, the European program. Again, this winter we will be looking at a better-organized winter tourism program. We will also be looking at the results of those programs.
The Member asked me earlier about lapses for the Department of Tourism. The lapses are $148,000 in operation and maintenance, $230,000 in capital, with a $30,000 revote requested.
Mr. McDonald:
The Minister did not get around to talking about the western diversification fund.
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
The western diversification fund was raised at the western Premiers meetings, and other meetings we have had with the western Premiers, regarding the Yukon being part of that. From speaking to the Government Leader, my understanding is that the western Premiers were not against it. Therefore, it is something we are going to be looking at being included within, along with the Northwest Territories. This is basically a huge infrastructure fund for the western provinces. We hope the north will be allowed to enter that program and to access some of those funds.
Mr. McDonald:
What are the terms of reference of that fund?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I can ask the Minister responsible to obtain that for the Member. I would not care to speculate at this time - I just know that I saw one document that was prepared on the tourism side. It was a joint tourism-marketing plan for Europe, with, I believe, British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan. Those three provinces had worked together and put together quite a very nice booklet for tourism marketing in Europe that they were using for the wholesalers and others. Noticeably absent were the Yukon and Northwest Territories. We are hoping that when they do these kinds of promotion again we can tie into their programs and benefit from those programs like we do now with Alaska. The idea of cooperative marketing is really where it is at.
Mr. McDonald:
Perhaps when the terms of reference come, we will be able to determine precisely what the Yukon government wants to join and whether or not it is going to meet our needs here. The Minister will know that there have been fairly extensive debates in this Legislature about the terms of reference for the economic development agreements. So, certainly, if the government is anticipating wanting to join with the western diversification fund - knowing what its terms of reference are - then they presumably would agree with those terms of reference. It would be worthwhile to have some debate in this Legislature before any agreements are signed, if such eventuality comes to pass.
Perhaps the Minister could give us some information about the future of a proposal that had been floated when the western diversification fund was first announced by the Progressive Conservative government. Understanding there to be a western diversification fund and something for the eastern provinces, we in the north promoted a northern diversification fund to cover the needs of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. Can the Minister tell us whether or not that was floated in the context of the discussions with the federal government?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I am not going to tread into these waters. These talks went on between the Government Leader and the first ministers of other provinces - the economic development ministers of other provinces - in recent meetings. I was not present at those meetings. All I know is that, when we had a briefing on what went on in the meetings, we were told that this was one area where it came up. I have not seen the terms of reference of the western diversification fund. It is all quite premature, but we all know that, within two years, something is going to happen with the EDAs and the concern for many is that the EDAs are going to cease to be. They are going to suffer the cutbacks of the Liberal government in Ottawa. So, when they cease to be, then we are going to have to look for other avenues that are available to us. One suggestion was this fund, but I know no more than that. I have not looked into it and that is where it stands at this time. I would prefer not to comment on the fund and what is going on with it.
I am not aware of the northern diversification fund that the Member mentioned. I have never heard of it.
Mr. McDonald:
First of all, as a general proposition, the Minister is very much in favour, I take it - and the Minister can correct me if I am wrong - of the replacement program that is jointly funded by the federal and territorial governments providing for roughly the same kinds of support programming that the current EDA provides. Is that true?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
We certainly need an infrastructure-type fund. Who funds it is another question. One of the things we talked about, as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, and as other members of that committee know, is that one of the areas we were going to look at is the successes and failures of the EDA and
Page Number 2873
the grants and loans program, but we never did get around to that. Although the EDA program was a good program in some respects, I am not sure that every story was a success story but, when one has a young economy like we have, EDA programs are useful and do help build the type of infrastructure we need to develop to improve the economy in the long term.
Mr. McDonald:
That was a very carefully crafted response; however, as much as I would like to move on to the next subject, the Minister has tried to make it seem as benign as he possibly can, given that we know that various Ministers have enunciated conflicting positions on this question. I am going to have to ask the Minister for a little bit more information about what he wishes to see happen for tourism.
He has characterized what he wants for replacement funding as being something like an infrastructure-type fund, to use his words. Does that infrastructure-type fund involve the provision of any kind of financial support to individual businesses - whether they be loans, loan guarantees or grants of some kind? Does the Minister anticipate that individual businesses will have the ability to access any of the funds under a new agreement?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I can tell the Member opposite that I am not a great supporter of grants, but I do not have as much of a problem with loans as long as they are repaid, and we have been through that in the House.
With Yukon's young economy, as I mentioned, perhaps some program of some type should be in place. I think the economic development agreement has worked relatively well in many cases, but it is probably going to cease, by the sounds of things.
If we are going to continue building over the next five or six years, we may have to find some other way to do so. If government has to assist in the economy by providing some of the necessary infrastructure through economic development agreements or through assisting other groups and organizations, that may be an avenue that we may have to choose.
I support the existing economic development agreement and I think that it should be evaluated for its usefulness and performance. I think that there has to be some kind of program in place to build infrastructure for the future, because we certainly need infrastructure.
We are being told by many of the large tour companies wanting to expand in this territory that there has to be more to see and to do, and there has to be more of a reason to stop and stay in the Yukon, otherwise the Yukon is going to be a territory that tourists will pass through.
Mr. McDonald:
I will not say that I agree or disagree with the Minister. I am just trying at this stage to get a clearer focus on what the government is promoting. I think the great ideological divide that has separated various Members' opinions in this Legislature, including Members on the government side, appears to be whether or not the infrastructure to individual businesses should be provided by or through a program sponsored by the government.
The Government Leader - the Minister of Economic Development - who will ultimately presumably be negotiating a replacement program for the economic development agreement, has made it very clear he not only does not support grant funding, although he is probably better acquainted with the joys of grant funding than virtually anyone else in this Legislature, but he is also opposed to loan funding by government. He is apparently actively requesting the banks to replace the government's responsibility in this area altogether.
Obviously, this will have to be decided in Cabinet at some point. We will probably hear all the Ministers stand up and give resounding speeches about how they are all in favour of whatever consensus comes out of that process. Right now, we see many different positions being taken.
The Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission believes we should not be looking to the federal government for any support whatsoever in this particular area, because these special infrastructure funds, as they are outside of the normal funding sources, are putting an unwarranted burden on the federal taxpayer. He did chastise the Yukon Party this afternoon for having dared to promote this socialist dogma about loans and grants programs that might be jointly funded by the federal government.
There is also the position taken by the Government Leader - the Minister of Economic Development - who does not want to see any government involvement in any programs such as this, presumably including any program that the Minister is promoting. The Minister has a position, which is probably closely aligned to the official position of the last government and, in fact, the previous PC government, which means he is probably a majority but possibly a minority in Cabinet - we are not sure yet - and about which we will not know until the decisions are made. His position clearly suggests that there may be some division of opinion that may have to be rationalized in some way.
The Minister indicated that he was eager to promote a fund that supports infrastructure. What does he characterize as being infrastructure? Is it the expansion of businesses or can it include marketing in the context of tourism funding? Would it also support industry organizations in the form of core funding for groups such as, for example, Tourism Industry Association, or any other industry organization that has a common purpose to develop and promote the industry?
I am sure he has given a lot of thought to what he is specifically referring to, because there has been a fair amount of discussion about what is appropriate funding and what is not. What is he looking at promoting for the industry? What can the industry expect?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I do not think that programs such as an economic development agreement should necessarily be used for the core funding of an organization like the Tourism Industry Association or another tourism organization. In the past, there have been various studies done on infrastructure needs in the territory. It has certainly been used to fund some marketing in the past, and it will be used for that in the future. I see it being used in the future as leverage money where a certain amount is put in, and a certain amount is leveraged out of the fund. It could be used as a cooperative marketing program where several individuals, or whatever, put together a project or a plan and leverage it out of there.
As well, for an infrastructure-type program, I see it mainly being bricks and mortar - being something permanent - possibly a Canyon City development, or Whitehorse waterfront development, or some other major development in the future that is going to be here for years to come and will show benefits for Yukoners for years to come and not just something that is here today and gone tomorrow. It would be something a little more permanent that all Yukoners will be able to see benefits from for a long period of time.
Mr. McDonald:
I thank the Minister for that answer. Can he tell us whether or not industry can expect that program funding will be relegated - for the private sector, at least - for individual businesses particularly - only to loan funding, and that we would rid ourselves of the evil grant?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
That is far too premature. We have two more years of the economic development agreement, and I think that as the economic development agreement winds down there will be future announcements about whatever programs will be available to the private sector, whether it be loans or grants or
Page Number 2874
whatever. I do not make that decision alone; I am sure that will be a Cabinet decision. I am not going to speculate on what the program will look like when it is finally announced. We have really not talked much about it until now, other than the fact that there may be a need, once the economic development agreement runs out, to develop another program.
Mr. McDonald:
The Minister will be aware that one of the reasons we like to raise the issues now is because it usually takes a couple of years to negotiate the terms of a program of this size and nature. If we do not get our licks in early - do it now, not later - in terms of trying to understand what the government's position is, and in trying to get the government to move in ways we feel are appropriate, we will simply be responding to the ministerial statement, saying the agreements have been struck.
Is it not fair to say that, given the Government Leader's comments about loans and grants, we can tell our constituents that the possibility of grant funding will be nil, unless it is forced upon us by the federal government? Is that not right?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I think it was clear from our four-year plan, as well as from statements made by the Government Leader, that we are not fond of grants. I have also said here that we are not fond of grants. We feel the preference is loans for businesses and those types of programs. When you are talking about businesses, it is a fair comment that it will be loans, rather than grants.
Mr. McDonald:
The same will be true for business organizations?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
That has not been decided yet.
Mr. McDonald:
I know none of this has been decided yet but, in terms of the government's priorities, and the position the government is taking, they would frown upon grants to business organizations - or any organizations. We would be looking at loans - repayable funding - throughout. Is that right?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
Is the Member talking against grants for infrastructure? What is the Member talking about now - core funding? The Member is losing me on exactly what he is talking about.
Mr. McDonald:
The Minister has already indicated that he does not believe a new economic development agreement should be used for core funding, because it obviously provides core funding now to at least two organizations of which I am aware. I am not talking about TIA. I am not talking about tourism projects; I am talking about the principle of economic development agreement funding.
Now, with respect to economic development agreement funding, is it the case that the government would not be promoting anything other than loan funding to individual businesses or business organizations, for any purpose? Are we talking only about loan funding that is repayable to the public purse, or is that too much of a generalization?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
There has been no decision made on that at this time.
Mr. McDonald:
No, I know we have not made a decision. I am trying to get the government's position. What is the government's position with respect to economic development agreement funding, or even some of economic development agreement funding or child of economic development agreement funding? What is the government's position with respect to funding for business organizations? Does he believe they should be given funding that is non-repayable?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
There has not been a decision made on that yet, and when there is, it will be announced.
Mr. McDonald:
The problem is that when the government does get around to announcing its position, we are going to be told something about the evil Liberal government forcing them into it. I want to know whether or not the government is going to have a position.
Let me ask this question of the Minister: would the Minister commit to giving us a position as to what they are seeking in a new agreement prior to the signing of a new agreement, so at least we will have an opportunity to try to influence the government or give the government a round of applause for having got it just right before we get the final product, so we do not have to have the artificial debate about whether or not the evil Liberal government has forced us into doing things that we did not want to do.
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
That decision has not been made yet. I cannot tell the Member what our position is going to be until we sit down and discuss the matter and discuss renewing the economic development agreements, or find out what the federal government is going to do with the economic development agreements and look at our options. We have not got to that yet, so there really is no overall government position on that as yet.
Mr. McDonald:
I have already moderated my expectations in this discussion. I did not ask the Minister if he would now tell us his position. I asked him whether or not he would tell us the government's position on these very important questions before a new economic development agreement, or the next generation of a federal financial commitment to provide for infrastructure support is signed so that we would know what the government's prime negotiating position is. Will the Minister commit to providing us some information about what they are seeking in those negotiations?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
The current agreement has two years remaining. There will be many more legislative sessions before the two years expire. I am sure that there will be all kinds of opportunity to talk to the Minister of Economic Development and me about our position. Our position will be well known prior to the expiry of the existing economic development agreement.
Mr. McDonald:
Okay, so the Minister is then committing to have discussions prior to the signing of any new economic development agreement - am I correct?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
If we are talking about embarking on a new economic development agreement, I am sure that the Member will be aware of the position of the Yukon government before we initiate the economic development agreement.
I suppose that there will be some discussion with other groups, but we still have two years before we get to those discussions. If we get into another economic development agreement, I am sure that there will be ample time to discuss how the agreement will work.
Mr. McDonald:
Frankly, I would be shocked if I believed that the Department of Tourism and the Department of Economic Development were not planning their position for a new economic development agreement right now.
Certainly, by this time next year, the bargaining positions will be fairly well set and if the government does not have any preliminary thoughts about the matter, I would recommend that they tool themselves up and have those thoughts.
I will take it as a commitment from the Minister that we will discuss this matter prior to the signing of a new agreement or the agreement-in-principle surrounding the new agreement.
The Minister indicated, as a general proposition, that they would be promoting only loans to private business. Given that there is a fair amount of economic development agreement funding now provided in grant form, is it well known in the industry that funding for such things as marketing, for example, which businesses have found useful in the past, is not being promoted for the future? Does the Minister have a fair appreciation from the industry that they support that position?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I have already said that marketing is one area to which we were giving consideration but, again, we have
Page Number 2875
not drawn up the criteria for the future so we have not made a decision one way or the other on what it will look like. Of course, any future EDA will have to be negotiated with the federal government and, as I said earlier, there probably will be lots of time for debate in this House, or elsewhere, when we get closer to the date. At this time, there has been no decision made one way or the other. The Member asked me earlier about my preference and I said I preferred loans over grants, but we certainly do not have anything carved in stone at this time. I also said that, in this particular year, the Department of Tourism is using the EDA to carry on some of its marketing projects.
Mr. McDonald:
The reason I am pursuing this matter is that, frankly, I despise fait accomplis. There is far too much in this Legislature already. I have been in a position where I have asked questions about the government's position on things and there is no position right up to the time they have taken a position. Then, after the position is taken, if there is any unsavoury element to the agreement, it is usually somebody else's fault. Then I ask myself what the point of the legislative debate is - do we simply question what the government has always done that puts us in a reactive position and always makes us on this side of the House look negative? We want to look as positive as possible. I do have thoughts about how the funding program should be promoted and I certainly would like to hear more about what the government is doing.
As I pointed out at the beginning, because we see contradictory positions being taken by various Ministers, it suggests that there may be room to analyze these programs further. I do not know whether or not the new program or new EDA would have loans or grants, and I do not know whether or not it is going to be primarily bricks and mortar infrastructure or whether there is going to be marketing.
I do not know anything I can feel comfortable with. If I asked the Minister about training, I am sure he would stand up and say, "Yes, I support training." This could be loans or grants; it could be infrastructure; it could be bricks and mortar; it could be marketing; it could be training; it could be anything.
Unfortunately, it does not lend itself to a very productive debate. Due to the fact that funding through these programs has become such a significant element, in terms of providing industry support, this is obviously of interest to us on this side. It is certainly of interest to me.
For the people who have questions about the economic development agreement funding or this kind of funding program, I invite them in now.
I would like to pursue, for a moment, the question of the arts policy. The Minister has indicated that the arts policy will be finished this year. Can he give us a rundown on what has happened?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
The policy has gone through the process of consultation. It is now being prepared in first-draft form. It is hoped that by fall the policy can be put into place. So far, it has just gone through the consultative process. I imagine that there will be some future consultations on the drafts and some opportunity to look at them before they are put into their final context. The goal is to put it in place by the fall.
Mr. McDonald:
Regarding the report that the government commissioned, there were a number of community meetings. There were some documentation or written submissions presented to the government. Can the Minister tell us whether or not the report is done? Has it been made public? If not, is the government prepared to make it public? Are they prepared to list or make public what they have heard? Can the Minister elaborate on that?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I think the plan, as far as I understand it, is that once it is in its draft form, groups and organizations will have an opportunity to view it.
I forget the number of participants they had. They had over 50 meetings. There were 16 public meetings in communities around the territory. About 188 people participated in the process, representing over 48 organizations. As well, they received 12 written submissions. My understanding is that they feel that they have enough information now to put a good policy together. Before it becomes the policy of the government, we will probably run it out there one more time, so that the groups can have a look at the draft policy as it is written.
Mr. McDonald:
I thank the Minister for that information. The basic question was whether or not there would be a summation of what the government had heard through the first round of consultation.
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I can get back to the Member on the process, and also let the Member know what the time line is. I can get back to the Member on that early next week.
Mr. McDonald:
When does the Minister anticipate the first draft being published?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I understand it is just about at that stage now. We are almost at the draft stage. I would have to check on that, but when I talked to individuals in the arts branch a few weeks ago, they were pretty close. The consultations had been completed and they were putting it all together. I imagine it is pretty close right now.
Mr. McDonald:
Can the Minister tell us why the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment is getting involved in the arts policy development? Is this something the Minister has promoted? How is the Council on the Economy and the Environment going to fold into this process, particularly if they decide to carry out their own public hearings?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
My understand is that they are looking at the economy, sector by sector, and the arts is one area of the economy they want to look at. I did not specifically write them a letter and ask them to deal with the arts. That is something they chose to do. I think they are also looking at all the other segments of the economy, and the arts is one they are planning to look at sooner rather than later. That is my understanding.
Mr. McDonald:
I am quite puzzled by the choice of the Council on the Economy and the Environment to pursue the arts as the first sector in a sectoral analysis, largely because there has been consultation up to this point, and there has been some expectation that the process, sponsored by the Minister, is going to lead to some productive conclusions. Everybody who has been engaged in the arts consultation, up to this point, got the distinct impression that the consultation sponsored by the Minister was the consultation of record. They have expressed some surprise about what the terms of reference might be for a review done by the Council on the Economy and the Environment. While they may be doing some analysis as to the economic impact of the arts on the territory, how the arts industry is being conducted would be the subject of some review.
There may be recommendations coming out of the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment's process that may conflict with some of the thinking that may be in the first draft policy. Now that, in itself, may not be a bad thing, other than the fact that it does provide for a very confusing process. Given that there is a long list - a list as long as your arm - of things that the Council on the Economy and the Environment could be doing - everything from fishing to agriculture to mining to small business development and aboriginal business development - there are so many things that have not been reviewed at all by the government or by anybody. One wonders why the council has chosen the field of the arts, when the Minister appears to have devised a process that many people in the arts community have
Page Number 2876
bought into. They are eager to see that process through to its conclusion, and it is hoped they will be happy with the results.
Frankly, they are very puzzled and worried about what the Council on the Economy and the Environment might have in mind. As I have mentioned, I, for one, am more than just a little bit puzzled, given all of the work that I know the Council on the Economy and the Environment could be doing that is currently not an active part of the department or the government's agenda, but are areas of review that would be well supported by the public. Yet they have chosen to overlap and to consider a subject that the Minister already has his department considering.
I am puzzled. If the Minister can clarify this, and provide a neat separation of the two processes, I would be happy to hear it. I would say to the Minister that the public is confused, and, at a minimum, there ought to be some public relations campaign that will distinguish between these two processes. I will point out that all the public has seen of the Council on the Economy and the Environment is a very lengthy public process on gambling. When they think about the Council on the Economy and the Environment doing its work, they think of a process like the process it undertook with gambling.
They are already anticipating more public meetings on arts policy development, the economy and the arts, et cetera. Is there such an easy delineation between the two processes? Is the agenda that has been promoted and supported by the council and supported by the Minister of Economic Development written in stone, or is there a chance that the process that the Minister has devised will see its way to completion without other organizations interfering with it?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I think the Member has a good point. I hope there is some flexibility in the Council on the Economy and the Environment's plans, because I would tend to agree with the Member opposite that we just went through an arts policy consultation process and, over and above that, we have also done some work on the economic impact of the arts. That is the very thing at which the Council on the Economy and the Environment is looking. We will certainly be communicating to the Council on the Economy and the Environment that we have this information. I think it would be somewhat repetitive to have them go back out and talk to the same people and hear the same things all over again. If we have the information, I would be more than happy to let them know that we have done some of this work and we will provide any information they need to the Council on the Economy and the Environment so they can gain the information they need from that sector.
I agree with the Member; there appears to be duplication and I was surprised when I heard that was the first area at which they were looking. I will ask the department to contact the chair of the Council on the Economy and the Environment and let them know exactly what we have done and see if they can use any of the information we have gathered.
Mr. McDonald:
I would recommend to the Minister that he encourage the Council on the Economy and the Environment to commence some comments about the department's first draft policy, and then get on to other business, because there is lots of it out there.
If the Council on the Economy and the Environment is looking for ideas, Mr. Preston can give me a call and I will give him a lot of ideas. All of these ideas will have absolutely nothing to do with existing processes that may be undertaken by the government.
I only fear that the next thing the Council on the Economy and the Environment will be promoting is a tourism summit that they are going to conduct on their own, or maybe there will be a housing conference. Perhaps they could be engaged in activities that would allow them to till fresh turf in the process.
One of the offshoots of the arts policy review is that the cynical arts organizations - perhaps with a jaundiced view of what they can expect from a generic government - suggested that this may be the precursor for a new, rationalized funding system meaning cuts to their programs and organizations.
Does the Minister anticipate cuts, or is he aware of cuts to arts organizations, from the Arts Centre to the Yukon Arts Council?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
As far as cuts to overall programs in the arts, I cannot anticipate anything at this time and there is not anything planned. I can tell the Member that the Yukon Arts Council, in the recent disbursement of funds from the Yukon Recreation Advisory Council arts subcommittee, received substantially less than monies received in the past.
Mr. McDonald:
I will deal with my question right now. What was the rationale for reducing the Yukon Arts Council funding?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
The Yukon Recreation Advisory Council arts subcommittee felt the Yukon Arts Council was not performing its intended function and that more money should go into the individual organizations.
When it came time for disbursement of funds, the recommendation was made that funds be disbursed among organizations such as SYANA, and other organizations, and reduce the funding to the Yukon Arts Council.
Mr. McDonald:
There has been, in the past, a fair amount of discussion about the role of private sector arts groups, particularly the Arts Council, versus the organizations that are in part supported by, and in some cases appointed by, government, such as the Arts Centre Board. Could the Minister tell us what he sees as being the breakdown of responsibilities between the organizations such as the Arts Centre board and organizations such as the Art Society, which is essentially run by interested citizens and artists themselves?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
Is the Member asking the question in relation to the Arts Council? The concern regarding the Arts Council is that it simply was not representing its members as well as it had done in the past and that more of an emphasis should, at this time, be placed on the organizations themselves. The concern was that in the future the Arts Council should be more representative of the art groups that it represents, and the government has sent that message in a fairly clear letter to the Arts Council, laying out what its expectations are and pointing out why the funding was reduced.
Mr. McDonald:
To the Minister's knowledge, what has the reaction of the Arts Council been?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I have not spoken to anyone from the Arts Council, but I do not imagine it will be favourable. It is a substantial reduction, and I imagine they will have to do some reorganization to survive.
The letter I have seen went out on June 4. I imagine the Arts Council has just seen it.
Mr. McDonald:
I suppose the best time to comment on the subject would be next fall, after we are in a position to see what the arts policy is like and what the government's thinking is once it has solidified a bit.
Historically in this territory, there has been a fair amount of tension between organizations, such as the Arts Council and private sector arts organizations - private sector meaning those that do not owe their existence to government - and those organizations that do owe their existence to government, such as the Arts Centre board and YRAC; the appointments of both are made by the government. Although there are some controls and laws as to how those appointments are made, they are nevertheless made by government.
I can sum it up by saying that the private sector groups that are
Page Number 2877
made up, quite often, of artists themselves, feel somewhat resentful that organizations that are appointed by government will be deciding their future, or at least their funding.
I am sure I am not saying anything new to the Minister, but I do know that that has been the subject of some lively discussion in the past. I have no doubt that it will be the subject of some considerable discussion in the future. I do remember, though, that when the move was made to provide more control to the Yukon Lottery Commission, which had to happen at the expense of private sector groups, the Arts Council and Sport Yukon resisted it to a certain extent.
There was actually quite significant resistance to that in the Legislature, as I recall. It appeared that the Member for Porter Creek East led the charge, objecting to that particular move.
It is a sensitive area, and I would be interested in knowing how the government is rationalizing that.
I do not know if the Minister has anything to say on that point.
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
In this particular case, I think the Member is correct that there has been some skepticism in the past about the appointed boards making these decisions. However, my understanding of this issue is that the usefulness of the role of the Arts Council was spelled out in the consultative process for the arts policy. Many of the individual artists and groups came forward and said they did not feel the Arts Council was serving their needs as well as it could. That, again, is what has come from the advisory body. The arts subcommittee of YRAC has said the very same thing, that they felt they were not serving as useful a purpose as they could.
This one is not necessarily driven by YRAC, or the arts subcommittee. It has been driven by the artists themselves, who were a little discontented with what was happening with the Arts Council. That is how I understand the issue. There are some concerns, and they have decided to address them with the funding this year, through a reduced amount going to the Arts Council, and an increased amount going to the individual organizations, like the Storytelling Festival, SYANA, and several of the others that are involved in that. They received more funding, whereas the Arts Council received less.
I should also point out to the Member that, in the June newsletter of the Arts Council, they commended this government for recognizing the importance of the arts sector in generating employment and spending in the Yukon.
I think there is a bit of an appreciation out there for the work that is being done on the arts marketing side and in developing the arts policy, as well as on the economic impact of arts. There are some positive things happening in the arts community, but there are some concerns about how the Arts Council is functioning, and those concerns emanate from the various individual artists and groups that are the membership body of the Arts Council.
Mr. McDonald:
We will see if the work that the government and YRAC have done will ensure that there is no controversy coming from this decision. I will also keep my ears open.
I would like to ask a series of short questions of the Minister. First of all, on the Anniversaries Commission and the funding for various projects, as well as the commission itself, can the Minister tell us specifically what the commitment to the Anniversaries Commission is for operations funding, over what period of time, and what the commitment is for project funding?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
The commitment from the Government of Yukon is the $285,000 in the O&M budget, and that is strictly for the O&M of the commission. It is an annual one-year agreement. We talked about a three-year proposal, but it is a one-year agreement that has to be approved every year.
As to project funding, there are various other programs available - community development fund, the economic development agreement, and other programs - that individuals can access right now, but there is no specific anniversaries project fund they can access.
The Anniversaries Commission has done some work on marketing, wordmark labelling, and that kind of thing, and they have accessed the economic development agreement for hiring a professional individual outside, who does these kinds of events, making sure all the ducks are lined up when it comes to trade marks, and that kind of thing. That was accessed through the economic development agreement, and they have received some funding through there.
Chair:
At this time, we will take a brief recess.
Recess
Chair:
I will now call Committee of the Whole to order.
Mr. McDonald:
With respect to project funding for the Anniversaries Commission, I woke up to some very imaginative person on the radio the other day, talking about all the good projects they wanted to see take place for the anniversaries - everything from bridges over the Yukon River to a gondola up to Dome.
There appeared to be some expectation that some of these projects would be put in place for the anniversaries - in the 1990s, not in the year 2090. Given that the community development fund is about to bite the dust, and given that the economic development agreement is only one year behind that schedule, can the Minister tell us what planning is taking place in the department to establish priorities for funding for projects, and to determine how the funding might be put together?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
One of the things that we have done is to ask the departments to prioritize projects now under the community development fund and under the economic development agreement that have an anniversaries component to them. Those will be the types of projects that will receive some priority. There will be other projects done, but we would like to see the majority of those funds directed somewhat in that area to prepare ourselves for the anniversary. As well, the western economic development ministers spoke about the western diversification fund. I do not know what is going to come of that, but it is another area we can explore. We are also looking at other opportunities available to us here, but there has been no decision made on any program at this time. It would be premature for me to make any statements about any program like that.
Mr. McDonald:
Who is going to be recommending the projects for priority for funding to the government? Is it the Anniversaries Commission?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
No, not necessarily, but it could be. Groups could possibly approach the Anniversaries Commission with a particular project in mind. It is hoped they will not come only to government for funding; groups would look for corporate sponsorship.
I know that the Anniversaries Commission is working on that angle with various organizations and corporate businesses throughout the world who will sponsor various projects or events. They will be assisting them in that way. In fact, that is one of the major roles of the Anniversaries Commission - helping put the sponsor together with the group or organization planning the project. I hope that that will happen over the next few years.
The 1995 plans are pretty much in place with the RCMP centennial. They have done a great deal of their planning. Many of the events are already planned, staged, and sponsored by various groups. In fact, the RCMP have sponsorship from both Holland-America and Princess for many of their events. We are looking at the first planning of projects in 1996, 1997 and 1998.
Page Number 2878
Mr. Penikett:
Could I ask if the American gentleman, who donated large amounts of money to the Conservative Party - or the Yukon Party - and who is moving, with his company - White Pass - to Skagway, is still chair of the Anniversaries Commission?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
If the individual the Member is talking about is Mr. Taylor, yes, he is still the chair of the Anniversaries Commission, and he is doing a very commendable job.
Mr. McDonald:
In January, the Minister indicated that, in the spring, he would be sitting sitting down with groups for a one or two-day session to help define the roles of the various groups and organizations that have an interest in tourism - anything from TIA, or chambers of commerce, to the Wilderness Tourism Association, the Arts Council, the KVA or the Anniversaries Commission. There are obviously a fair number. One of the issues at the summit was how these organizations would rationalize their activities to get the biggest bang for the public buck, at least, that was being invested in many of them.
Given that there has been some opportunity to help define their roles, what has happened since the December sitting?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
There was a meeting held in, I believe, February. It was in the education building. There were 20 to 25 participants at that meeting who discussed the role. As a result of that meeting, one of the recommendations was the need for an umbrella organization to truly represent all sectors of the industry. The umbrella organization was described as being similar to TIA. Since that time, TIA has done a lot of work in meeting with other organizations, such as the KVA and the Anniversaries Commission, as well as other groups, such as the Wilderness Association, and so on, in an effort to gain their confidence and become the one umbrella organization.
The concern I had, as Minister, was whether or not we would be able to assist and core fund an umbrella organization. We did not want to get into funding all the smaller and regional organizations, as it could be very expensive and counter-productive, when there are only so many dollars to go around. We felt we should be trying to get the best bang for the buck and have one organization that, for the most part, could represent the tourism sector of the territory and provide advice for the Minister on various tourism-related issues.
Mr. McDonald:
As far as the government is concerned, the Tourism Industry Association is going to be the organization of record, at least as far as government funding is concerned?
Other organizations, which may feel the Tourism Industry Association does not represent their interests, will have to financially support themselves. Is that the way the Minister sees it?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
We certainly fund one tourism organization, and that is the Tourism Industry Organization, as an umbrella organization. I would not want to see two umbrella organizations. I think we have got to work together.
We are a small jurisdiction and, if one were to go to the State of Alaska and sit in on their marketing council meeting and the Alaska Visitors Association, as I had an opportunity to do last fall, you would see that they work well together, as a large group, in looking at global tourism issues.
As the Member knows, it is a huge world out there in tourism marketing. The last thing we want to do is to spend our energy, time and money arguing and fighting among ourselves, taking our dollars and going our separate ways. We should be pooling as much of our money as we can, and drawing in the resources of all of the people in the industry in marketing the Yukon.
Once we get the people here, the various groups and regional organizations can market or attract them to our area, but when we do our overall marketing, we need to be working together as a group, or we are not going to be successful, because we do not have the dollars that bigger countries and provinces have.
We are in Europe this year with a $300,000 program. The Maritime provinces have banded together to be in Europe with a $14 million program. When you look at what we are doing in comparison to what they are doing, we have to be very efficient and effective in our marketing, or people are not going to know that the Yukon exists.
Mr. McDonald:
I am not in disagreement with the Minister with respect to the questions about marketing, but clearly there has been some division of opinion between various organizations and the Tourism Industry Association about who represents whom. As far as I am aware, some of that divided feeling continues and it is hoped that the good works of the Tourism Industry Association or the diplomacy of the leaderships of all those organizations will be able to resolve divisions of opinion that may occur from time to time.
There have been some concerns about the role of government on the Marketing Council, and the Minister promised that he would be looking at defining the role of the department on the joint Marketing Council. Can he tell us what his thinking has evolved to on this subject?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
One of the issues that arose out of the summit was a more open Marketing Council. Another issue at the summit was the lack of understanding of what the Marketing Council did. There is now a new executive director in TIA and that individual is a co-chair of the Marketing Council with our director of marketing. The last meeting the Marketing Council had in Whitehorse was open to the public and several individuals attended. I was a little bit disappointed because some of the individuals who were most critical about the Marketing Council did not show up at the meeting. If these people are going to criticize what the Marketing Council is doing, then they should at least go to the meeting and see what its role is and how it functions. I would hope that, next time the Marketing Council has a meeting, these individuals will take the opportunity to attend. The Marketing Council was very open in their meeting; they had a question-and-answer period at the end of the meeting for anyone there to ask questions about why they were doing this or why they were doing that, and that would have been a great opportunity for these individuals to express their views.
For the time being, I think the structure of the Marketing Council is a reasonable one. I am not sure whether the Member is aware of this, but there are several new members on the Marketing Council bringing in new ideas and new input. I heard from the new council members that they are quite excited about some of the things that are happening and much more aware of how we market and where we market and why we market. I am hopeful that the people who are critical of the Marketing Council will take the opportunity to come to the next meeting, which I am sure will be well publicized, and I would encourage the critic opposite and any other Members who are interested in what we are doing in marketing to attend the meetings. It is quite fascinating to learn what is going on and what our marketing role is in the world.
Mr. McDonald:
Certainly, attendance at meetings to resolve differing views is always a good idea and, particularly, if one has taken the trouble to fancy oneself as a critic of the system, it would obviously be a good thing that one stick around for the real debate.
So, the Minister is saying, essentially, that the structure of the Marketing Council remains as it was, with renewed vigour to see that it works and to ensure that its actions are explained better to the industry. Is that right?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
First of all, the Marketing Council has produced a new brochure. The brochure is laid out similar to one that we saw in Alaska, laying out what the functions of the Marketing Council are. We have opened the meetings up, and we
Page Number 2879
have included new members in the meetings.
I would like to try that first, before we go through a whole revamping and restructuring of the Tourism Marketing Council. I think the Tourism Marketing Council process does work. It is driven by the private sector participants who are on the council, so I would like to give that a try first. From the comments of the people who attended the first meeting, including the observers, they felt it was much more open and much more easily understood. I hope we will be able to continue with that process.
Mr. McDonald:
On a different subject, on the visitor reception centres around the territory, someone expressed a concern to me recently that they were open a week later than they were last year, and they are scheduled to close a week earlier than they were last year. Is this true?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I can get back to the Member, but I do not think that is true. I think we opened the same time as we did last year.
Mr. McDonald:
Well, good. I hope it is not true. It came from what I thought was a fairly knowledgeable source, but I will wait until I hear the definitive answer on that subject.
With respect to visitor reception centres, are there any plans for their privatization?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
No.
Mr. McDonald:
I would like to move on to a few heritage questions. The Minister will remember the marvelous lunch that we had at the MacBride Museum around Christmastime. Between bites of our sandwiches at the legislative lunch, we learned that the MacBride Museum was interested in seeking more funding from the department. I believe that they receive approximately $22,000 from the Yukon government, and they receive about $26,000 from the City of Whitehorse.
Could the Minister tell us what the funding plans are for an operations plan for this museum?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
The current plan is that there will be no increases, and for the most part, no reductions, in the transfer payments to the museum. The MacBride Museum will receive $22,000 this year.
As well, the MacBride Museum will be receiving $2,000 from the Department of Education for the first time, through the museums and schools program for the students.
As well, the MacBride Museum will receive $13,151 through the RCMP interactive project, which is capital. They will receive $8,000 through the RCMP marketing plan. The southern bead work tradition, phase 2, will receive $10,000, and exhibit research printing press funding is in the amount of $3,000.
As well, the MacBride Museum received $80,000 in 1994-95 under exhibit assistance for the RCMP travelling display in support of the 1995 centennial.
The concern is that if you increase the funding of the MacBride Museum, you have to increase the funding of the other museums, because they are funded in a set ratio. Increasing our marketing in the future and focusing on anniversaries will bring benefits to the MacBride Museum and the other museums in the territory. The hope is that many of the new tourists that we attract will come to the Yukon and will spend more time in the museums.
Although the passport program does not directly affect the numbers in the MacBride Museum, it does have some impact - the passport program has been fully funded for this year.
In effect, there is extra funding for museums, and it will help the MacBride Museum. We did not provide the massive influx of dollars that was requested the day we visited the museum.
Mr. McDonald:
Given that operations funding is basically going to remain static, was it that the government was not persuaded by the arguments that the MacBride Museum board presented to the government to increase funding? I recall one of the reasons for wanting to have increased funding was to acquire insurance for the museum and for some exhibits. Was it that the government felt that the arguments were not clear enough? If the MacBride Museum were to seek extra funding, what would they have to demonstrate to the government in order to justify enhanced operations money?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
Certainly the MacBride Museum is a project worthy of funding, and we do fund it now; however, as I said before, there are other museums in the territory, and if you increase one, there are always demands from others to increase their funding as well. Under the budget constraints when the budget was drawn up, it was decided to maintain the funding of the MacBride Museum. One of the areas that I have told the MacBride Museum that I would look at in the future is similar to the project we just carried out in Dawson City, and that is putting a sprinkler system in the museum. That is something that I think goes a long way toward protecting all the artifacts that we have in the establishment, and that is something that we will certainly look at in the future.
Mr. McDonald:
The Minister will appreciate - at least with this audience - that talk about restraints will not carry him very far. I would only point out that whether or not the MacBride Museum asks for money, other museums will certainly be seeking more funding. That is probably something that will never end. For my part, I am certainly not advocating that the MacBride Museum should get whatever they ask for, nor am I suggesting that they are entitled to unlimited amounts of money. I am trying to get a better appreciation of what it was about the MacBride Museum's argument that the Ministers felt did not provide sufficient justification for additional funds. After the Minister's latest response, I am still not sure that I know.
Perhaps I will seek another opportunity to pursue that subject at a later date.
The issue of funding for the Yukon Historical and Museums Association - the letter that was written to the government, of which the Opposition received copies - expressed some concern by the association about what they believed to be a decision already made with respect to lotteries funding. They are under the impression that an agreement has been finalized that essentially freezes them out from getting access to lottery funding. First of all, can we establish whether or not their fear is correct? Was there an agreement signed?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
My understanding of that issue is that there was an agreement to continue with the relationship. It was a 58:42 split between the government and YRAC for one to three years. However, it had nothing to do with the split between the sports groups and the heritage, or arts, groups. I think that is where there was some confusion.
The Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission rose today, as the acting Minister of Community and Transportation Services, and said that there would be a meeting on June 21 to discuss that. Recommendations would be made at that time and followed up on in the fall.
I am a strong supporter of the idea that heritage and the arts should be given more consideration when it comes to that funding. I have passed that on to the arts and heritage community. The meeting has still to take place, and the decision has not been made prior to that.
Mr. McDonald:
Will the decision ultimately be a joint one between YRAC and the government? Is the government's position that heritage interests should be given consideration for lottery funding? Is that correct?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
The Minister responsible for Yukon Recreation Advisory Council is a pretty big fellow and I would like to think that I would have some input into that. I certainly will
Page Number 2880
be speaking to the Minister about the issue. I would hope that after the meeting on June 21, the concerns raised by the heritage community will be taken into account and there will be some accommodation made for those concerns. I think there are some valid concerns.
Mr. McDonald:
I would like to broach the subject of the Heritage Act. I am informed that the City of Whitehorse is intending not to pass a heritage bylaw or to take any legislative action to protect heritage properties in the City of Whitehorse until such time as the Yukon government legislates something. At the same time, I am also aware that the City of Whitehorse is under the impression that the Yukon government is going to legislate before the end of this month. I am not aware of that plan. Can the Minister tell us what he understands the situation to be?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
The Member has obviously read the same letter that I have received from the Yukon Historical and Museums Association. It is not true. As House Leader, I have advised the Member of the plan is to bring the act here in the fall. I had the first look at the act the other day and I want to give complete assurances to the heritage community that they will have an opportunity to vet it before the amendments do come before the House. It might be difficult to do it this summer, but certainly in early fall - in September or October - when people have the time to sit and look at it, we will do that and bring it forward in the fall session.
As for protection for heritage properties and buildings within the City of Whitehorse, the City of Whitehorse has the full authority to do that and could have done it all along - and can still do it today. There is nothing stopping the City of Whitehorse from going ahead tomorrow and drafting bylaws to protect heritage buildings in the City of Whitehorse. It is done in many other cities in Canada, so to blame us and say that it is our fault that it is not here, they could, regardless of our not having legislation, draft legislation to protect heritage buildings if they wished.
Mr. McDonald:
So, the position of the Government of Yukon is that it is essentially a City of Whitehorse responsibility until such time as YTG legislates next fall. If there is no protection, we should be looking to the City of Whitehorse to determine why not.
What actions is the department taking, given that they do have specialized personnel? What actions are they taking to not only identify buildings but perhaps work with the city administration to warn them of what might be coming in the coming year, for example, or in the coming months. One thing I have heard from city councillors is that they, too, had no active knowledge of what was about to happen with respect to the O'Connor house. That house has been recently torn down and they were unaware of the actions that had been taken.
Can the Minister tell us what actions the heritage branch is taking to raise a profile of historic interests within the city and make the discussions that we are having in our community more informed than they have been in the past.
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
In this particular issue, there was a system in place to protect these houses. My understanding is that there was a committee formed, which identified some 28 houses in the Whitehorse area that have heritage value. Those houses were categorized in various classes of importance and this was one of the houses that was on the list; it was an important heritage house. What happened evidently is that there was a clerk involved for many years who was very concerned and aware of heritage issues in the City of Whitehorse and would bring it to everyone's attention as soon as a permit to dismantle or destroy came forward. In this case, there was a new individual in the position; the permit came through on a Thursday and the order was issued on Friday. The house dismantling started on Friday and Saturday and it was gone by the weekend, and not much could be done. This was just a failure of the system.
Everyone is now aware of that, as far as I understand, and there will be much closer scrutiny of the 27 houses that are now left to make sure that this kind of thing does not happen again. It is unfortunate that it happened with the O'Connor house, but it is my understanding that there was a process in place that was supposed to protect this very thing, but the actual process broke down. It is hoped that something will be put in place next time so that we can catch this kind of thing and prevent it from happening in the future.
Mr. McDonald:
So the Minister is fairly convinced that the City of Whitehorse is not only aware of the actions required to protect the houses, but they are aware of the houses themselves, and barring any glitch that we cannot anticipate right now, the remaining 27 houses that the Minister has identified should not be in jeopardy, that the houses will be scrutinized by city council and ultimately, city council will make the decision.
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
That is the hope, but I cannot give the Member a guarantee that something will not go wrong the next time.
The government and city are now much more aware of the public's concerns. This has raised the awareness of the policy that was in place and I am sure that there will be more scrutiny of that policy in the future.
Whether this will ever happen again or not, I cannot say, but I hope that it does not happen again.
Mrs. Firth:
I want to come to the defence of the individuals who owned that piece of property, because when this became a controversial issue I went to see the people who owned the property to ask about the story and get an explanation.
I understand from them - this is their version of events, I did not have it researched and cross-examined - that there had been some discussions about the house. The house and property had been for sale for a long time. There had been all kinds of talk about constructing a small office building on the property, so it was not like this popped up overnight and happened.
In the discussions that I had with the property owners, they said that they had talked about the heritage value of the property and other aspects before they sold the property, but no one expressed any interest. Since no one expressed an interest they went about their business and dealt with the property.
I do not know what kind of representation is being made. If I am not mistaken, there was an issue when the heritage legislation was brought forward about private interests and ownership versus potential public ownership.
In no way do I fault the owners of the facility - and I realize the Minister does not either - for getting on with their business if no one expressed an interest in the property and nothing was going to be done.
I will be quite interested in the amendments that will be coming forward for the Heritage Act and how the government will be dealing with that issue. I believe it was a controversial issue when we first debated the heritage legislation, and it probably will be again.
I just want to get that on the record. The people who own it do live in my constituency. I think it is only fair that their position also be put on the record.
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
At no time did I blame the individuals who owned it. They went through the process that was available to them by applying for a demolition licence. No one said to hold it, to stop, or to think twice. It broke down at that level. They were never told to stall it. I think they were aware that it was a heritage home. However, they were not told by people to cease and desist. There was supposed to be a process in place and, as I explained earlier, there was a fault in the process. I hope it does not happen
Page Number 2881
again.
Ms. Moorcroft:
I also have some questions for the Minister on heritage issues, particularly relating to the Scottie Creek area and the decision that has been made to cut an archaeologist position within the heritage branch.
The Scottie Creek drainage area is a rich archaeological area they have only begun to identify and catalogue. Some of the elders in Beaver Creek have asked what they can do to preserve and identify it, if the archaeologist position is cut. People are wondering how one position can break the backs of the government.
I know that Minister has stood up many times and supported land claims motions that have been unanimously passed in this Legislature. The land claims legislation and self-government agreements call upon the Yukon government to allocate, as a priority, heritage resource management and development until an equitable distribution of program resources is achieved.
We have seen a lot of funding going into the Anniversaries Commission, which is the European settlers' heritage. I would like the Minister to tell me how equitable their spending is now. What share of the program dollars in heritage is spent on First Nations' heritage, relative to the overall heritage budget?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I would have to bring that figure back to the Member. I can tell the Member that I think, this year, we are spending in the neighbourhood of about $400,000 in overall First Nation heritage, including Fort Selkirk, Canyon City and other works that are ongoing.
Ms. Moorcroft:
The government spends millions of dollars on road construction, and yet there are precious few dollars for archaeological work to be done, unless heritage sites are uncovered during construction. It seems that, in the Yukon, they see highway building as a type of archaeology. If the cats happen to tear open a site, who does the actual dig? Is it the heritage crew? I would like the Minister to explain why they have not found the money to keep an archaeologist on staff as a permanent full-time employee of the department. It seems a penny-wise and pound-foolish approach that puzzles people, and it sends the wrong signal about their thrust toward heritage recognition in land claims negotiations.
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
It is no such thing, and there goes the Member again, crying "the sky is falling".
We took the advice of the Member opposite, the Leader of the Official Opposition, who suggested we work with the highways department. This year, some archaeological work has taken place on some of the road construction on the highway, and it is paid for by the highways department. However, at this time, we do not feel that we need a full-time archaeologist to do the work, which was preliminary and site work on a periodic basis. We did not need an archaeologist on staff for the whole year to do some of the work that only took place in the summer. We are going to do some of it on contract and, in the long run, it will be less expensive than it was in the past.
Ms. Moorcroft:
Well, it seems that the Minister's manly pride is hurt when somebody stands up and criticizes what he is not doing. I can tell him there are a lot of people who are wondering where this government's priorities are, when it does not have the time or the people or the money available to identify and catalogue heritage resources. Elders are passing on, and their knowledge is being lost. There is a lot of benefit to be gained from recognizing the value of the First Nations heritage resources.
Does the Minister expect, then, that when the land claims agreements come into effect, the government will reinstate the archaeologist position in the heritage branch?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
No decision has been made, but I can tell the Member that there is some oral history work going on this summer and there will continue to be some. I believe $115,000 is going to be spent in the Minto and Fort Selkirk areas this year on the oral history of the First Nations. There is going to be some work in Canyon City and some other work will be going on throughout the territory. It is not that we are not doing any work at all - we are, and I think it is false to insinuate that everything has come to a halt.
Ms. Moorcroft:
The Minister himself stood up when he was being asked about this issue in Question Period and in budget debate previously, and he indicated that they were searching for funds to try to maintain the position. I would like to know why the Minister does not think that this should be a priority and I would like him to address whether the department has found the money to keep the employee and whether it is just the Minister who is being petty and vindictive in not keeping this position going.
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
We are continuing with archaeology work in the department. It is a priority of the government and, no, we are not going to bring the person back full-time at this time.
Ms. Moorcroft:
Why does the Minister not think that the archaeology work, endorsed by the Carmacks-Little Salmon Band, the people in Pelly and the First Nation in Carcross, is important? Why is the Minister not willing to make a commitment to that, when he stands up and makes a commitment to it when we are debating land claims motions?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I think it is important work. We have carried it on in the past, and we will be carrying it on in the future.
Ms. Moorcroft:
How is the government going to keep carrying the work on without the archaeologist position?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
We have other archaeologists in the department, and we also contract out archaeology work, as we have done in the past, and we will continue to do so.
Ms. Moorcroft:
How many other archaeologists are employed in the department, and what kind of work is the other archaeologist doing?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
There is one archaeologist at the present time, but we also do contract work from time to time with various archaeologists and with First Nations, and that archaeologist works with First Nations and others in any archaeology work the department does.
Ms. Moorcroft:
My understanding of the other work that has been done is the work that the staff archaeologist did. Perhaps the Minister could indicate which contracts have been completed and which ones he expects to have done in the future to meet the heritage resource needs he is speaking about?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I will bring that information back to the Member.
Mr. Cable:
I have some general questions. I know the Minister wants to get to his conference, but, at 9:25 p.m., it appears we have some problems.
I have several minutes' worth of questions. What is the pleasure of the Chair?
Chair:
Carry on.
Mr. Cable:
I have some questions on the wilderness tourism business. The president of the Wilderness Tourism Association of the Yukon was on the radio a few weeks ago. He indicated that he felt that the industry should remain in the hands of Yukoners. I would just like to read an excerpt from the news report, in which he said, "There is concern, also, that the economic benefit that these parties represent" - that is, non-resident parties - "might possibly be the kind of benefits or business opportunities that ought be going to Yukoners operating in their own landscape". He was talking about foreign-owned wilderness tour operations. He went on to say, "No one knows for sure how many outsiders are leading tours in the Yukon, but he says that most Yukon guides suspect that it is getting to be a problem".
I would like to ask the Minister where he sits on the licensing
Page Number 2882
of wilderness tour guides in the Yukon?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
We are working with the Wilderness Tourism Association to develop guidelines and rules for licensing, and that will be an ongoing process. I would hope that within a year we will have something put together on that. We are looking at what happens in other jurisdictions and putting together some kind of a process that will protect our Yukon operators.
Mr. Cable:
Is the Minister prepared to put residency restrictions on licensing provisions that he will be using with respect to the tour guides?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I am not going to make any commitment to any of that just at this time. I would like to see every outfit in the future have Yukon operators and be owned by successful Yukon operators, but I think it would be only fair to let it go to the consultative process to see what the recommendations are before we make recommendations. I can tell the Member that many of the new operators who have come into the territory in the last few years are foreign operators but are operating very high quality operations, and the spinoff to other businesses in the Yukon has been enormous. So, we should not just slam the door on these high quality operators who are willing to locate here and provide a good service.
Mr. Cable:
The president of the organization indicated that no one knew for sure how many outsiders were present in the Yukon. Has the Minister's department done a study of business licence holders in relation to this particular business?
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
I will have to come back to the Member on that.
Mr. Cable:
I have some further questions, but it is just about 9:30 p.m. What is the Chair's pleasure?
Chair:
It is up to you.
Mr. Cable:
I can keep talking. I understand the rule.
Chair:
I can report progress, if you want me to.
Mr. Cable:
I move that the Chair report progress.
Motion agreed to
Hon. Mr. Phillips:
Before I ask you to resume the Chair, Mr. Chair, I have to say I am quite disappointed in some of the Members opposite, because they made a previous arrangement that we would finish tonight, so I could go to the Status of Women Conference in Regina tomorrow but, unfortunately, it looks like I will have to cancel. I am disappointed that the Members could not abide by the agreement they had made previously.
I move that the Speaker do now resume the Chair.
Point of Order
Mr. McDonald:
Point of order, Mr. Chair.
I do not know where that outburst came from. I think it is uncalled for. There was no repetition of any issue this evening debated in this Legislature. Every issue that was raised in this Legislature is of great importance to this territory. Many of the issues that were raised were also raised during Question Period, and there was no attempt made by anyone to filibuster at all.
We spent a grand total of less than two hours on this subject, and $6 million worth of expenditures, and I can say, without any hesitation whatsoever, that the Opposition Members in this Legislature were not only doing their duty, but they had an obligation to do what they have done.
The outburst from the Minister was absolutely uncalled for.
Chair:
There is no point of order.
The time being 9:30 p.m., I will now rise and report.
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?
Mr. Abel:
The Committee of the Whole has considered Bill No. 15, entitled Second Appropriation Act, 1994-95, and directed me to report progress on it.
Speaker:
You have heard the report from the Chair of Committee of the Whole. Are you agreed?
Some Hon. Members:
Agreed.
Speaker:
I declare the report carried.
Speaker:
The time being 9:30 p.m., this House now stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.
The House adjourned at 9:33 p.m.