Whitehorse, Yukon

Tuesday, June 7, 1994 - 1:30 p.m.

Page Number 2883

Speaker:

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

Prayers

DAILY ROUTINE

Speaker:

We will proceed at this time with the Order Paper.

Introduction of Visitors.

Recognition of birth of Lauren Ann Webster

Ms. Moorcroft:

I would like to welcome a new member of the Klondike riding, Lauren Ann Webster, who was born on June 4, 1994, to Ann MacDonald and Art Webster. I would like to welcome their new daughter.

Speaker:

Are there any Returns or Documents for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Mr. Penikett:

I have an extremely significant letter for tabling.

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

I have a hot-off-the-press news release pertaining to the Employment Standards Act.

Speaker:

Are there any Reports of Committees?

Are there any Petitions?

Are there any Bills to be introduced?

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

Are there any Notices of Motion?

Are there any Statements by Ministers?

This then brings us to the Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Question re: Cabinet solidarity

Mr. Penikett:

Yesterday, we heard the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission admit that he does not support the Yukon Party's position on federal funding. Last week, the Minister of Justice criticized the Yukon government for doing a bad job of explaining the need for wage restraint. Could the Government Leader tell us exactly what Cabinet solidarity means to him - what it means to this administration - and whether it only applies when there are votes?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I do not believe either one of the Members were critical of Cabinet decisions or Cabinet policy in the statements that they made.

Mr. Penikett:

Some of my colleagues were surprised, and perhaps even delighted by the Justice Minister's comments last week, which perhaps created some confusion on the other side. Perhaps the Government Leader could explain or clarify the position of the Cabinet as a whole for me. When the Justice Minister said that the government was doing a lousy job communicating its position on wage restraint, did the Government Leader take that to imply criticism of himself, of the entire Cabinet, or just of the Independent Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I guess perhaps this is a bit different from when the Members opposite were in power. They could not criticize themselves or admit that they did not do a good job in some areas.

I think that the Minister of Justice was including himself in his statement.

Mr. Penikett:

Under the NDP, the self-criticism was much more intellectually rigorous than we have found in the House.

Let me ask the Minister this, because it is an important point: since the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission has criticized the Yukon Party and the NDP approach yesterday, as was recorded on page 2858 of Hansard, for lusting after federal government loot in the face of the huge federal deficit, could the Government Leader indicate to us if, since the representation by the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission, he and his government have changed their position on this question? Will there be some disciplinary proceedings or - let me put it another way - some frank and camaraderie discussion about the difference of views within Cabinet on this point?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

No, we have not changed our position.

Question re: Wage rollback/public sector

Ms. Moorcroft:

Now that the government has rammed through its completely unnecessary wage restraint legislation, I would like to return to some concerns that I put to the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission yesterday afternoon. The first is on behalf of a constituent who will soon be retiring from the public service and who told me that Bill No. 94 will not just affect her for two or three years, but will reduce her pension for the rest of her life. I wonder if the Minister even knows how many people will be affected by this legislation.

Would the Minister consider an administrative revision in calculating pension levels so that teachers and public servants who retire in the near future will be credited at the level they would have attained if there had been no wage freeze.

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

No, we do not have any plans to do that. If they are retiring in the near future, their salaries are based on - I think - their last three years and any effect that the two percent will have on their pensions is a minimal amount.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Well, we know this government lacks the ability to plan any further ahead than two percent over three years.

My second concern has to do with fair treatment of employees in light of the Yukon Party's pledge during the past election to end intimidation of employees - as they put it - and to guarantee their rights to freedom of expression and assembly. How will the Minister ensure that no public sector employee will suffer any negative repercussions as a result of signing or circulating petitions, attending debates in this House or any other legal activities undertaken to show their concern about the wage restraint legislation?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

I gave that assurance to the Member yesterday.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Well, we have already heard examples of how that can happen and the Minister has not said how he will ensure that.

Last week, the Minister had his mind on the union hotline for exposing government abuse because of some concern that it could embarrass MLAs. Will the Minister treat concerns brought to the government's attention through the union whistle-blowing line with the same respect as those submitted through the government-sanctioned suggestion box - and give his assurance that no employee will be penalized for exposing possible abuse through union channels?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

Yes, I will give that assurance, and if there are any suggestions from the union line with respect to government inefficiencies or abuse, certainly, we will act on them.

Question re: Gambling

Mr. Cable:

I have some questions for the Government Leader on one of his favourite topics: gambling. The Tourism Industry Association of Yukon, the Hotel Association, and some outside promoters have been busy banging on various doors promoting casino-type gambling. I believe one of those doors was

Page Number 2884

the Government Leader's. At any juncture, have any of these people asked the Government Leader to indicate whether his government is prepared to give financial assistance, in any form, to a casino-type gambling operation?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

The Member opposite is absolutely right. We have talked to quite a few people since the decision was made to let the Council on the Economy and the Environment handle the question on whether legalized gambling opportunities should be expanded in the Yukon or not. Has anyone asked us for financial assistance? No, they have not.

Mr. Cable:

There was an interesting article in The Globe and Mail not too long ago that was examining the Montreal experience with a casino. After six months of operation, the writer of this article indicated that the impact on the Montreal hotel industry had been marginal.

Has the Minister, with his Economic Development Minister hat on, determined whether a seasonal gambling casino would have any effect on hotel occupancy rates at the height of the tourist season?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

As the Member opposite is fully aware, we, as a government, are still waiting for recommendations and a report from the Council on the Economy and the Environment on the whole gambling issue. No, we have not done any further work on it at this point.

Mr. Cable:

Well, with a $14,000 expenditure, I do not think that we expect any in-depth analysis of the economic spinoffs.

Let me ask the Minister this: when the report is received from the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment, will it be released immediately to the public - acknowledging that the House will not be sitting - as presented and when presented?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I will take the opportunity to review the report first with my Cabinet colleagues, and at some point it will be released to the public. The Member opposite seems to be of the opinion that unless one spends hundreds of thousands of dollars, one cannot accomplish anything. I think the Council on the Economy and the Environment should be commended for the job they have done and for only spending $14,000 on it. They had a vast amount of information to work with, given to them when they took on the job, and I think they should be commended and not criticized for it.

Question re: Devolution process, consultation with CYI

Mr. Penikett:

At the risk of incurring another temper tantrum, I would like to pursue some questions I was unable to get the Government Leader to answer yesterday. I will put the first one this way: does the Government Leader share the position of the Council for Yukon Indians that First Nations should be consulted on, and participate in, negotiations regarding the devolution of federal areas of jurisdiction to the territorial government?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

Clearly, I thought that I had given the Member an answer to that question. I will have to review Hansard to see exactly what I said. The Member seems to feel that I did not answer the question, but I thought that I had stated quite clearly that we certainly believe in the involvement of First Nations in devolution talks and negotiations, on the basis of the umbrella final agreement.

Mr. Penikett:

It may not surprise the Government Leader to know that already there are competing interpretations of what the umbrella final agreement says and means, and the Government Leader says there may be more to come. I want to ask the Government Leader about one precise agreement.

The Government Leader has indicated that he would like to forge an umbrella, or master agreement with the federal government on a timetable of devolution. Recently, the First Nations indicated their view, based on legal advice, that there should be a three-party devolution agreement, an agreement involving the First Nations as well as the territorial and federal governments.

Let me ask the Government Leader a very direct question: does the Government Leader agree with the position put forth by the Council for Yukon Indians?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

If the Member opposite is asking me if I agree with the CYI having veto power, no, I do not.

Mr. Penikett:

Well, it seems as if the Government Leader wants to stretch out Question Period.

First, I did not ask the Government Leader if he agreed with the veto power. I asked the Government Leader this very precise question: did he agree that there should be a three-cornered devolution table with the First Nations being full participants and having a guaranteed right of consultation and participation in program devolution matters touching directly on their interests? Does the Government Leader agree with that or not?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

It must be coming to the end of the session, because we are routinely going through these questions. I answered that yesterday. I said yes, I did agree, and we have been working to try to set up a devolution table to accomplish just that.

Both the federal government and we have said that we cannot stop the process because the Council for Yukon Indians does not want to come to the table. We certainly agree with the devolution table and some method that will satisfy all three parties. I told the Member opposite yesterday that I agree with the procedure, as the hospital transfer followed, and that I was fully in favour of it and prepared to sign on those conditions.

Question re: Devolution process, consultation with CYI

Mr. Penikett:

The problem is, months and months ago, perhaps more than a year ago, the Government Leader indicated that they were trying to get agreement on the devolution table. For months now, all three parties to that potential agreement have said that they agree with the hospital devolution, but we have no agreements. We are on the eve of the passage of the land claims legislation, which was the other condition set by the federal Minister as a precondition to further devolution talks. Can the Government Leader indicate to us how long he expects it will take to negotiate a three-party devolution agreement to set some standards, conditions and rules for facilitating program devolution to the territorial government?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

The Member opposite seems to have some information that I do not have if he says all three parties have agreed to the hospital agreement format, because I do not believe I have received a reply in writing from the Council for Yukon Indians to that last position that was put to them many months ago now. They seemed to have some difficulty with that yet. In reply to the Member's question, I would expect that things would move at a somewhat faster pace once CYI can concentrate on those issues, rather than concentrating on the major issue now - that is, to get the legislation through the House of Commons.

Mr. Penikett:

I apologize to the Government Leader, but my information comes from what we around here affectionately call a reliable source - namely, the media. I am dependent upon media statements from the federal Minister, from the chair of the Council for Yukon Indians and from the government opposite, all of which, at various times, have subscribed to the hospital model.

Given that the territorial government has anxiety about a third party having a veto over the devolution of federal programs to the territorial government, what is the territorial government's position on the utility of such a three-cornered devolution table in respect to federal devolutions to First Nations? Does he see the territorial government having any voice or any role in those

Page Number 2885

discussions?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

We have said all along that agreements will be negotiated between the federal government and CYI. We have no problem with that. The problem seems to be that CYI does not want to see that happen between the territorial and federal governments.

Mr. Penikett:

The fact of the matter is that, in the self-government negotiations, the territorial government has had a say in what may be devolved from the federal government to First Nations.

Let me ask the Government Leader this: as a matter of fact, has the territorial government had any kind of assessment done by policy analysts, of the downstream implications or difficulties - economic, political or administrative repercussions - that may arise from First Nations believing that they have not been given a meaningful role in the devolution talks along with the federal and territorial governments? Has there been a professional assessment of the problems that can arise as a result of that?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I do not believe that we have had a professional assessment of it. We have always said that it was a concern to us that First Nations be involved every step of the way. We have tried to accommodate them in that respect. We know that things would go much better and that there would be much less difficulty downstream if, in fact, all three parties participated in the devolution talks.

Question re: Logan subdivision, house size requirements

Mr. Penikett:

I have a question for the acting Minister of Community and Transportation Services regarding the Logan subdivision, which lies within my constituency. Recently, as the Minister knows, there has been considerable confusion about the size of dwellings allowed in this subdivision and, specifically, about whether or not finished basements can be considered in calculating the square footage.

Since YTG is the developer of the subdivision, can the Minister tell us whether or not the department reviewed the city bylaw for the Logan subdivision? If so, can he shed any light on why the confusion occurred? Did the territorial government play any role in satisfying itself that the rules were clear before the development went ahead?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

I think the development going ahead and the subsequent restrictions are a different issue. However, my understanding is that the Minister of Community and Transportation Services did look at the bylaw that the city had passed and agreed that it was confusing. As most of us know, the issue was whether the required 2,000 square feet were to be on the main floor or if that would include a basement.

As far as I know, the government has not taken a position with respect to the zoning. The Yukon government has said that they would waive the normally non-refundable $300 administration fee if someone wanted to turn the lot back due to the confusion about what they had to build there. Otherwise, as far as I know, this is the city's problem.

Mr. Penikett:

I appreciate the Minister's answer and I appreciated that the situation lies principally within the municipal jurisdiction, and that conflicts around how to measure a dwelling place will have to be resolved jointly by the city and the home owners. Nevertheless, the issue does raise some policy questions that I would like to ask a question about. As a matter of policy, does the Department of Community and Transportation Services believe, as a series of previous governments did, that a mix of housing sizes and styles should be encouraged wherever possible, especially on land developed by YTG?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

I am not certain of that. I will see what is in place with respect to a policy on that. With respect to this particular development, my impression was that the territorial government was not going to get involved in the city zoning or the restriction on the zoning. I do not know whether the mix of sizes and shapes is included in the zoning. The problem was over the square footage, so I think that you can still have a mix with a minimum square footage.

Mr. Penikett:

Perhaps the Minister could take this question as notice. As I recall, in the mid 1970s the territorial government had laid down a rule for these developments. It was going to try to encourage a mix of home size and types inside the larger subdivisions. For the record, I would like to find out from the acting Minister or the department in the intercessional period whether or not that policy has changed, and if it has, could I get some detail on the changes.

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

Yes, I will take that under advisement and get back to the Member.

Question re: Educational assistants

Mr. Penikett:

I thank the previous Minister. I would like to direct a question to the acting Minister of Education.

A number of concerned parents and staff at Elijah Smith School have informed me of a variety of problems. The most severe is the allocation of educational assistants, who are allocated according to the results of official assessments made by the Department of Education psychologists. Can the acting Minister indicate to me if he knows why Elijah Smith School was told in a letter that they can only send two children for an official assessment this past school year. The question arises, of course, how the department arrived at such a low number, and whether the department will be capping the number of allowed assessments next year, as well.

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

I arrived back at the office yesterday and at 11 o'clock today I was informed that I am temporary Minister of Education; at five minutes to 12, these questions were thrown out to me, for which to get answers, for a department whose whereabouts I do not even know. I will take the question under advisement.

Mr. Penikett:

I am certainly glad the Minister did not complain that he did not get notice. There does seem to be an outbreak of pouting around here.

The Minister of Education has told us - the real Minister and not this one - that recent cuts would not affect the quality of children's education, but limiting the number of assessments and increasing the amount of time for assessment, to six months or more, obviously affects educational standards.

Could I ask this Minister if, as far as he knows, the Cabinet has ever discussed whether the Education department should be given enough money to hire another assessor, to shorten the assessment process, and hire additional educational assistants, mid-year, as needs are identified?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

I have said, on a number of occasions, that I do not talk about anything that goes on in Cabinet, outside of Cabinet.

Mr. Penikett:

The trouble is that sometimes that is the sum total of information that we can get from the Minister: that it has been discussed in Cabinet and he will not talk about it.

Let me ask the Minister if he will take this question as notice, because it is a serious issue. As the Minister knows, after a student has been assessed and designated exceptional, they are assigned an educational assistant who, along with a specially qualified program implementation teacher, develops an individual educational program for a student.

Does the Minister have any knowledge at all - perhaps does any Minister opposite have any knowledge at all - about why a program implementation teacher at Elijah Smith School was reasigned

Page Number 2886

to the territorial resource room, which is attached to the school but administered directed by the department, in effect reducing the school staff by one valuable and much-needed teacher? Does he know anything about that?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

I shall have a written answer prepared for the Member.

Question re: Health and Social Services, deputy minister

Mrs. Firth:

I have a question for the Government Leader. The Government Leader is responsible for appointing deputy ministers and he is also responsible for removing the Deputy Minister of Health and Social Services, some months ago. The competition for a new deputy minister closed over two months ago. According to the Minister of Health and Social Services, 120 people have applied for this position, but the Minister could not tell us why none had been interviewed.

I would like to ask the Government Leader if he can tell us why there have been no interviews held since the competition closed?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I believe when the Minister answered the question, he said that the person acting in the capacity of Deputy Minister of Health and Social Services is doing an outstanding job, and that we were waiting for all of the applications to get in. All the applications are in and my understanding is that they are under review at this point and that interviews will be done shortly.

Mrs. Firth:

When the question was answered, nobody disputed the job that individual was doing. This Minister, the Government Leader, removed the previous deputy minister, for some reason.

Now, there have been 120 applications. I want to know why there have not been any interviews held, since there is obviously a great interest in the position and the competition closed over two months ago. Why have there not been any interviews held?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

Is the Member insinuating that something is wrong in the department, that it is not functioning properly? We have had deputy minister positions that have stayed vacant a lot longer than that. Interviews will be held and the position will be filled on a full-time basis as soon as possible.

Mrs. Firth:

I am not trying to make a big deal out of this; I am just trying to get an answer from these fellas. It does not make sense to anybody listening to this. There are 120 applications, the job competition closed two months ago and there has not even been one interview held. People are going to ask, why not? If it is not such a big deal, why cannot the Government Leader just stand up and tell us why there have not been any interviews. What is the big deal?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

That is a good question. What is the big deal - what is the big deal? Is the department falling apart? Is there some concern that the department is not being adequately looked after by the acting deputy minister?

I said the applications are being short listed and I expect some interviews will be held in the near future.

Question re: Health and Social Services, deputy minister

Mrs. Firth:

I will tell the Government Leader what the big deal is. We have a politician running the Health and Social Services department and a finance person managing it. We have a budget lapse of $10.9 million in Health and Social Services, which is $8 million more than the previous one. We have a brand new hospital being built about which people come to us every day with issues and questions. We have a huge Health and Social Services reform movement going on, engineered by the politician -

Speaker:

Order. Do we have a question?

Mrs. Firth:

The Government Leader wanted to know what the big deal was. I am telling him. I am telling him what the big deal is.

Could I ask the Government Leader when he - or whoever - is going to interview these people and when the interviews are going to start?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

After that tirade about all the money that was left in Health and Social Services, perhaps it is a good thing that we have an acting deputy minister in there now who has a financial background. I do not think that is all bad.

I do not know exactly on what dates the interviews will be held; however, I checked a couple of days ago, and they said they were going through the list and shortlisting the applicants.

Mrs. Firth:

Could the Government Leader tell us when he expects to have this position filled?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I would expect that position would be filled this summer some time.

Question re: Auditor General report on human resource management

Mr. Cable:

Several months ago, the Auditor General provided the government with his report on the study of human resource management in the Yukon territorial government. At that time, I asked some questions of the Government Leader with respect to the recommendations made by the Auditor General. It was indicated to me that, perhaps, the questions were a little premature, because the Government Leader had not had a chance to digest the report.

Today, I would like to put some questions to the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission.

At the time I asked the Government Leader the questions, last December, he had indicated that the recommendations were accepted by the government. One of those recommendations was that the Public Service Commission Act needed to be revised to, among other things, indicate that service to Yukoners was the main purpose of the public service.

Has the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission had an opportunity to review the human resource management report of the Auditor General? Can he indicate when he expects the amendments to the Public Service Commission Act will be made?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

I have looked at the report of the Auditor General. The department is working on a majority of the recommendations. I cannot tell the Member exactly when I expect amendments to the act to be made.

Mr. Cable:

One of the comments made in the report was that there were a number of jobs filled without competition, and that the exemption process needed a proper assessment.

Has the Minister addressed that particular problem? If so, when may we expect that this proper assessment procedure will be in place?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

This was discussed, to some degree, in general debate on the Public Service Commission budget. As I pointed out then, and I will tell the Member again today, that is a major concern of the Public Service Commission. We are looking at the whole system of hiring, including the evaluation, and even how we advertise for positions.

Again, I cannot tell the Member exactly when we will have a new and improved system in place.

Mr. Cable:

Another of the comments of the Auditor General was to the effect that it was not clear which of the Public Service Commission, the Executive Council Office or the Management Board Secretariat can, or should, assume the leadership role for ensuring the harmonious and efficient development of the Yukon

Page Number 2887

territorial government, as an organization.

Has the Minister, with his Public Service Commission hat on, decided which of those groupings will be leading the charge for ensuring the harmonious and efficient development of YTG?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

No, I cannot, and since I have joined the Cabinet and have been dealing with these departments, I understand what the Auditor General has been talking about. There has not been one group identified to lead the charge, but the Public Service Commission is the one reviewing that report and making recommendations based on it.

Question re: Funeral homes, referrals by hospital

Mr. Penikett:

I have a quick question for the Minister of Health and Social Services. Has the Minister received a complaint from a local funeral director about referrals by the hospital to funeral homes?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

Yes.

Mr. Penikett:

I thank the Minister for his unusually lucid answer.

I have received a letter from Ms. Willis, the hospital director, describing the hospital's view of the events. However, the funeral home in question has pressed the matter with me and obviously is not yet fully satisfied. Has the Minister made a personal assessment of the situation himself?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

No, except that I did mention to the previous chair that perhaps an explicit policy should be developed about the issue of businesses trying to procure clients on hospital premises. I understand that has not been followed up on, but I understand there has been a change in the chair, and I will pursue the issue with the new board.

Mr. Penikett:

I would like to clarify that, since the hospital has only recently come under territorial jurisdiction. I am sure that the Minister shares everyone's concern that the credibility of the institution is important.

Do I understand the Minister's answer to indicate that it is his view, or his preference, that there be a clear policy indicating to hospital personnel that preferential referrals are not acceptable?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

My view is that because there seems to be some concern about the current policy, perhaps the board should review its policy and develop more explicit and well-defined principles than those currently in existence. As the Member is no doubt aware, there is a policy in effect. There is a handout that is provided to visitors and clients in the hospital, but it may be that there is room for refining the current policy.

Question re: Old Crow students, travel allowance

Mr. Harding:

At the risk of getting my head bitten off, I have a question for the acting Minister of Education.

When reviewing the latest order-in-council under the Occupational Training Act, I noticed that the new regulations have taken away the Old Crow students' return flight home for Christmas. Given that there are still no roads into Old Crow and that the change may mean that some students may not be able to visit friends and family during the Christmas holidays, I would like to ask the Minister what the rationale is for this change.

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

It amazes me that we went through the Department of Education very fast, despite all the money involved and, because of a little goof-up last night, they are trying to be funny. I will take it under advisement.

Mr. Harding:

There have been a lot of goof-ups in this Legislature. They have all been perpetrated by the Members opposite.

This order-in-council was passed on May 30, long after the education debate took place. I called the Member and gave him notice of this question, so I am very disappointed at his lack of even attempting to respond.

This cut follows the government's mean-spirited approach to chipping away at the little things that are important to Yukoners and that are investments toward the betterment of our lives. I would like to ask the Yukon Party Grinch who stole Christmas what other services and benefits the government intends to cut for the community.

Speaker:

Order please. Could the Member please refrain from those kinds of remarks about the government Members?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

I can take lots of insults from people like that, because they really do not count in my world at all.

What I might say is that the Member did not phone me. I never received a phone call regarding this.

Mr. Harding:

Perhaps the staff did not pass it on, but that is not our fault. We do our best. We cannot always get a hold of the Ministers, but we simply gave notice of the question.

I want to ask this Minister who is the Member of Cabinet who discusses these kinds of orders-in-council? I will ask him the direct question, as he has not answered it yet. I would like to know what other cuts to services and benefits they have planned for rural communities, besides travel allowances?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

I will take that question under advisement.

Speaker:

The time for Question Period has now elapsed.

The Member for Faro would like to introduce someone.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Harding:

I would like to introduce some visitors in the gallery today. Jarrett Deuling is here to watch the proceedings with his brother Judd from Dawson. Jarrett is fresh off a memorial cup victory with the Kamloops Blazers, and is signing a new contract with the New York Islanders hockey organization. Would the House please join me in welcoming them to this Legislature?

Applause

Notice of Government Private Members' Business

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

Pursuant to Standing Order 14.2(7), I would like to inform the House that the Government Private Members do not wish to identify any items to be called on Wednesday, June 8, 1994, under the heading Government Private Members' Business.

Speaker:

We will proceed with Orders of the Day and Government Bills.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GOVERNMENT BILLS

Bill No. 48: Second Reading

Clerk:

Second reading, Bill No. 48, standing in the name of the Hon. Mr. Phelps.

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

I move that Bill No. 48, entitled An Act to Amend the Condominium Act, be now read a second time.

Speaker:

It has been moved by the Hon. Minister of Justice that Bill No. 48, entitled An Act to Amend the Condominium Act, be now read a second time.

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

The Condominium Act, as it is presently written, does not permit the registration of a condominium development until the buildings are constructed. Bill No. 48 will amend the legislation to permit bare land development and to provide an alternative to the regular condominium process.

We are also resolving a technical problem dealing with the

Page Number 2888

approval process for condominium plans. The legislation currently recognizes the Surveyor General of Canada as the only signatory for condominium plan approval. The proposed amendments allow the Surveyor General to delegate this authority to the regional surveyor for the Yukon. These amendments will encourage economic development, and reduce delays in the approval process.

Bare land condominiums are permitted in many jurisdictions in Canada. They are condominiums that can be registered before the construction of any buildings or improvements. This allows for greater flexibility in the development of property, and makes it possible for smaller business ventures to participate in building condominiums. Rather than leasing or renting commercial space, small businesses can choose to collectively establish a condominium corporation. It can share the common elements, such as parking, elevators and washrooms. It would also share the responsibility for general maintenance and repairs.

These changes will assist land developers as well. They will now be able to construct and sell condominiums in phases, using the sale and proceeds of one to finance the construction of the next phase. This is not possible at this time, as all phases of the development must be complete prior to registration with the condominium corporation.

The first change is to section 1 of the act. We have added a definition of bare land unit: "A bare land unit may lie below the surface of the ground, on the ground or a space two stories or more above the surface. It is a bare land unit until construction of the building is complete."

The second section amended is section 6(1). This deals with the contents of survey plans and exempts bare land units from some requirements of this section. This was done because the buildings do not exist at the time the plan was registered.

The amendment to section 6(2) of the act simply recognizes that the Surveyor General of Canada, or a designate, can approve and sign plans under the Condominium Act within Yukon. The next change is in section 9(2) of the act, which recognizes that easements belong to the common elements of a condominium development. The proposed amendment clarifies that an easement cannot exist in relation to a building until the building exists. A bare land unit is exempt from the provisions of this section until construction is complete.

Under the act, a condominium corporation must file a declaration setting out the rules of conduct for the corporation. Section 18(5) states that damage and maintenance provisions must be part of the declaration of the condominium corporation. The amendment we are adding to this section will require a declaration to contain provisions specifying how repair and maintenance of units on bare land will be handled after buildings are constructed.

These changes are similar to those already in place in other jurisdictions. They should assist residences and businesses in planning alternatives to leasing or renting when they would prefer to own their own property. The amendments we are proposing have been requested by the business sector and the Yukon section of the Association of Canada Land Surveyors.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Our caucus supports the main purpose of the Act to Amend the Condominium Act, which allows the Surveyor General to designate another person in their office to review condominium plans so that this can reduce the development time by approximately a month. It will make it easier for surveyors, lawyers and business owners.

The one concern that I did raise with the Minister was whether, in permitting bare land development, the Act to Amend the Condominium Act would be subject to the Subdivision Act. When in doubt, be precise. The Subdivision Act states "a plan made pursuant to Section 6 of the Condominium Act..." It just seems logical that the reverse should be true - that the Act to Amend the Condominium Act should state that the Subdivision Act would apply.

I just raise that issue for clarity and for plain writing. I understand the Minister is considering an amendment that clearly states that the Condominium Act is another way of subdividing land and that it is subject to the Subdivision Act.

Speaker:

If the Minister now speaks he will close debate. Does any other Member wish to be heard?

Mr. Penikett:

Yes, without interceding at length into the bill, I would like to hear the Minister say something in his concluding remarks about the nature and extent of consultation about this measure. I have received not a complaint, but an observation, by someone interested in the question that there did not seem to be any avenue to convey their own views on the question. That is really all that I want to say.

My colleague, the Member for Mount Lorne, has some further comments that I am sure will be addressed during Committee.

Speaker:

If the Member now speaks he will close debate. Does any other Member wish to be heard?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

With respect to the point raised by the Member for Mount Lorne, I will be introducing an amendment that will read that this act is subject to the Subdivision Act, for greater certainty about her point.

With respect to the consultation that has taken place, we have been asked by several people to move ahead with the amendments to allow for bare land condominiums to be strata titled.

Part of the amendment has come from small businesses complaining that it is far more difficult, without this type of legislation on the books, to raise financing to build.

We also received representations from a large landholder in Whitehorse asking for this type of amendment; namely, White Pass.

The department has had discussions with people in the City of Whitehorse administration and with several solicitors who do this type of work. Of course, discussions also took place with the surveyors.

It has generally been felt that these types of clauses will not really do much that is controversial, but will place us in a similar position to most provinces.

Motion for second reading of Bill No. 48 agreed to

Bill No. 70: Second Reading

Clerk:

Second reading, Bill No. 70, standing in the name of the Hon. Mr. Phelps.

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

I move that Bill No. 70, entitled Lottery Licensing Act, 1994, be now read a second time.

Speaker:

It has been moved by the Hon. Minister of Justice that Bill No. 70, entitled Lottery Licensing Act, 1994, be now read a second time.

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

Although we are introducing a new act, the only substantive difference is to change the licensing board to an appeal board, and to establish a registrar, who is responsible for issuing lottery licences.

The scope of licensing charitable organizations will not change. This change in legislation will allow us to provide better service to charitable organizations. They will now have the opportunity to submit their applications and receive approval for gaming events in a very short period of time.

Page Number 2889

Under the existing act, only the Lottery Licensing Board could approve or reject their applications at its monthly meeting. This meant the charitable organization had to submit its application for amendments to licences at least 10 days prior to the board meeting. These timeframes were quite difficult for organizations, which are dependent upon volunteer membership, to meet.

Charitable organizations have expressed concern and frustration with the deadlines and delays caused by these licensing procedures. The procedural changes set out in the new bill will address these concerns. Under the old act, if the application for a lottery licence was refused by the board, there was no appeal, other than to the board that had already denied the licence. Organizations will have the licence considered first by the registrar, and will now have an appeal of the decision of the registrar to an independent board, if they feel it is necessary. We do not expect a large number of appeals.

We have put a clause in Bill No. 70, allowing us to fix the proclamation date. This will allow us some time to amend the regulations to the Lottery Licensing Act to reflect the changes set out in Bill No. 70. These changes will not be substantive, nor will they change the scope of the regulations.

Charitable organizations in the Yukon put a great deal of energy in the raising of funds to support their favourite charity, or to contribute to the advancement of education, religion, cultural, recreational, athletic, or other activities, which are beneficial to Yukon communities.

These changes will give these organizations more flexibility in applying for licences for raffles, bingos, and one- or two-day casino events.

Ms. Commodore:

We have gone over Bill No. 70 and agree with the Minister that these are minor changes that will make things more efficient. I remember that when we were in government, every time that we introduced a bill to the House there was always some concern from the side opposite at that time that we should not be doing it unless the regulations were attached. I understand that regulations must also be changed to accommodate this bill. I would like the Minister to tell me when the regulations are going to be changed - how soon that will be.

When we looked at this bill, we, of course, talked about the effect of gambling of any kind in the Yukon. Only yesterday, I was interviewed by someone who was doing some work for a charitable organization in regard to the effect that video lottery terminals would have on charitable organizations. I was told that there was a concern in regard to that. Bill No. 70, in fact, talks about charitable organizations and how they benefit from this bill, and I might take a couple of minutes to talk about gambling of any kind in the Yukon.

We have a situation here in the Yukon where the government has proceeded with consultation in regard to gambling and has spent $14,000 to do this.

I see the Government Leader anxiously passing notes over to the Minister of Justice, to tell him what to say, I suppose. It is usually the other way around.

Some Hon. Member:

(Inaudible)

Ms. Commodore:

I do not know about teamwork, either. That is a bit of a joke. He talks about teamwork on the other side of the House. That does not appear to be the case these days - that is for sure.

If I might take a few minutes to get over the excitement on the other side of the House because I mentioned gambling. I am not quite sure what they got all excited about, but the Government Leader appeared to be.

One of the things that is happening right now is that there is a great concern about the existing gambling in the Yukon. That includes bingo. The Government Leader had asked me if anybody had come to me about bingo in the Yukon, which is also a form of gambling, and I said certainly they had. We are told of other gambling that takes place on a regular basis, almost every night of the week, where high stakes are played for.

Some Hon. Member:

(Inaudible)

Ms. Commodore:

The Member for Riverdale South says "poker games". I think that is probably it.

Speaker:

Please allow the Member to speak.

Ms. Commodore:

Actually, Mr. Speaker, I am quite enjoying myself.

I do not want to belabour this, but I just want to mention again for the second or third - and last time before this sitting ends - that there is a great concern out there with regard to gambling. There has been a lot of publicity. There have been a lot of people who have been opposed to it, including, according to the paper, the First Nations. They have joined the anti-gambling position, and other groups have sought information from individuals about how they feel about gambling. There are many groups and individuals who are opposed to gambling in the form that was being recommended by this government.

The information that has been revealed through the media and through representations to the Chamber of Commerce, which had asked people to respond to a survey, has probably caused some surprise, when the information came back. More than half the people who had returned surveys were opposed to video lottery terminals and casino gambling in the Yukon.

The first group I heard from after the proposal came out of the government was, as I mentioned in the House before, the Council for Yukon Indians. They were very concerned about it. Then the phone calls began to come in, not only from them, but also from individuals, teachers and people active in some of the churches in the Yukon. Those are very important people. They may not own hotels or be friends of the government, but their concerns should be taken very seriously by this government. It appears that they are not. That is a concern to a number of people - especially having had to go through a whole sitting to find out how irresponsible this government has become in the last little while.

If it is this government's intention to proceed with gambling of any kind to increase their funding at the expense of many individuals in society, then I think we have a big concern.

A report was done by the government prior to the Council on the Economy and the Environment starting their consultations. That study indicated many problems that would occur as a result of gambling, and much of that information was taken out of the final report that was submitted to the Council on the Economy and the Environment.

The government may not want to, but I think that they should look at this issue very seriously and consider many of the negative things that were reported in the secret report that never reached the Council on the Economy and the Environment. There was a lot of information in the report that would have given them the opportunity to see beforehand some of the things that had already been seen by the committee in their research. There were many recommendations proposed to the government, and I would like to say at this time that we are very concerned about the proposal by this government to proceed with gambling in the Yukon. We feel that this will be hurtful to many individuals who might be affected by gambling, because we can see the problems right now.

In regard to bingo, we see this happening and we know that hundreds of people leave their homes early in the afternoon to attend bingo games that start at 7:00 p.m. Many individuals leave their responsibilities at home and that should not happen.

I am not against present fundraising activities, and this bill will provide for that to be done in a different manner, but I would like

Page Number 2890

to say once again to this government that they have to be very careful when looking at the report from the Council on the Economy and the Environment.

They knew beforehand that there was going to be a problem. I think that if they chose to support video lottery terminals in the Yukon, there is going to be another cry of outrage from the citizens of the Yukon. I think that just for once they should listen to the people of the Yukon. They certainly have not listened in the past regarding big issues such as this. I have nothing else to add, but I would like the Minister to tell me whether or not he will be introducing regulations in the near future, because this bill will probably be assented to some time this week.

Speaker:

If the Member now speaks, he will close debate. Does any other Member wish to be heard?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

Let me first say to the Member opposite that changes to the regulations will not be substantive at all. There would simply be a change of words in the existing regulations so that the differentiation between the appeal board and the registrar will be delineated throughout the regulations. They should be ready and going to Cabinet very shortly.

With regard to her lengthy treatise on gambling in the Yukon and its impact on the mores of Yukoners, let me assure the Minister that this act is very limited in scope, and should not really erode the moral fibre of the average Yukoner beyond the damage that was inflicted by the side opposite when they were in power and introduced the original Lottery Licensing Act.

Motion for second reading of Bill No. 70 agreed to

Bill No. 66: Second Reading

Clerk:

Second reading, Bill No. 66, standing in the name of the Hon. Mr. Phelps.

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

I move that Bill No. 66, entitled An Act to Amend the Landlord and Tenant Act, be now read a second time.

Speaker:

It has been moved by the Hon. Minister of Justice that Bill No. 66, entitled An Act to Amend the Landlord and Tenant Act, be now read a second time.

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

These amendments will resolve an issue relating to interest rates that has been brought to our attention by landlords, and will enhance the rights of mobile home tenants. In addition to the changes presented in Bill No. 66, I will be introducing a further amendment, during Committee of the Whole, which will discourage the use of rental increases as a way of circumventing the notice requirements.

This first change will allow the interest rate on security deposits held by landlords to be set by regulation. By reviewing this rate on a regular basis, we can then ensure that it is similar to the rate currently paid by banks. The rate a landlord pays on a security deposit has been set at 10 percent since at least 1984. Interest rates were very high during this period, and a 10 percent interest rate was not unusual. Since then, interest rates have declined dramatically, while the legislative requirement remained unchanged.

As a result, landlords continue to pay a high interest rate on money held, while banks are paying between one and three percent on savings accounts. This is not equitable.

Adding the phrase, "or such other rate as may, from time to time, be prescribed", will permit interest rates to be changed by regulation. We will move quickly to introduce regulations setting the interest rate paid on security deposits at a rate near that currently paid by banks.

Landlords will welcome this amendment, yet tenants will not be disadvantaged. They will make approximately the same interest rate on their security deposit as if their funds were in a bank savings account.

The second amendment will resolve an issue recently raised by tenants of mobile home parks. There have been occasions when tenants have found that the removal of their mobile home is blocked from road access by the construction of buildings or other obstacles. The landlord may be prepared to remove these obstacles when requested by the tenant. If the landlord is not agreeable, and the tenant pays costs, or the trailer is damaged as a result of any obstruction placed or constructed by the landlord, they will now be able to recover those costs or damages from the landlord.

The next amendment extends the length of notice the landlord must give to a mobile home owner from one month to 12 months. Often, mobile homes are old and do not meet present building or electrical codes. Mobile home owners do not have time in the present one-month notice period to find a suitable site or to upgrade their trailers to meet building and electrical codes. Even when a mobile home is new and fully up to code, the current period is a very short time in which to find a new site and to arrange for removal.

The amendment to the act will allow mobile home owners up to one year to find alternative sites for their mobile homes, should they be required to move by the landlord. This change does not preclude tenants from giving their landlord notice that they are terminating their tenancy agreements and moving their mobile homes, nor does it preclude landlords from giving tenants 14 days' notice for substantial breach of the tenancy agreement.

Finally, during Committee of the Whole, I will be introducing an amendment that gives the tenant of the mobile home site the right to treat a notice of rent increase as a notice of termination. The 12-month rent increase cannot take effect until the notice period has expired, or the landlord and tenant agree to an alteration of their tenancy agreement. This clause has built into it an incentive for the landlord to be reasonable in planning rental increases and for the tenant to be reasonable in deciding whether to accept the rent notice as notice of termination. If the landlord's notice of rent increase is unreasonable, it may result in empty mobile home sites. If tenants are unreasonable in their response to the notice of rent increase, they could find themselves, one year later, without a site for their mobile home. It will therefore encourage the parties to reach a mutually agreeable arrangement.

These changes give mobile home owners better protection in the future and will resolve an inequity landlords have faced for many years. In short, these amendments are fair, sound and responsive.

Mr. McDonald:

I would like to thank the Minister for presenting these amendments to the Legislature today.

The first amendment, which deals with the way that interest is calculated on security deposits, is, I am sure, an important but minor amendment. Clearly, the more substantive amendments deal with the landlord and tenant relationship in mobile home parks. I can tell the Minister something that he is already aware of: the existing Landlord and Tenant Act neither understood nor responded to the needs of mobile home owners renting pads in trailer parks. It treated those who rented pads on which to put their mobile homes the same way it treated those who rented apartments. Clearly, however, the needs of mobile home owners are different from those who are simply renters in apartments or houses. The difficulties associated with moving one's trailer and one's belongings are greater for the mobile home owner - the costs of moving are much higher and the alternative locations to which they can move are fewer.

Mobile home owners need more protection. This legislation makes a good first step toward that goal. I can say that I am happy that the government moved as quickly as it did when the plight of

Page Number 2891

three constituents of mine became public.

To refresh Members' memories, three families in a trailer court in Whitehorse were given notice to move to make way for a carwash development. The law states that they be given 30 days' notice to move their homes. They were, in fact, given 45 days' notice. Whether it be 30 or 45 days' notice, the notice period was completely inadequate for their needs.

These families' lives were, predictably, turned upside down. These people, who had limited incomes, had to come to terms with the fact that they would have to bear the increased costs associated with not only moving their trailers, but also upgrading them to current building code standards. These costs would not be insignificant for any of us.

It was also discovered that, because all the trailers in this case were older than 10 years, the owners had to fight to find another site within the City of Whitehorse, and had to seek special dispensation from city officialdom and from city council to get access to other sites. In the end, few alternatives were actually found. This issue made it obvious that the City of Whitehorse and the Yukon government have a long way to go toward ensuring that there are alternatives for trailer home owners.

The injustice associated with the predicament these people found themselves in was obvious for anyone to see. While they had to sort their way through city rules, YTG laws, building codes and bankers' rules and restrictions, it was obvious from the beginning that the onus to move was placed securely on the shoulders of the people who had had their lease agreements terminated. Not only did they have to sort their way through the bureaucracy and jump through the hoops, but they had to do it fast.

It was clear that these three families, who had not suspected at the beginning of April that their lives would be changed so dramatically, were expected to find accommodation, meaning not only a new site, but also money they did not have and resolutions to their problems with city officials. All this had to be accomplished in a very short period of time. It was also obvious that, even when they found a way out of their predicament, in all cases the alternatives they had to proceed with were not what they would have chosen.

Since they had to bear a large, new investment in their homes that had not been expected, it now transpires that they will likely have to live with whatever choice is available to them, simply because they have no alternatives and have invested so much in making this change.

The ultimate solution for tenants in this situation is going to include not only changes to the Landlord and Tenant Act, some of which are important and have been introduced today, but it is also going to involve, particularly, the City of Whitehorse - obviously, this is a law for the territory, but I am speaking to my own constituents - and the Yukon government making efforts to have land available for purchase and rental purposes, so that people who are living in trailers may have an opportunity to seek an alternative site elsewhere.

It will also involve fairly responsive action from lending institutions, including the Yukon Housing Corporation, understanding that the people who are involved are largely low-income people.

I can tell the Minister that, in this particular instance, he has been more than responsive to the requests I have made for changes to the Landlord and Tenant Act, including the further amendments that he has indicated he will be bringing in.

I would like to thank the Minister for his cooperation and suggest to him and the government that these changes will be well-received by most people who own trailers in the City of Whitehorse and around the territory.

I would point out that, in the City of Whitehorse alone, trailers number approximately 900 and, while we work our way through the problems that many mobile home owners face, I am certain that they will see this step as being an important one to seeking a better relationship with landlords, and perhaps a better living relationship when it comes to seeking alternatives for land that may be made available to them in the future.

I would again like to thank the government for doing what they have done, and I will be back next fall, perhaps, to seek further changes.

Mr. Penikett:

I hate to cut off the applause for my colleague, but I wanted to say a few words on this bill.

First of all, I want to compliment the Minister for bringing forward these amendments. Secondly, I want to endorse the views of my colleague from McIntyre-Takhini, particularly in respect to the situation that has been experienced by his constituents, and my former constituents, in the Kopper King Trailer Court this year.

The problems that have received press attention this year, about the large number of older mobile homes in the city, and the difficulty of moving them and, at the same time, meeting the various local, municipal and national standards, are considerable. As my colleague has pointed out, it is a peculiarity of this group of home owners that they are both landlords and tenants. They own their own homes, but they have to rent the pads, or the land on which their homes sit. As my colleague said, the Landlord and Tenant Act, as it is presently written, does not adequately deal with their situation.

The fact that they fall between the cracks in the act is a problem not just in respect to statutes like the Landlord and Tenant Act, but there are also a number of other problems. Some months ago, I raised the case of people in Lobird Trailer Court, who wanted to build a playground for the kids in the area. They had received approval from the community development fund to go ahead with it but, when it was discovered they did not actually own the land on which they were going to build the playground, the program funding was not available to them any more, even though the landlord, in this case, was quite willing to do a transaction with the tenants that would have allowed them to take title to the little bit of land, in order to develop the playground.

Just yesterday, I had another call from a constituent who wanted to replace windows in their 1970 mobile home. The Yukon Housing Corporation had told her that a loan was approved to do it, but subsequently told her they could not approve it, because she does not actually own the land on which the mobile home is sitting. Quite properly, my constituent felt this situation was not fair. It is obviously a question I will be pursuing on their behalf.

One thing the experience of the last few months - particularly the difficulties of the people in Kopper King, who were going to be displaced by a carwash - has done is to make it clear to me that, as my colleague says, we are going to have to look at further legislative changes to deal with the situation of mobile homes. Perhaps the time has come, given the number of mobile homes and mobile home parks, especially in this city, for us to be considering legislation dealing exclusively with mobile home parks, the rights and obligations of the landlord, the rights and obligations of the residents, and so forth.

This is an area that, as my colleague says, is not perfectly covered by the existing act. I can recall years ago, when I represented people in Northland and Takhini trailer courts, and the mobile home parks changed hands, they were suddenly faced with very big rent increases, and had no recourse - no way of dealing with it. I went in and helped the tenants in both of those places organize a tenant association for the purpose of trying to at least negotiate with the landlords, and in some cases they were partially successful.

Page Number 2892

Given what happened at the Kopper King Trailer Court, we now know that the Landlord and Tenant Act has been an imperfect instrument, I would suspect, as far as both landlords and tenants are concerned. Perhaps the time has come to start thinking, in full consultation with the people involved, about legislation that deals exclusively with the needs of this class of homeowners.

Speaker:

If the Minister now speaks, he will close debate. Does any other Member wish to be heard?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

I would like to thank both of the Members opposite for their constructive comments. I agree with much of what they have to say about the inadequacy of the current Landlord and Tenant Act regarding mobile homes and trailer parks.

I would like to particularly congratulate the Member for McIntyre-Takhini on his lobbying efforts. It was our pleasure to move to meet what we saw as a grave injustice that was being suffered by his three constituents in this case.

I would also like to thank him for his positive and constructive criticism regarding the initial bill. This critique led us to develop amendments and then to refine the amendments after further critiques from the Member, and we welcome that type of constructive criticism. We hope that this may be a sign of things to come - that perhaps there will be a lot more of this kind of constructive action by Members opposite, and not the destructive political kinds of actions that we have become so used to, particularly from the Member for Faro.

Motion for second reading of Bill No. 66 agreed to

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

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

Speaker:

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

Motion agreed to

Speaker leaves the Chair

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Chair:

I will now call Committee of the Whole to order. Are we prepared to take a brief recess at this time?

Some Hon. Members:

Agreed.

Chair:

We will take a brief recess.

Recess

Chair:

I will now call Committee of the Whole to order.

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

Department of Tourism - continued

Chair:

Is there any further general debate?

Mr. Cable:

When we finished yesterday, I indicated that I had some questions. I spoke to the Minister of Tourism this morning and indicated that I would be asking a few questions about a certain area. He indicated that if I got them on the record - he did not expect the answers to be forthcoming today - he would get back to me. It is on that basis that I ask these questions.

The Minister is on the record as indicating that the success of Yukon tourism, to some extent, relates to whether or not the Yukon can set itself apart from other jurisdictions as a destination. I am reading a quote from the CHON-FM news report script of Tuesday, August 3, 1993. The Minister is talking about his trip around the territory. He says, "It did make me realize that we need more attractions, more places, more viewpoints and scenic spots where people can stop and look, to keep them here a little longer - more areas identified for fishing and these kinds of things".

Dr. Peter Williams, who was involved in a tourism marketing conference, was here awhile back. He stated that success in tourism would hinge on whether or not the Yukon could set itself apart from other destinations. I believe that is something that the Minister believes in.

The first question is this: what is the Minister's plan? Does he have some sort of general plan to develop specific destinations peculiar to the Yukon that we can sell, setting these destinations apart from other destinations in other places in the world?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

I think that it is pretty well-known the Minister of Tourism, this government and I have been, right from the start, wanting controlled access into Kluane National Park so that we can hold people in the Yukon, instead of their going to Denali. Denali National Park now receives one million people a year and I doubt if we can say 4,000 get into Kluane National Park. That is one place we would like to go.

We have very good opportunities for other attractions in some of our wilderness places, with wilderness trails and controlled access into the areas. For instance, we now are building a camp with Tourism - a boat launch and everything - at White Mountain where we have goats. There will be a viewing stand there. There is a salt lick there and the goats come down in there.

We have to get attractions like that. The one at Sheep Mountain is probably the best attraction for seeing game anywhere in the Yukon. I doubt that anyone who goes by there in the summer does not stop to see the sheep on the mountain. Unfortunately, they do not always stay there, and they go around the back of the mountain. If we could get some of the roads open that are already there, people could go back into these areas and still see the sheep, because they just go around in the back to Bouillon and Congdon creeks.

Up in the Silver Trail area, there are areas where they are trying to get some roads. Getting people off the main highway into these other areas is what makes people stop and stay an extra night or two nights. If one considers the thousands of people who go across the border at Beaver Creek, if we could stop 10 percent of them for an extra night in the Yukon, it would make an awful difference to tourism.

Mr. Cable:

I take it from what the Minister just said that the plans of the Minister of Tourism revolve around government-controlled destinations. Is that what the Minister is saying?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

Not completely, no. Government should maybe get some of them started, such as getting through the red tape, and then give it to private enterprise to take over these things and look after them. I do not think government is the answer to the whole thing at all. Government can simply help to try to get through the red tape.

I guess Kluane Park is a good example. We have been fighting for years to try to gain access into it, and we are continually stopped by red tape from Winnipeg and other places. Government is the only one that can stop that. But, once government gets it, it would put the concessions out to private people and let them run them. We should also encourage people to build lodges into some of the back places where there is good fishing, and things such as that. We have some now, but we should be able to increase this to some extent.

Mr. Cable:

Would it be fair to say, when we are talking about access and use of parks and the creation of viewpoints, that they are primarily government-initiated projects and that the Minister would see the government playing a major role in those sorts of projects. We are not really looking to the private enterprise sector of the economy to create access to parks. Am I understanding what

Page Number 2893

the Minister is saying?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

We would like to help private industry get through the government red tape. A real good example was the Slims River trips. Westours was willing to put their buses in and it all got squashed. That would have been a real asset. They were willing to put the money and buses in as long as we were able to get them through the national parks, but we could not do that.

We now have an ongoing exit survey taking place that will tell us what visitors want to see when visiting the Yukon. This will help us judge what type of entertainment we have to have for visitors to the territory.

Another issue is the waterfront. If we could ever get that straightened out and built into an old timers' place for Yukoners and First Nations, similar to Fort Edmonton, then we would hold people here for another day or two.

When you really look at it, what do visitors to Whitehorse have to see when they come to Whitehorse except the game farm and the can-can dancers, which they see in one night. Tourists are here and gone in one day. Whitehorse should be able to hold them for at least a day or two extra.

Mr. Cable:

I could not agree with the Minister more. The theory that we should have something to set us apart from other destinations is something that I have heard since I came here 24 years ago. We seem to be spinning our tires and gyrating around, and it never seems to happen.

Does the Minister see that the government will have more of a role as a catalyst to making these things happen? We have talked about convention centres, First Nation attractions and we have talked about any number of things peculiar to Yukon, but they do not seem to happen. Is there any reason why we cannot get these projects off the drawing board?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

I think that one of the reasons is too much red tape. We are dealing with federal government, and now we are dealing with land claims and we cannot get any of these things settled. Nobody in private business knows whether they have any security so that they can move on these things. The faster we get these things settled and get the red tape cut down to where private business can get into it, I think that you will find it goes much smoother and that more people will be interested. It will be interesting to look at the figures when the exit survey comes out, to see just what people expect to see and do in the Yukon.

Mr. Cable:

Of course we have had exit surveys before, and we have had any number of reports. I do not purport to have read them. This is not a new idea, or a particularly original idea. I note, from the stats on page 267 of the budget, that tourism-related construction activity under the heading "attraction/recreation", which is presumably the sort of things we are talking about, has a marked decrease. Does the Minister offer any explanation of why that is so, in view of the fact that it appears to be fairly obvious to everybody that we should have some destination set apart.

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

What line do you want? Do you want to find the total or what?

Mr. Cable:

It is under the heading "tourism related construction activity" on page 267. It is the lines marked "attraction/recreation". The 1994-95 estimate is $75,000. The forecast for 1993-94 is $360,000. In view of this proposition that we seem to be in agreement on - that we should be creating destinations - would that not be the appropriate heading under which one would find new destinations being created?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

We will have to get back with a definite answer for the Member. The information was taken from the government territorial building permits and the Whitehorse building permits. We will have to come back with that information.

Mr. Cable:

Just to get back to the first question, is there something around here called a plan? I do not want to offend the Government Leader by saying something this thick, but are there a few pages relating to the creation of destinations in the Yukon? Has some thought gone into that and reduced to paper?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

There does not appear to be a definite, complete plan. One thing that the Department of Tourism has done, in conjunction with Canadian Airlines, is to establish special rates for Europeans to come here. That appears to have been quite successful. That is one idea.

Another idea came from the bus tour companies' suggestion that they wanted more entertainment for the people when they come here, or they are going right through. We have to think of some entertainment going, as well.

Mr. Cable:

I have another follow-up question. There have been a number of proponents for increased casino gambling here. Would that fall under the Minister of Tourism's designation of a destination that is distinct from other designations?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

Perhaps I can answer that question, as the Minister of Tourism is not here today. I do not want to keep the debate going on all afternoon on this, but, as we are talking about casinos, certainly that is something that could keep people over another night. It is a known fact.

The other fact is that with a casino there is a possibility to market in the State of Alaska, where they do not have legalized gambling - and probably will not for many years. There is an opportunity to market in that area and get people to Whitehorse.

It is only one small block in the entire building process. What businesses and companies that travel to the Yukon have said - and I have been involved in the tourism business all my life, not only here but in the Alberta national parks as well, prior to my arrival in the Yukon - is that if there is nothing for the people to do, they will not spend money in the area.

Whether you are dealing with people who are going through to Alaska, or attracting people to the Yukon itself, if there is nothing for them to do, they are automatically going to move on to Alaska, or another area. Not everyone wants to hike in the wilderness. You have to have a diversified plan, where you deal with all age groups and physical capabilities, and you have to have the infrastructure in place to help hold these people here.

An example for the Member opposite is the golf course in Whitehorse. That has been a tremendous asset to our tourism business. It is full. Every morning, there are all kinds of visitors playing golf. The golf course in Dawson City will help. The golf course in Watson Lake has been an added benefit to the community.

There is no one thing you can say we need to keep the tourists in the Yukon. We need a broad range of things, and we have to look at a bigger picture than we have in the past.

Mr. Cable:

That is a fair enough comment. I do not want to belabour this thing. Has the Department of Tourism done any research on whether people are going to stay here, and hotels will be increasingly full in the summer because of the presence of a gambling casino? If not, is there any intention to check the hype that is coming out of the gambling promoters about all the good things that will happen in the Yukon in the way of economic benefit?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

No, they have not, at present, but they are following what the Council on the Economy and the Environment is doing. They should be able to give us some facts and figures on whether or not this is feasible.

Chair:

Is there any further general debate?

Mr. McDonald:

The acting Minister may not have been at the Tourism Industry Association convention, where the issue of legalized gambling and casinos was raised. I would not call the Tourism Industry Association's position a ringing endorsement of legalized gambling. It seemed to be more of a grudging acceptance

Page Number 2894

that, if it did come, they wanted to control it in a way that was of greatest impact and return benefits to the industry, or as much as could be expected.

We are ultimately going to have this debate, and I am sure all of us look forward to that debate.

I have some follow-up questions with respect to the waterfront that I would like to ask the Minister about, and if he wants to take notice any time or if he feels uncomfortable or out his depth, - please do not answer it unless he feels comfortable.

My question is about the involvement of the Yukon Historical and Museum Association in waterfront development planning. The Minister, in the past, has said they would be involved. I would like to know what kind of involvement he is talking about. What kind of involvement would the heritage community enjoy in the process of developing waterfront development plans?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

I would take that one under advisement. It is going to be quite a long subject and I am not that familiar with it.

Mr. McDonald:

That is fair. The Minister indicated with respect to the waterfront development that he would like to see a number of different things happening on the waterfront that would encourage public activity, tourists to stay an extra day - the maximum usage of this particular area. He suggested that once we basically cut through the red tape - the regulations, the rules, the complications - that we will ultimately get things moving.

Quite apart from the fact that I think it is going to take more than the elimination of red tape to get things moving, can he tell us how that might be accomplished and what the issues are? Clearly, in this Legislature we have all endorsed some of that red tape - meaning the resolution of land claims issues, et cetera. There has been a planning process that will at least be led by the City of Whitehorse. How does the Minister see things transpiring there?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

I will take that under advisement. The discussion would be very long and I am not that familiar with the whole thing.

Mr. McDonald:

I think the Minister's instincts about avoiding mine fields are probably well-earned from his days some 50 years ago. There certainly are some mine fields that are every bit as dangerous as they were 50 years ago. However, I would like some answers to some of these questions, because they are very important questions, and we have to resolve what appear to be some conflicting positions.

I was tempted to ask the Minister about his thoughts on loans and grants to see if I could get a different variation on that subject, but I will free the Minister from any obligations there.

With respect to the question that I asked the Minister last night, I want to get a clear reading on the opening and closing of visitor reception centres. Could the Minister tell us whether or not the visitor reception centres are opening and closing this year at the same time they were last year?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

Yes, they are pretty well opening on the same dates as they have in the past.

Mr. McDonald:

Okay, that is fine. The Minister might remember a headline in the Whitehorse Star, dated March 7, entitled "User fees trend boards S.S. Klondike". The issue exposed in the paper was the plans by Parks Canada to move to user fees for such sites as the S.S. Klondike. There was some indication that this was a sign of things to come, in terms of cost recovery for public sites.

Could the Minister tell us whether or not the Department of Tourism has a comment on the Parks Canada initiative to promote user fees? I would also like to know whether or not there is a policy on user fees for their own facilities or facilities that the department funds in part.

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

We are not going to comment on national parks and their user fees. We have asked them if they could inform us ahead of time so that the information can be included in our brochures when they go out. Whether or not we should have user fees has not really been discussed in the Tourism department.

Mr. McDonald:

So the subject of increased cost recovery through user fees has not been under active discussion. Has the department not expressed any opinion at all to Parks Canada with respect to their position?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

The only discussion we had with them was that we need to know the information quite a bit earlier so that it can be included in our brochures so that people understand that there will be a user charge when they go in there.

Mr. McDonald:

The question of notice has been the issue; there has been no disagreement in principle with respect to the concept of user fees for Yukoners viewing the S.S. Klondike or any other Parks Canada facility; is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

We are naturally concerned that, with greater cost, some of the buses may refuse to stop, because they have budgeted their trip from somewhere in the United States. However, I might point out that the national parks - Kluane National Park - have been told that by the year 2000, I believe, they had better be self-sustaining, or else. This is a trend that the federal government has started, so the user-pay issue may move into other areas.

Mr. McDonald:

Perhaps even as soon as the year 2000 - it may take 18,000 years when you think about it. I appreciate that. I think that may be a pressure that they are facing. I am interested in knowing whether or not similar pressures are being applied internally in YTG. If the government does start pursuing that particular policy, I would like to know when they are starting to think about it, so that we can have a discussion.

I do not have many other questions that the acting Minister can help us with. The only issues that I have at this point are more detailed policy questions. I will reserve my comments for later when the Minister returns.

I do have one question about infrastructure development. It involves what the government is prepared to fund. I would ask this policy question of the Minister: if the government is providing a public investment in infrastructure - in bricks and mortar, in trail development or anything of that sort - is it fair to say that public financing will not be provided to private-sector partners?

I was told they might have an unfair advantage as a result of this public investment, that any publicly funded infrastructure will be owned and promoted by the public as a general proposition.

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

It would be owned, but that does not mean we could not contract it out, rather than government trying to run it. Quite frankly, I do not think the government could run any tourism business. We may provide the infrastructure, then contract it out to other people. For instance, we might contract a controlled road out to someone to take people on, and they would pay back to the government a certain amount for getting the contract.

Mr. McDonald:

It is the ownership I am primarily interested in. I do not think the Minister meant to make any judgment about how the Department of Tourism runs the visitor reception centres because, as we were told yesterday, they are run by the Department of Tourism, and there are no plans to privatize them. I will not play any games here.

I would be more than happy to move into the line-by-line debate.

On Administration

On Activity

On Operations

Mr. McDonald:

If the Minister would just give us a brief

Page Number 2895

explanation of the change, where there are changes, we could move through this reasonably quickly.

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

There is $424,000 in salaries, for six full-time equivalents, including the deputy, director, administration officer, one full-time and one part-time administrative clerk, one full-time and one part-time secretary, and a part-time records clerk; $10,000 for partial funding of the second summit; $16,000 for travel in and out of the territory; $51,000 for department-wide photocopier supplies, fax costs, memberships, repairs and maintenance, et cetera; $285,000 transfer payment to the Yukon Anniversaries Commission; and $100,000 transfer payment to the Tourism Industry Association.

Operations in the amount of $886,000 agreed to

Administration in the amount of $886,000 agreed to

On Heritage

On Activities

On Operations

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

This includes $209,000 for salaries for three positions - a director, secretary and native heritage advisor; $7,000 for operation of geographical names board, including travel, honouraria and small contracts; $10,000 is for in and out of territory travel; $18,000 for communications; $15,000 transfer payment to Yukon Science Institute for the heritage lecture series; and $5,000 miscellaneous.

Mr. McDonald:

Can the Minister tell us, compared to last year, how much funding is being put into personnel costs, whether through the normal personnel complement or contract services, for the archaeologist's duties?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

We will have to get back to the Member on the exact amount.

Operations in the amount of $264,000 agreed to

On Museums

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

There is $138,000 for two employees - a museum advisor and conservator; $5,000 for travel in and out of the territory; $75,000 for the passport program; $111,000 transfer payment to museums; and $1,000 miscellaneous.

Museums in the amount of $330,000 agreed to

On Historic Sites

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

There is $134,000 for two employees - an historic site coordinator and an historic site technician; and $4,000 for travel in and out of the territory.

Mr. McDonald:

Can the Minister tell us, in developing the capital plan for developing historic sites, whether or not the government intends to accelerate activity in this particular area in the future? We know the government is interested in improving destination spots - things to see, and things to do. Historic sites have always been a natural opportunity for us to encourage people to stay and see a little bit about who we are and who we have been. There is virtually no controversy about expenditures made in this area, whether they be of First Nations ancestry, or whether it is the gold rush history. There has always been the understanding that this work is slow in coming but, at the same time, many of the sites themselves deteriorate quickly.

I thought, in the past - having driven past Montague House on the Klondike Highway I do not know how many times in my lifetime - that it would be nice to see that particular site developed. I realize that is only one, but there are many opportunities, and we have a tendency to operate in slow motion here.

Is this one area, in terms of infrastructure, that the government is going to accelerate?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

I should throw this one back at the hon. Member on the other side. As I recall, in the seven or eight years I was in the Opposition, I tried to save Silver City. We have lost it completely. That is an attraction where even now the buses stop in order to see it falling apart. However, I will not do that. I will be kind and agree with him that we have to move on those things.

At present, we are looking at Canyon City and the Montague House as new projects.

Mr. McDonald:

Never having been one to turn down a challenge, I do recall some of the concerns about Silver City. It was held in private hands. So many of our historic sites are on Crown lands, and there are so many opportunities here. Given that we are going to be promoting more destinations and things to do, it would be silly to ignore the potential here.

I am not saying for one moment that the previous government could not have done more. Certainly I was always an advocate of some of the sites in my district, along the Klondike Highway. I understand that they were not priorities to the department or Ministers at the time. However, given that we are looking for places to develop, many of these seem to be naturals to me. While I am going to be providing the criticism of the department's activities, I am also going to be promoting this particular area. I am happy to see that the government will be accelerating some work here.

Historic sites in the amount of $138,000 agreed to

Heritage in the amount of $732,000 agreed to

On Development

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

There is $349,000 in salaries for five employees: a director, a secretary, a development planner and two development officers. There is $12,000 for travelling outside the territory and $8,000 for communications. The $92,000 for contract research includes focus group testing in 1995-96, advertising and a literature program, conservation studies for various promotional efforts, annual membership and data collection in the Canadian Research Institute, border crossing surveys and aboriginal tourism development support. There is also $2,000 for miscellaneous.

There is $61,000 transfer payment to the Yukon Energy Corporation for Tourism's share of the fish hatchery and the fish ladder.

Mr. McDonald:

Could the Minister tell us what the priority projects are for this particular branch?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

The projects consist of those that I read out, which work on the system. Most of the projects were listed in the capital development budget.

On Activity

On Operations

Operations in the amount of $524,000 agreed to

Development in the amount of $524,000 agreed to

Chair:

Is there any debate on marketing?

On Marketing

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

There is $528,000, which consists of salary for eight employees including the director's secretary, three marketing officers and three assistant marketing officers. There is $475,000 for advertising, which includes the SCA outdoor adventure campaign, the film industry program and other miscellaneous advertising. There is $33,000 allocated for communication.

On Activities

On Operations

Operations in the amount of $1,036,000 agreed to

On Public Relations

Public Relations in the amount of $113,000 agreed to

On Promotions

Promotions in the amount of $923,000 agreed to

On Information Services

Information Services in the amount of $1,665,000 agreed to

Marketing in the amount of $3,737,000 agreed to

Chair:

Is there any debate on arts?

On Arts

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

There is $249,000 for 3.7 full-time equivalents, which include a director, secretary, art curator and art

Page Number 2896

consultant; $11,000 for travel, both in and out of the territory; $10,000 for art boards and juries, including honoraria and travel from communities; $58,000 for contract services, mainly for arts marketing and arts awareness initiatives; $4,000 for advertising; $5,000 for communications; $6,000 for miscellaneous; $763,000 transfer payment to the Yukon Arts Centre Corporation, arts groups and artists, and the artist-in-the-school program. This includes a forecast recovery of $180,000 from the Yukon Lottery Commission.

Mr. McDonald:

Can the Minister explain the reason for the reduction in the recoveries from the Lottery Commission?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

It depends on lottery sales, and how much they get when they apportion it out. There is no set amount.

Mr. McDonald:

They expect the sale of lottery tickets to decrease. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

Yes, that is correct.

On Activity

On Operations

Operations in the amount of $1,107,000 agreed to

Arts in the amount of $1,107,000 agreed to

Department of Tourism agreed to

Department of Justice

Chair:

Is there any general debate?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

I am pleased to present the Justice department's operation and maintenance estimates for the 1994-95 fiscal year. The Department of Justice is expected to play an important role in our society. This is especially true in a climate where more and more people are growing anxious over what they perceive to be an increasing threat to their personal safety and quality of life. Even though national crime statistics actually show a decrease in the overall rate of crime, it is essential that the department works all the harder to ensure respect for the law and to enhance public confidence in the administration of justice.

When I delivered the last Justice O&M budget, I said that this government was committed to the delivery of quality services that balanced demand with available financial resources. Today I am pleased to report that the 1994-95 operations and maintenance budget totals $28,843,000 dollars, two percent less than last year. This is not only on track with our policy of reducing the cost of administration, but reflects our continued dedication to a responsive, fair and accessible justice system.

Members are aware that the department's responsibilities are very broad in nature. They range from drafting of Yukon legislation and regulations to the administration and delivery of many programs and services, including consumer, corporate and labour services, correctional services, court programs, boards of inquiry, and the department's ongoing responsibility to manage the 20-year RCMP police services contract.

The goal of ensuring fiscal responsibility while meeting client needs means making some very difficult choices. It means asking ourselves how we can do something better with less. It mean re-examining how we deliver justice programs and why we deliver them in the first place. As well, adjustments have had to be made with programs cost shared with the Government of Canada, such as legal aid, compensation for victims of crime, and native court workers. Unfortunately, the Yukon government no longer continued to absorb the additional costs of programs off-loaded by the federal government. More importantly, Yukoners want less complication in the justice system. The programs are more reflective of community circumstances and priorities.

To that end, the department took a year-long operational review of its programs and services, based on ministerial priorities in the area of community-based justice, crime prevention, court reform and policing. This review was designed to challenge the way we think, how well things are working, how well we are serving Yukoners and what can be improved, given our limited resources.

Out of this dynamic process has emerged two essential principles: that the reallocation of resources from low priorities to accommodate new public priorities has, and will continue to be, the basis of planning and implementation, and that our focus must be on improvements to program delivery and service.

In applying these principles to our operations, we have achieved some very positive results. For example, we have reduced the cost to government administration by putting several sections into a single branch called management services. This means that finance and administration systems and human resources, as well as policy and communications, all report to the deputy minister. Not only has this reorganization resulted in a more streamlined structure, it also provides more support to branch programs. This year's budget is $1.175 million, a saving of over four percent, compared to 1993-94.

In our program areas, branches have been informally grouped into two functional halves, closely corresponding to the Attorney General and Solicitor General departments often found in larger jurisdictions. This division is intended to provide better coordination among branches that share similar responsibilities, such as legal services, court services and consumer and commercial services. The budget for these three branches show cost savings of 22, six and five percent respectively.

We have also responded to concerns expressed by Yukoners for a justice system that is much more in touch with their needs, one where participation is based on partnership and ownership is based on accountability. To that end, we have made organizational changes that emphasize our community responsibilities. The corrections branch is now known as community and correctional services, focusing its role on the provision of custodial and supervisory services that promote support and integration within the community. There has been $7.842 million allocated to this branch in 1994-95.

Part of that overall figure provides for the opening of a 25-bed Teslin community correctional facility this summer. This is a special facility designed to offer programming that helps minimum security offenders recognize their own self-worth, the contributions that they can make to society and the value of their cultures and traditions. Recruitment is now underway and training will follow shortly. The centre is expected to house 15 offenders over the first year, with operation and maintenance costs projected of $1.393 million.

Another organizational change concerns the newly named community development policing branch. It is essentially a staff function created to focus on local community justice initiatives and their relation to community-based policing. Specifically, it is designed to manage the 20-year RCMP policing agreement and to coordinate the negotiation and implementation of agreements and youth service arrangements with First Nations and other communities.

In the area of police services, the Department of Justice has established directional priorities for the RCMP, which outline our intention to improve and broaden policing services in Yukon.

This active partnership between the Department of Justice and the RCMP has encouraged cooperation and the exchange of ideas and a shared responsibility in making our community a safer place to live.

In the process, it has helped to identify more cost-effective approaches that encourage community policing, such as the evolution of enhanced First Nations community police services, as well as the implementation of auxiliary policing and storefront operations.

The result has been a net savings to the RCMP budget of two

Page Number 2897

percent within the overall branch and $10.711 million has been allocated in the 1994-95 estimates, representing a one-percent reduction from the 1993-94 forecast.

In keeping with this emphasis on partnership and cooperation, a new approach to community-based justice has also been developed by the department. Last December, a policy was implemented that encourages communities to take ownership and accountability of local justice programming and service delivery. The focus is to let communities develop solutions, tailor made to their own circumstances, a process that embodies a shift from initiatives that are government driven to ones that are community driven.

For example, Justice is currently working with the communities, judiciary and First Nations to develop alternative forms of justice that allow the community to assume some responsibility for the offender, while addressing the very serious concerns of the victim.

In addition, the First Nations policing committee, comprised of four chiefs, recently completed their report, in which they recommend a process that would allow for a more holistic police service - one that is an integral and active part of the community. These types of projects are based on shared commitments, contributions, benefits and accountability. As such, $129,000 has been allocated toward this development - $65,000 of which includes training and support for local community initiatives.

In closing, I want to assure Yukoners that we are responding to calls for a justice system that is more open, effective and cost efficient. We recognize that there are those who feel the system has become too cumbersome and rigid, and that it is in the process of alienating the very people it is intended to serve. We also know the communities want to assume more ownership and accountability for local justice programming and services - that it is time for community-driven initiatives instead of government-driven ones. To that end, Justice will continue to search for alternative methods of crime prevention, offender management and victim services that are less expensive, more productive and more importantly, in close partnership with the communities. This budget reflects that commitment.

Ms. Commodore:

I thank the Minister for the brief review of his department and the kinds of changes that are being made. I would also like to thank him for the briefing he provided to me this morning by the family violence prevention unit. It was actually very helpful to me, as it brought me up to date on the kinds of changes that are taking place. However, it also left me with some questions with respect to the comments that were made by the Minister in the House when he announced the compensation for the victims of crime options - or whatever he chose to call it.

The Minister has talked about some of the changes that are being made, but he keeps talking about doing something better for less. I have a problem understanding how he is going to do that. When we look at the legal aid and cuts there, there was a bit of an uproar by the territory's Law Society. They withdrew their appointments from that committee. I am not sure whether or not there has been any consultation since then with regard to how they are going to resolve that, but I am trying to understand how one can get something better for less in that kind of situation.

One of the problems we were facing was that there were more people coming to legal aid to apply for assistance. One of the reasons for that, as articulated by one of the staff members there, was that there are many people presently unemployed and in need of some kind of assistance from legal aid to help them in court. I do not know whether or not that situation has improved.

I understand that there have been budget cuts and that the department has to act accordingly and come up with other options. I also understand that there was a problem with the 100-percent cut in the compensation for victims of crime.

I knew that was going to happen. There was lobbying done by the former government - and probably by this government, as well - with regard to the continuation of that program. I personally did some lobbying myself, when I was the Minister. I did not think, whatever anyone said, that there was going to be a reversal of that decision. However, what I am concerned about is that the Minister announced progressive changes that are going to meet the need of victims that are going to require some kind of services. Then I find out that there is no increase to the budget to provide that service.

I realize that there have been some changes within the department to accommodate the needs of those individuals who require assistance through the courts. I think that is a positive move.

In discussions with government officials this morning, one of the questions I asked was whether there was money in the budget to provide funding for community workers. The Minister had mentioned community workers who might be doing fee-for-service work. The Minister has given me the information about the money that has been collected for a surcharge.

One of the figures they gave me was $88,000, which they had accumulated over a period of about four years. That is not a lot of money, if we look at the money that will be needed to provide the services the Minister was talking about in his ministerial statement about a new approach to victim services. That was the term he used.

In addition to the $88,000, there was an additional $10,000 from territorial fine surcharges.

In the future, how does the Minister expect to provide additional funding, because $88,000 is not going to go very far? We know there is a need out there. I do not expect him to provide complete funding, for instance, for full-time workers in every community. I know that is not possible, and the need is probably not so great that there should be someone on full-time.

One of the things that was mentioned this morning was the possibility of Justice workers taking over some of that responsibility. Whether or not that is a good idea, I do not know. I have no opinion on it, because I am not sure what they do. One concern I did have was whether this person would be able to work with the accused and the victim. That did not seem to be a very agreeable solution. I am sure the Minister will provide me with the information.

I do not know whether it is a new term the Minister thinks is great, but he keeps talking about doing something "better for less". There was another term he used: "crime prevention that is less expensive". I would be interested in finding out how he proposes to do all these things, and make them better with less money. I am not saying he should have millions of dollars available; however, whenever I try to get real answers, I am not sure whether they provide me with the information I need.

In his community-based justice ministerial statement, he talked about the changes and gave me a fact sheet in regard to the kinds of changes he was going to be making.

Whether or not that was going to be successful with less money, I do not know. I do give the Minister credit for the new initiatives that he has implemented. I think that he has a sense of what the communities need. In that way we think the same way. We are aware of a lot of the situations that happen in the communities.

There are some questions that I will be asking him regarding the RCMP. There has been a small decrease there - I do not know what the exact amount is. In the House I asked him a question about the police assisting community educators program, because it was going to be delivered in a better manner, and we were not exactly sure what he meant by that.

Yesterday in the paper, there was an article about one of the

Page Number 2896

programs that was going to be offered for the last time - the Lady Beware safety course for women - through the RCMP's PACE program. Yesterday, I asked the Minister responsible for the Women's Directorate about that program. I believe that tonight will be the last night for it. He said that he would be looking at the program to find out if there was any way that the Women's Directorate might be able to take over something similar to it.

I would like the Minister to tell me whether or not he was aware that was one of the programs that was going to be eliminated with the changes in the PACE program. It is a very valuable program to women, and it would not be a very good situation were it to be eliminated completely. Would he tell me what else in the PACE program will not longer be provided? If he has a list of those, I would like to know what is going to replace them, because if these are not replaced, we would be taking a step backward, and I think that in many cases the Minister is not doing that in regard to community justice.

I have a list of questions that I will be pursuing, and one of those questions is about circle courts. There was something on the radio a number of weeks ago about circle courts in Carcross, the Minister's home town. There were some people who felt that the circle court system was not working, and they should go back to the old system.

According to CBC radio, the Minister said that, if circle courts were not working, it would be a possibility that we would go back. I am not sure if the Minister feels that he has the jurisdiction to make that change because, as far as I know, it is the judges who make that decision.

I did talk to some people in Carcross about their thoughts on the news item, because I wanted to know how other people thought, other than the person who spoke out against it from Carcross.

I talked to about four or five different people. There was one aboriginal person from Carcross who felt that they had to go back to the old system, because the people in circle courts were getting off too easy. I had not heard that for a long time, so I was a bit surprised, but the general feeling from the other people I talked to was that circle courts appear to be working, and why would we want to go back to the old system - it was not working, either.

I would like the Minister to update me on what is happening in that area, because I have heard some very good, progressive things about circle courts. I hope he will provide me with some positive information on where he thinks the program should go.

The other item that I have is with regard to jury duty. I asked the Minister a question in the House, which was as a result of the trial that was going to be taking place. They felt they did not have enough aboriginal people on the jury. I believe that, out of all the people they called, I think they only called five people of aboriginal ancestry.

It was my understanding that the amendments that were made to the Jury Act would make provision for the sheriff to use lists, where there would be more aboriginal people on those lists. I am told that the sheriff's office cannot do that, because the act does not provide for that.

I do not know whether or not the Minister agrees with that, but I would like him to tell me. I am told that a further amendment is necessary in order to use the enrollment lists for Yukon First Nations, or some other lists.

If the Minister could update me on this issue, I would appreciate it. I have provided the Minister with a list of concerns and issues and, if he could respond to those, I have further questions.

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

I can start on some of these. I will start with the issue regarding the news article in the Whitehorse Star yesterday, pertaining to the alleged cuts to the PACE program and the RCMP. I would like to make a couple of things very clear.

First of all, the statements were not made by the RCMP as an organization. They were made by an officer. The statements were certainly not sanctioned by the Department of Justice. Let me make it clear that, in my view, crime prevention and programs such as PACE and Lady Beware are top priorities of mine, personally, as Minister. If we get into some kind of a quarrel, which I hope that we do not, with the RCMP, I want to make it clear to all members in the force that the RCMP plane will be cut back or go before any of these programs are deteriorated at all. That has been conveyed in no uncertain terms to the RCMP. Our department will not sanction any cuts, at least not until money is so low that the plane no longer operates and other things have gone.

The Member may or may not know that clarification has been issued by the RCMP, by way of a press release or statement this morning, clearing up what seems to be a misunderstanding on the part of one or more of the members of the detachment. I think that has been clarified in the public domain.

Crime prevention, outreach to the community and working with people in the community, which allows the community to grow, trust and work with individual RCMP officers is a top priority of mine. One of the reasons we are changing our delivery of the PACE program is because most of these very valuable services have been delivered by one officer in the past. If something should happen to that officer, or if that officer should retire or leave the force, we would not have others trained. For one thing, we want to see the course delivered by a number of police officers. We are going to be using the officer who has been delivering the PACE program to train others to do the same.

I think it is important, also, because the members do get transferred into rural communities and around the Yukon, that they be able to carry on these kinds of programs when they are in more isolated detachments. We also think that the communication between a variety of officers and kids, a variety of officers and women, a variety of officers and potential victims and a variety of officers and potential offenders is really important - that kind of dialogue and understanding - and that we not be faced in the future with police barracks such as we see in Old Crow, where it seems like a fortress in a small community and entirely out of place, or in Whitehorse, where it has always been located where it is now at the end of Elliott Street. It originally was a fortress in a very small town, and it remains that way.

I know of lawyers and others who are a bit nervous when they walk into that detachment, and one can only believe that for the average person, and particularly young people, it would be a very scary thing to have to go into that building, which simply does not, in any way, enhance any kind of rapport and closeness between our police officers and our communities.

That is the first issue. I do not know if the Chair would like to break - there are about five or six questions I have to answer.

Chair:

We will take a brief recess.

Recess

Chair:

I will now call Committee of the Whole to order.

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

I wanted to move on to some of the other issues that were raised by the critic in her opening remarks. She has raised concerns with regard to funding for community-based justice programs, including other programs such as programs for victims of crime, and I just want to make some general observations regarding those issues. One point that has to be made is that it is quite true that it has taken awhile to build up the kitty under the surcharge on fines. One observation I would make is that we, as a government, have historically been very unsuccessful in enforcing the payment of fines. This is a grave concern to me, and

Page Number 2899

I am therefore going to be recommending, fairly shortly, that we introduce some legislation to provide for the administrative sanctions to collect outstanding fines. If that is done, it is my view that, from the time such legislation is introduced and implemented, we will probably be looking at collecting in excess of $100,000 per year in surcharges from both criminal and territorial offences.

That is one area we have been working on and I hope we can bring forward legislation in the fall. I am convinced this will drastically change the success ratio in collecting fines.

The other point I would make is that the surcharge allowed on territorial fines has only been in effect for a relatively short period of time and that we will see an increase there when one looks at it on a year-to-year basis, rather than on a less-than-one-year basis.

Further, without trying to forecast in these Chambers what judges will do, I really feel that judges are quite supportive of the surcharge concept, and I think they will be more than willing to impose the surcharge wherever appropriate in order to ensure there is a flow of money into community-based justice programs, particularly, of course, the various services afforded victims of crime.

The critic mentioned that she had some doubts, because of funding not going up, that we could enhance services and make them more efficient and effective. It is my observation that it may take awhile for some people to fully believe in community-based justice and an holistic approach to the people in the justice system: victims, offenders and so on. I have a sincerely held belief that it will be much more cost effective as we allow communities to take ownership of justice programs, health and social services, and other programs, because it seems to me that, once the people who live in the communities have this kind of ownership, they will be the people best qualified to deal with offenders and victims. After all, in the absence of community-based justice, they have been doing a lot on their own for a good many years. Some of these programs, such as counselling - a clinical-type approach to victims - is extremely important.

This will undoubtedly be provided by people in the community who will be receiving part of their remuneration from other departments. I am trying to go to the communities with Health and Social Services and Justice. We are trying to patch together some money in order to try and get some trained counsellors, who would provide an array of services.

We could, for example, see a person who is doing a lot of work under NNADAP and under our alcohol and drug strategy also providing counselling to victims of crime and providing other services. They may also have some training, for example, in dealing with children who have suffered from sexual abuse and so on.

The holistic approach means that we will try and find money from various programs in order to come up with a half-time or full-time person, as the case may be, in individual communities. We are trying - and it is a slow, painstaking effort, but we are grinding it out - to get some seed money, and then work with First Nations and the community to lever in some money from the medical services branch and programs that are out there under DIAND. That is an approach we have been taking. It is really a matter, in some cases, of patching together various sources of money to create these positions. It is not instant gratification. It is not the buzz one gets from a good, strong cup of coffee; however, I am convinced that is the way to go.

We have to try and take steps to ensure that we are not putting ourselves in the position of allowing the federal government to offload programming onto us. We are going to be working, fighting and struggling every step of the way to try to get matching funds, or some funds, from the various federal agencies and departments.

So, the holistic approach, then, means little bits of money from various departments, from the federal government and, in some cases I am sure, First Nation land claims money - and, in some cases, discretionary money in the hands of some of the municipalities organized under our jurisdiction.

The critic mentioned a concern she has about circle courts and some of the controversy that flared up after remarks that were made regarding circle sentencing in Carcross. I think it is really important that we try to be as clear as we can regarding circle sentencing and other community-based justice initiatives. I am very concerned that these initiatives start on a good, solid foundation within a community - that there be as much consultation with every segment of the community as possible before we get too far advanced into a community-based justice system.

I think there has to be a very clear understanding on the part of all players that there is a big difference between a justice system that is separate and for aboriginal people only in a mixed community of close to half status Indian and half non-status Indian and the kind of system that might work well in Pelly, or any other community that is very heavily First Nation.

My concern is that we, as a department, and we, as a government, have the responsibility to provide justice for everyone in the communities. To some extent, I am alarmed at the direction that some of the initiatives have taken under the sponsorship of the judiciary without consultation with the department and without adequate consultation with the communities.

What has happened is that the broad base of the community has not been consulted. I can tell the Members that in Carcross the justices of the peace were not even consulted. The First Nation was not adequately consulted, let alone the non-First Nations.

It is really important that we make the decision about where we are going, because if some of these initiatives are deemed by the First Nation under self-government to be only under the exclusive domain of the First Nation, that is fine. That is something that their membership should be determining in the fullness of time as they develop self-government. That is their right.

You have to understand that, if it is not going to fulfill the needs of the non-aboriginal community in a mixed community, then we are really talking about a situation where the federal government has the responsibility to fund.

We are willing to fund for community-based justice that is for everyone. There is quite a distinction between the two concepts, particularly in communities that have a roughly 50-50 population.

We cannot, in good faith, simply go in and say we will take on the role and responsibilities of the federal government, because that is the reverse of what is contemplated under land claims and self-government legislation. The federal government wants to go in the direction of separate systems, which I am advised by the judiciary was not their intention when they got into this, but it is then for the federal government to be funding and taking our savings, if there are any, and putting them into the pot. I could see where there would not be any savings to us, if it is taken to the extreme.

My concern with circle courts is to start from a position where the whole community understands where we are trying to go, and get their support. I firmly believe that community-based justice is the way to go to ensure involvement and to ensure that we do not start off in an atmosphere that raises all kinds of fears among large segments of the community. Unfortunately, in my view, that has happened in some communities.

I was very pleased to attend a public meeting in Haines Junction. I visited the community with my officials and the Member for Kluane. We met with a broad-based group from Haines Junction, including members of the First Nation and the village council. We discussed how we could possibly start moving ahead and enhancing community-based justice in that community.

Page Number 2900

I think what is really great with regard to the start - and, admittedly, it will be a slow process getting it going and moving ahead - is that they are starting from a position of broad-based support from all segments of the community. I think that, once people understand where we are going, it will alleviate some of the fears and apprehension, and it will make future enhancement initiatives far easier to sell to the whole community.

There is no question in my mind that community-based justice, the idea of ownership in the community, is extremely important, just as a sense of ownership in social services and health is the way to go. It does a lot of things, including raising the self-esteem of people in small communities, because it enhances the feeling that they do have, in a measurable way, control over their future, and are not just, in a sense, victims who are at the mercy of programs delivered solely by the grey bureaucracy in Whitehorse - at least, from the viewpoint of people who live in the small communities.

The Member wanted me to comment on the issue of jury selection and panelling juries and the complaint that comes up every now and then about the sheriff's office not selecting an appropriate proportion of aboriginal people in some of the communities. I am aware of that complaint. Unfortunately, I had not received a recent complaint when the Member raised it in the House, but I discussed it with my officials, and briefly with the defence counsel - if it is the same case, and it may or may not be - and I have instructed the department to instruct the sheriff's department to do better and get the percentage up.

I do not think it requires an amendment to the act. I think it simply requires a little bit of work, to get out there and make sure there is a roughly proportionate and appropriately balanced population to reflect the nature of the community where the crime is alleged to have occurred, so a person can be tried by their peers.

That is a far cry from getting into the issue of selecting an actual jury from that representative panel. That is up to the defence counsel and prosecutor to work out, and no two defence counsel will have the same opinion as to what the best makeup of a jury is. I have never seen two who do. Our role is to make sure there is a representative sample from which to pick. I will do everything I can to ensure every effort is made.

With regard to the use of the land claims membership lists, it is something I will have my department look into. It was raised by the lawyer I talked to, and it may be worth looking into. I firmly believe that the sheriff's office can do better, and we will be asking them to do better, in terms of that proportionate membership. It should also be gender balanced, and so on.

The critic mentioned the concern about the money - and we are all concerned about it - but it is quite a different thing to look at how we are approaching community-based justice, community ownership, an holistic approach, trying to reduce costs through crime prevention with the RCMP through programs such as PACE, through storefront RCMP detachments, through programs for youth at risk, and that sort of thing. That is a different kind of effort and rationale - which I firmly believe leads to lower costs in justice and in health and in social services - from what our approach is vis-a-vis the federal government cutting its programs and us responding. We are responding in the same way as the other territorial government and the provincial governments are responding to the federal cutbacks in legal aid and their compensation for victims of crime and so on. It is a united front - at least, that is what I gather from the meetings I have been at with other ministers - and we can only try to make up for some of the shortfall in other ways. There is no way that we can allow the federal government to be off-loading onto us in such things as legal aid. If we allow it to happen and they sense a weakness, then it is going to accelerate, not decrease.

With respect to legal aid, I understand that there are some lawyers - particularly those involved, those whose pockets have been somewhat cut by the measures we have taken - who have taken umbrage at the position we have taken in terms of reducing the budget to match the federal contribution. However, we have to give the Legal Aid Society the chance to try their alternative program, which will be a mixture of a public-defender system and contracts for the various circuits, and see how they work. I recognize the stock principles that the Canadian Bar Society and provincial bar associations have with regard to the sanctity of choice for clients and so on and so forth.

However, I think that the important thing is that we be in a position to provide legal services to those who need them on as broad a basis as possible. We cannot do that unless we find ways of making our delivery more efficient, and it may or may not be that what is being attempted by the Legal Aid Society will work.

I believe that in some cases it will. I am also sure that, in some cases, we are going to find that some people who are accused of a crime will suddenly find the money if they want their own lawyer and their own choice badly enough. I do not think that would be a bad thing either, particularly when we look at certain charges. One area that really concerns me is people standing trial for very expensive-to-prosecute charges - conspiracy to traffic in drugs in the Yukon - who are trying to get free counsel through the Legal Aid Society. I do not buy that. If they have no choice, we would be surprised at how quickly they can raise money to get their own lawyer, in my view.

Ms. Commodore:

I have some questions with regard to some of the comments the Minister made. I guess I need more clarification.

One of the other courses to be slashed, according to the paper - the Minister has already commented on the Lady Beware program - is the date rape presentation at the junior and senior secondary schools. According to the police officer, that is also to be cancelled. The Minister has indicated that he does not want to see a lot of these successful programs that are offered by the RCMP dropped.

The Minister said something else that was a bit of a shock to me - I could not believe I heard it - was that the plane would go before a lot of these programs. Was that what he said?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

You bet that is what I said. We will be looking at cuts to something like that before we look at cuts to things that really make a difference in terms of crime prevention and building a relationship between the police, individual members and their communities. I have made that very clear to the force.

There are also other areas, such as administration, that we will have to look at very closely. If there is an attempt by some individual officers in the RCMP - not by the detachment, or the commanding officer, and never conveyed to our government - to undermine confidence in the direction we are taking, through unauthorized presentations or leaks to the press that do not truly reflect what is going on, then I just want to make it clear that I have my priorities. My priorities are that, if there are going to be sacrifices made, I have talked to many Yukoners who do not feel a plane is nearly as valuable as some of these other programs.

Ms. Commodore:

I agree there are a number of people out there who will agree with that threat. I want the Minister to tell me whether or not he feels that the information yesterday in the Whitehorse Star was a leak from a member. Is that what he is saying? Also, is he making a commitment to keep these programs within the PACE program?

I do not want to nail just one officer. There may be some explanation for whatever was said to the member of the press - some confusion in the mind of an individual officer or something like that. I can tell the critic that there has been a statement issued

Page Number 2901

by the RCMP, as of this morning, clarifying these unfortunate statements, wherein someone - maybe inadvertently - misspoke the true intentions of the RCMP detachment. In fact, I am assured, from the top down - after I saw the statements in the paper last night, I made some phone calls - that this has been clarified and that they are going to be maintaining these programs.

There may be some changes in the way they are delivered in terms of personnel. There may be some delays because of the need for some training, but there is certainly a very firm understanding among my department, the RCMP, and me about the need to maintain these programs up to the standard that they are currently being delivered, and a very sincere belief that it is important to train as many officers as possible to deliver them.

We cannot just be dependent on one person delivering these things. It is important to get some training for other officers. The interface - a word I hate, but it seems to be one of those useful buzzwords - between individual officers and the public, be it in the schools or be it with women in the Lady Beware-type courses, I think is a very positive thing. The more that we see the RCMP being part of the community, the more we are enhancing what is conceptually thought of as crime prevention.

These are things that have provided dividends in terms of reduced crime in other parts of the country and even the United States. To me, it is fundamentally important. I have stated this in writing to the RCMP, long before this latest unfortunate news article came out. I sought clarification and obtained that clarification last night.

Ms. Commodore:

I take it that the Minister will pass on that positive information to the Minister responsible for the Women's Directorate, to let him know what his views are on that issue.

The Minister mentioned the outstanding fines, and I think he said possibly $100,000, and that he was going to introduce administrative sanctions to collect fines.

When I was the Minister, we had discussed the exact same thing, but we did not proceed with anything under that plan. What is the Minister looking at with regard to those sanctions? Are we looking at taking vehicles from owners until they pay the fines, or taking their driver's licences? I would like the Minister to explain to me the kinds of things that he is looking at.

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

The department is looking at a collection device that has been utilized in numerous provinces, of which I know the Member is aware.

Initially, we will be looking at the Motor Vehicles Act, with a view to making a condition precedent to renewing your driver's licence or car registration to be up to speed on your fines. If your fines are paid, you will be able to renew your driver's licence; if they are not paid, you may not be able to drive for awhile.

Ms. Commodore:

I know something was said by one of the councillors with regard to that very same thing, of whether or not that would come under the city bylaws, if they chose to do it, or would have to be done by the territorial government under some act - the Motor Vehicles Act, probably - in order for it to cover the whole territory. Would it have to be under the Motor Vehicles Act? Is that the act he is talking about?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

Initially, at least, that is what we will be looking at amending. When I mentioned the $100,000, it was not the outstanding fines. I am sure it is far in excess of that. It was what we think we would realistically collect, per year, on the 15-percent surcharge. That money would be funnelled directly into the Victim Services Act as community-based justice.

The Member mentioned the answers of the Minister responsible for the Women's Directorate last night, or yesterday afternoon, regarding the quotes from the article in the paper. In defence, he was caught unaware, as was I, by this misinformation, and he would not have had a chance to ascertain the veracity of the contents of the article, in terms of the real policies of the department and of the RCMP.

Ms. Commodore:

I would like to ask him how far along his plan is for the administrative sanctions? Are we looking at six months, two months or one year?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

The issue will be going to Cabinet in the next month. If we are successful in getting a Cabinet minute, that would then lead to the drafting of the appropriate amendments to the act, which would be introduced in the next session.

Ms. Commodore:

The Minister had talked at great length about community-based justice, and how he sees communities taking ownership of some of the programs. I would like him to tell me how the information that this initiative is available to them is getting out to the communities? What programs is he talking about? What programs will they be able to have ownership over and be able to run themselves?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

It is a time-consuming process. We are developing training for various kinds of services. The Member is well-aware of some of them, such as the JP service and mediation, the training packages for the various kinds of counselling, such as victim services, family violence counselling and alcohol and drug strategy training.

We are basically saying to the communities that we have sources of funding here that we could talk about. If we can strike a deal on tripartite policing, for example, there could be some savings. We may have some discretionary funding that we can put in, and we can work with the community to try and obtain equivalent money from the federal departments.

The first issues that we are going to have to work on is for them to prioritize what they want. Do they want to focus, with limited funds, on counselling and that sort of thing as a priority? Do they want to focus on a counsellor, for example, who would spend a lot of time in the healing camp, perhaps? In the Pelly situation they are quite keen on getting going with Tatl'  M„n. That person can also be available from time to time in the village of Pelly as well.

We can then work with them trying to get a position, or a half-position - it depends how we flesh out this money, and what we can get. It will probably be different from community to community. Some are really keen of focusing, for example, on healing in the sense of alcohol and drug and family counselling, and others are far more interested in the justice end of things.

We suspect that each community will probably have somewhat different priorities. We are looking at some of the real shortfalls that we see in circle sentencing in the justice system. In some of the communities there is no follow up with the accused, and not enough training for the justice worker or youth worker, or to look at such things as probation training, so that somebody in the community - two or three people - would have enough of a skill level to be able to take the appropriate stern action if a young offender is thumbing his nose at the system and feels he is getting away with something - that kind of thing.

I think there is going to be quite an emphasis on training and we will see, as we go, how the various communities state their priorities and how we can help them achieve those priorities.

Ms. Commodore:

The Minister indicated that he was looking at seed money and mentioned that there may possibly be money available through the alcohol and drug services branch, medical services, DIAND programs and various sources. I know that the process is time consuming, because of the manner in which all governments work. They all work differently.

I remember looking at the implementation of a program, and one of the things that needs to happen all the time when people were asking for specific things is that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development would say, "Sure, we will fund it, but the territorial government has to fund 50 percent."

Page Number 2902

I always felt that was one way for them to get out of funding; it was an easy way out knowing that they had already cut funding for other things and that this government had not been able to continue with it through territorial funding.

I mention that as a problem, but the Minister talks about other sources and I would like to ask him whether or not the Minister, or someone in his department, has had recent meetings with the various sources to discuss seed money and, possibly, tripartite agreements with different groups.

Mr. Phelps:

To be entirely open about it, one model might be the three-year pilot project for alcohol and drug treatment counselling with the Kaska. There has been money put in from the federal government money from us. The B.C. government is rendering assistance as well, and we are working in a cooperative way. That is one program that is off and running.

We have travelled to Teslin and discussed some of their needs. In the counselling area, we are looking at making money available for the old community addictions worker position - a half-year in Teslin and working with the First Nation to try to lever some counselling and training money out of the federal government. There have been initial talks and discussions with the medical services branch and DIAND, and we feel that we are going to be able to get some funding in that specific instance.

We have been to Pelly fairly recently, and we offered to try to work in the same way. We identified some money from two departments - Justice and Social Services and, once we know what their priorities are, we will work with them to get matching funds, or more, from DIAND and MSB.

We have been successful in getting some money from DIAND with regard to some counselling services for Kaska - aside from the alcohol and drug services program. At least the offer has been there and we put some money there. In that case, I think it was a $25,000 offer from DIAND and $5,000 from us. Again, it does not sound like a lot of money, but as one starts patching these things together and looking at the coverage that a few trained people can give to a community and the good they can do, one is really looking at filling a lot of needs, when one considers that the workload for a probation officer does not even justify a quarter position in a place like Carcross, where they have an average of six people.

We can patch it together and give training to people, so they can fulfill the needs in certain areas. We can come up with a position.

I appreciate the comments of the Member opposite. There is the fear that, when they come up with money from the feds and expect us to match it, sometimes that is a way of their trying to get out of it, or raising the fear that they may just back off and try to offload the responsibility. The reverse is true here; we are trying to put up the seed money, get them to match it and see where it goes. We are the aggressors in this instance.

We feel that it is very unfortunate, if there are envelopes of money available in federal programs that, due to a lack of knowledge and time, we have been unable to access. It is our understanding there are some things there. We will be focusing on working hard with the individual communities and First Nations to try and remedy that and patch together some money for some programs.

Mr. Chair, in view of the time, I move that you report progress on Bill No. 15.

Motion agreed to

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

I move that the Speaker do now resume the Chair.

Motion agreed to

Speaker resumes the Chair

Speaker:

I will now call the House to order.

May the House have a report from the Chair of Committee of the Whole?

Mr. Abel:

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

Speaker:

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

Some Hon. Members:

Agreed.

Speaker:

I declare the report carried.

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

I move that the House do now adjourn.

Speaker:

It has been moved by the Hon. Government House Leader that the House do now adjourn.

Motion agreed to

Speaker:

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

The House adjourned at 5:29 p.m.

The following Documents were filed June 7, 1994:

94-1-47

Employment standards amending legislation: letter dated June 7, 1994, to the Minister of Justice from Michael Miller, President, Yukon Federation of Labour, requesting additional time for input (Penikett)

94-1-48

Employment standards amending legislation: time limit for input extended to August 17, 1994 (news release dated June 7, 1994) (Phelps)