Whitehorse, Yukon
Wednesday, June 8, 1994 - 1:30 p.m.
Page Number 2903
Speaker:
I will now call the House to order. We will proceed at this time with silent Prayers.
Prayers
DAILY ROUTINE
Speaker:
We will proceed at this time with the Order Paper.
Introduction of Visitors.
INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
Observing the debate here today is the debating team from Riverdale Junior High, along with their coordinator, Carol Harwood. Among the group are two students who represented the Yukon at the National Junior Debating Championships in Saskatoon in May. They are Matthew Coxford and Kyle Cameron. I would ask the Members to join with me in welcoming them here today.
Applause
Ms. Moorcroft:
I would like all Members to join me in welcoming the grade 6 class from Golden Horn Elementary School and their teacher, Miss Evelyn Pasichnyk, as well as some of the parents. The students have had a tour of Riverdale Junior High this morning, and I am sure we all wish them well next year at junior high.
Applause
Speaker:
Are there any Returns or Documents for tabling?
TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
I have a legislative return for tabling.
Hon. Mr. Nordling:
I have a legislative return for tabling.
Speaker:
Are there any Reports of Committees?
Are there any Petitions?
PETITIONS
Petition No. 11 - response
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I rise to speak to Petition No. 11, presented to the Legislative Assembly on May 30, 1994.
The petition asks for amendments to the Landlord and Tenant Act to better protect persons renting mobile home sites.
As all Members know, our amendments to the Landlord and Tenant Act, Bill No. 66, were introduced and read for the first time on May 26, 1994, and in part, it hopes to address the problems raised in the petition. I would hasten to add that one of the advocates for these amendments has been the Member for McIntyre-Takhini. I am sure that his constituents know that he will take credit for some of these amendments, which I hope will pass through the House today.
Speaker:
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: Throne speech
Mr. Penikett:
In the last sitting of this Legislature, the Government Leader indicated to the House that this spring or next fall his government would finally be bringing a throne speech to this Legislature. By this fall, of course, we will have gone two years without a real throne speech from this new government. Can I ask the Government Leader if he intends to live up to his commitment to bring a throne speech before the House for the fall sitting?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I am very happy to inform the Member and his colleagues that it is our intention to bring forth a throne speech in the fall sitting of the Legislature, as we have indicated in the past.
Mr. Penikett:
In the past, the Government Leader indicated that it was his belief that it was possible for the government to proceed for some long period of time without a real throne speech. We came into this session, for example, with a list of bills, none of which were mentioned in the brief, perfunctory throne speech. Can I ask the Government Leader if the throne speech that he intends to bring for the fall will indeed lay out a full legislative program for the period covered by that throne speech?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
Yes, that is our intention. I can assure the Member opposite that it will be a very heavy agenda.
Mr. Penikett:
That will be a nice counterpoint to what we have seen in the last 18 months.
There is a widespread belief, of course, that the government has not wanted to have a throne speech or a throne speech debate because it had not yet established any plan or agenda beyond the political game plan contained in the election document.
Could I ask the Government Leader if the throne speech will be based on the platform document during the last campaign, or will there have been more serious planning done by the government since then?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
The Member opposite is trying to indicate that there was no serious planning in the election document - the four-year plan. A lot of serious thought went into that.
While we are talking about throne speeches, I had the opportunity when the question arose here - I believe at the last session - to review some of the throne speeches of the Members opposite when they were in government and the comments that were made by the press about those speeches. Being a new government, we took some time to get things in order and to set the direction we wanted to go, outside of the broad context of the four-year plan. We have had very long budget speeches -
Speaker:
Order please. Would the Member please conclude his answer.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
Yes, I am trying to. We have had very long budget speeches, which the Members opposite never had, but we will have a very extensive throne speech.
Question re: Thomson Centre, personnel
Mr. Penikett:
When the government finds its direction, I certainly hope it lets the rest of the House know.
I have a question for the Minister of Health regarding the issue of safety for the Thomson Centre personnel, who routinely deal with occasionally violent people. The staff is continually overextended. Many work at risk of punches, kicks and the like.
Despite the risk of serious injury, ongoing requests by the staff for specialized training to deal with safety issues and problems of dealing with distraught patients have been unsuccessful. I would like to ask the Minister of Health and Social Services if he is aware of the situation, and if he will take steps to ensure that the personnel at the Thomson Centre receive the specialized training they require
Page Number 2904
as soon as possible, not only for their own interests, but also for the interests of the patients with which they must deal?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I thank the Member for his representation. I will look into it and proceed as necessary.
Mr. Penikett:
I thank the Member for his answer.
The Minister may be aware that there has been a concern that cost-consciousness has driven a policy to provide CPR training, for example, only to registered nurses, even though they represent only one-third of the staff and despite the fact that there is not always an RN on the floor at any given moment. Can I ask the Minister if he would look into the possibility of extending the CPR training to other staff at the Thomson Centre, so that all of them can be equipped to deal with situations that may require such training?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
Yes, I will look into that.
Mr. Penikett:
Our office has, again, received representations regarding the safety conditions I have just mentioned and the questions of stress and staff turnover. Can I ask the Minister if there has been an occupational health and safety audit of the extended care facility, and whether the proper management staff body, as contemplated by the occupational health and safety legislation, is in place to deal, directly and locally, with staff concerns that may be raised?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
As I have not had these concerns brought to my attention directly, I will look into them and report back to the Member.
Question re: Ombudsperson office
Mr. Cable:
I have some further questions of the Government Leader on his legislative intentions. Now that he has sort of single-handedly beaten the socialist hordes into submission with his financial prowess, is he now going to address his attention to some of his election promises, and in particular, those relating to providing good government?
In the Yukon Party's four-year plan, there was a statement, "It's time for change, and only the Yukon Party is capable of meeting that challenge."
I would like to test that theory in a number of areas. The first one is the office of the ombudsperson.
On March 23, 1993, the Minister of Justice stated that the establishment of the office of ombudsperson was one of the top priorities of the government. That was some 14 months ago, and the best we have from the government so far is some vague reference to it being on the fall legislative agenda.
Would the Government Leader confirm that the establishment of the office of ombudsperson remains one of the government's top priorities?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I do not want to preempt the throne speech for the fall, but certainly the office of the ombudsperson is a priority of ours. We are looking for a form of office that is not going to be a burden on the taxpayers of the Yukon but will be able to address the concerns of the constituents of the Yukon.
Mr. Cable:
Politicians, on occasion, do make commitments, as the Government Leader did during the last election. Is he prepared to commit to bring forth legislation in the fall session creating the office of ombudsperson?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
The only thing I can tell the Member today, as I did several weeks ago here, is that the instructions have been given for the legislation to be drafted and brought back to Cabinet for approval.
Mr. Cable:
Back in December of 1992, the Minister of Justice indicated that he was working up the projected cost of the office of the ombudsperson. During the following March, the Minister said he was still mulling around the cost. Can the Government Leader tell us, some 20 months after the election and after the making of that election promise, what the projected annual cost of the ombudsperson's office will be?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
No, I could not, because it will depend on what will constitute the office of the ombudsperson and how it is set up and how it will be managed and run - so no, I cannot give the Member that figure today.
Question re: Legislative returns
Ms. Moorcroft:
I have a question for the Government Leader. There are a huge number of questions left unanswered as we finish up this legislative session, because Ministers have been busy on the conference circuit and acting ministers have not been well-briefed. Can I have the assurance of the Government Leader that his Ministers will spare no effort to respond quickly to Opposition questions that have not yet been answered? Perhaps he could give us a specific date by which he will expect his Ministers to respond.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
Certainly I can give the Member opposite the commitment that the questions will be answered in an expedient manner. I cannot give a specific date, but I would hope that they would all be out before the end of this month at the very latest.
Question re: Boards and committees handbook, update
Ms. Moorcroft:
On another administrative matter, I have here the boards and committees handbook dated March 1991, which was published by the previous government. The present government has someone working full-time making appointments to boards, but it is keeping the information about appointments pretty much to itself. Why has the government refused to publish an updated handbook on boards and committees, which is so useful to the public?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
First of all, I would not want the Member to leave the impression with the constituents that we have someone in the Executive Council Office working full time on board appointments, because that simply is not the case. We do have a person who is responsible for taking recommendations from anyone who presents those names, but we certainly do not have anyone who is working full time on appointments to boards and committees.
Ms. Moorcroft:
I note that there was no answer there. The government has advertised board vacancies. These advertisements are mostly in the Yukon Party's internal newspaper, which taxpayers have paid for.
The government is now advertising more widely for volunteers to fill board vacancies, but I would like to ask the Government Leader if this wider advertising policy improved the odds of someone who is not a Yukon Party supporter or member to be appointed to a board or commission, and are they going to publish an update to the boards and committees handbook soon?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
If the Member opposite would take the time to review the appointments that have been made by this government, I believe that she would be hard pressed to find any that are made on a political basis.
We said, when we took over office, that competence and the ability of the nominee would be the first criteria to appointments on board and committees.
Question re: Hazardous waste facility site
Ms. Moorcroft:
We could review those appointments better if we were provided with a boards and committee handbook.
I have a question for the Minister of Renewable Resources.
The Minister is no doubt aware that the Whitehorse Board of Variance has found in favour of MacRae area residents and the Kwanlin Dun First Nation. The board has ruled that the government
Page Number 2905
should not proceed with plans to put a temporary, hazardous waste disposal facility in the Mount Sima area. We would like to know if the government will respect this decision.
Will the Minister tell this House if the government intends to appeal this ruling, at public expense, even though the citizens most directly affected clearly do not want this temporary toxic box at this location?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
The only information that we have at the present time is from the newspapers. We have not had a letter from the chairman of the Board of Variance, and until we receive that letter we will make no comment.
Ms. Moorcroft:
The Minister for Community and Transportation Services has said that his department would consider one of the alternative locations already identified for hazardous waste storage, if the Board of Variance ruling went against the government, which indeed it did.
Will the Minister responsible for hazardous waste now recommend that this temporary facility be placed in the most logical, alternative site - the one that has adequate security provisions, that lies on an existing single-use road and has the backing of the city; namely, the Whitehorse municipal dump.
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
My understanding is that the rocks are fractured at the Whitehorse dump and any leakage would cause the waste products to go down into the stream. Again, we will not make any comments at all on a newspaper product. We have not received a letter from the chairman of the variance board. Until we do, we do not know their reasons for doing what they did.
Ms. Moorcroft:
Well, there are a number of refrains that we hear from that particular Minister. The government has also repeated the refrain about long-term plans for toxic waste storage being just around the corner for so long that it is becoming like a mantra.
I cannot let the current session end without pinning the Minister down on this important issue, especially when we have apparently lost track of several thousand litres of waste oil that would normally be showing up at the Whitehorse dump.
Perhaps the Minister is aware that this is Environment Week. I would like to know if the Minister can now tell us precisely when the government will bring forward its draft regulations on toxic waste handling for the required 60-day public review.
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
We shipped three loads of PCBs out of the Yukon. That is more than any other government ever did. We had them destroyed at Swan Hills at very little expense to us. Thank God we got them out of here the way things are going because we had no place to lock them up.
Also, three loads of hazardous waste have been shipped out. We are now trying to find out how much more there is and ship it out when we get a truckload.
Question re: Stevens subdivision
Ms. Moorcroft:
I have to say that this Minister is quite adroit at avoiding questions and he failed to answer the question about when they are going to bring those regulations on hazardous waste forward. I think his posturing about how important he considers the issue is, clearly, just posturing.
I have a related question for the acting Minister of Community and Transportation Services regarding the site preparation work the department is doing in the area of the proposed Stevens subdivision. As the Minister must know, residents of both Ibex Valley Hamlet and the MacPherson subdivision want the Municipal Board to halt the Stevens development. Given the Mount Sima ruling went in favour of area residents, will the acting Minister advise the department to hold off on its site-clearing activities until the Municipal Board has rendered a decision?
Hon. Mr. Nordling:
I am prepared to look into that for the Member. It is my understanding that the city council has asked that it be put on hold pending the finalization of the quarry development plan, and that there is a meeting at the city on Monday night, June 13. At that time, there will be information provided on the plan, and there can be input into it. My impression - and I will check it for the Member - is that development plans for the subdivision are on hold until the finalization of the quarry plan.
Ms. Moorcroft:
The Minister for Community and Transportation Services has told this House that a proposed quarry adjacent to the Stevens subdivision would be a mom-and-pop kind of operation where local folks could wheel up and load their pickup trucks with gravel. I would like the acting Minister to explain the fact that a meeting was held last Friday between department officials and gravel contractors to come up with a commercial quarry development plan for the area, and just what they are doing there?
Hon. Mr. Nordling:
I cannot speak for the Minister on that issue. I will ask him to respond by letter to the Member with respect to what that quarry will be used for. I do recall him mentioning it. I do not know whether he used the term "mom and pop", but rather a kind of a community gravel pit. My understanding was that it was not decided exactly what it would be used for.
Ms. Moorcroft:
My information is that the gravel contractors themselves maintained that the area should be used for either a residential subdivision or for a commercial quarry, but not both. It seems clear that the government is pushing ahead with a development that is clearly an incompatible land use, which does not have the support of either area residents or commercial gravel contractors, and which may be overruled by the Municipal Board. Why are they continuing with this?
Hon. Mr. Nordling:
My understanding is that the government is not pushing ahead. They are waiting for the city to decide what to do with it - whether they want only a residential subdivision, or both the pit and the subdivision. My understanding is that the department and - government - is not pushing ahead with it. The Member is misinformed in that regard.
Question re: Health and social services, concerns of disabled persons
Ms. Commodore:
I have a question for the Minister responsible for social services. I ask these questions on behalf of a disabled person who will be expecting me to send her a copy of his answers.
There are some concerns by disabled people in our community about the effect of various policies and cuts in the Department of Health and Social Services. My first question is with regard to his department's decision to conduct in-home interviews. Has the Minister made any special considerations for people who are hearing impaired and, if necessary, will the department provide interpreters?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I will look into that specific issue and report back to the Member.
Ms. Commodore:
I understand that repairs for equipment used by disabled people, such as wheelchairs, are paid for under the chronic disease program. What effect will recent cuts to this program have on equipment repairs for disabled people?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
The policy that I announced in the House sets out very clearly that disabled people will be exempted from any cuts to that particular program.
Ms. Commodore:
She will be very happy to hear that.
Another program that is essential to the disabled is the home care program. There are some concerns that there may be some cuts in that area for the disabled. Could the Minister tell us whether
Page Number 2906
or not any cuts are planned?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
No. That is one of the many programs we have reviewed. We are determined to carry on with it, not only at the present level, but in an expanded form.
Question re: Cabinet priorities
Mrs. Firth:
Today is the last Question Period that we, as Opposition Members, will have to question the government for the next five or six months. I would like to get some idea from the Government Leader about exactly what his government's plans are for that period of time.
I found it interesting that the Government Leader announced today that we are going to have a Speech from the Throne in the fall, and that the reason there was not one before this was due to the bad publicity that the previous government suffered for them. I am hoping that the Government Leader is not holding his breath, expecting that he will get better publicity if he provides a throne speech.
I want to ask particularly about all the outstanding issues that are on the government's plate right now, such as the promises that have been made to us over the last 18 months regarding things like the office of the ombudsperson office, the conflict-of-interest legislation, privatization of the Yukon Energy Corporation, heritage legislation, the Grey Mountain Primary School and the J.V. Clark school - I could go on and on. Can the Government Leader tell us exactly what he and his Cabinet colleagues are going to do for the next five or six months, and exactly what their priorities are?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
The priorities will all be laid out in the throne speech but, over the summer, this government will be preparing the legislation for the fall session, along with the capital budget. Our priorities will all be laid out in the throne speech.
Mrs. Firth:
Can the Government Leader tell me if they have sat down and made a plan? Do they know what they are going to do over the next five or six months?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
Yes, certainly we have. A lot of the things that will be coming forward in the fall are in process now.
Mrs. Firth:
I would like some facts. I know, for a fact, that, as soon as we are out of this session, the government Ministers are going to be going to Regina, Bathurst, Nevada, Halifax and Vancouver.
What are these Ministers going to do for Yukoners? What is the plan? What are they going to do to enhance the quality of life for Yukoners?
My recommendation to the government would be that one of the first things they should be doing is looking at a way to get rid of the tax increases they imposed on Yukoners.
Does the government, or does the government not, have a plan?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I can assure the Member opposite that her list is wrong in one instance. The Nevada trip is not taking place. I have already cancelled that one. The Ministers are going to have to travel, but that does not take up all the time. We will be very busy over the summer preparing for the fall session.
Question re: Faro, economic diversification
Mr. Harding:
My constituents in Faro are looking at ways to diversify the economy, with the main employer in the community down. People have been working with the Department of Tourism and the municipal council to develop some strategies for this.
Could the Minister of Economic Development tell me if the government would be prepared to provide resources to the community to help them develop and implement a short- and long-term economic diversification strategy?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
The Member opposite is aware that we have said before that, if something comes forward from the community of Faro - some application or request - we will deal with it in an expedient manner and see what we can do to assist them. There has been one economic plan started in that community, but it was never completed. There was never a final report on it. Outside of a cursory request to look at this or that, I am not certain of what has come forward.
We will deal with it on the same basis as we do for other communities.
Mr. Harding:
We have done some work but we need a long-term and a short-term plan and some strategies in place. We would rather do that than do it on a piecemeal basis. In light of what the Minister just said, we have made one proposal to the Department of Economic Development regarding a project in conjunction with the Ross River Dene for community works projects designed to create jobs and build some tourism infrastructure. I would like to ask the Minister whether the government is prepared to help the communities to provide the resources to build this tourism infrastructure?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
The Member is asking me to commit to something about which I am not even certain I have the full details. If an application has been made to the department under one of the programs, it will be dealt with in the manner those applications are dealt with. It will go through the established procedures and screening, and a decision will be made at some point about whether it falls within the terms of reference of the particular program and if there is funding available.
Mr. Harding:
I have had communications with the previous Economic Development Minister about the specifics of some of the projects and I would have hoped that the new Economic Development Minister would be fully briefed on those discussions. Apparently he is not, so I hope he will look into it.
The Anvil Range Mining Corporation has talked about a 10- to 12-month stripping program beginning in the fall, but they have also been unclear about who will perform the work in Faro. There are people there in the community who could utilize some retraining so that they could be better prepared for job opportunities for the stripping work. Is the government prepared to develop a specialized training program in Faro to help my constituents prepare for the job opportunities in stripping?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
Under the industrial support policy, there is a provision for training and retraining if it is necessary for a certain project to go ahead; so, under that program, there is some potential for training. As for whether we will start retraining before any decisions are made by whoever purchases the Faro property, I do not know if that is possible.
Question re: Freedom-of-information legislation
Mr. Cable:
I have some further questions for the Government Leader on his good government campaign promises. Another of the Yukon Party's campaign commitments was to, "increase access to public information in government files by providing real freedom of information". That suggests that the Yukon Party, during the last election, was not satisfied with the access-to-information legislation that was in place at that time. I believe the Minister of Justice later on, in fact last January, indicated he was looking at options.
Is the Government Leader prepared to introduce real freedom-of-information legislation in the fall?
If he is not prepared to make that a firm commitment, can he confirm that government staff is looking at the preparation of such legislation?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I believe that question would have been better put to the Minister of Justice. I believe that is in the process and is being looked at by the departments, and we are looking
Page Number 2907
forward to recommendations coming forward to Cabinet on how the legislation will look.
Mr. Cable:
Another one of the campaign promises was the establishment of an all-party legislative committee to conduct in-camera reviews of appointments to major government advisory boards and committees.
Of course, there is a motion on the Order Paper to that effect. It was bandied around several months ago, and the government withdrew it because of its minority position.
Is the Government Leader prepared to call that motion forward in the fall and take his chances on whether it passes or not?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I have made the offer to the Member opposite several times, in the one and one-half years that we have been in power, to sit down and work something out. We do not like the amendments that were proposed on it. We are prepared to have an all-party committee vet the appointments made by this government, and we have no problem with that.
I have left the door wide open for the Members opposite to sit down with me and discuss that issue.
Mr. Cable:
I will take that as an all-party commitment to all Members of the Opposition to review the proposed committee.
One of the other good government initiatives that the Government Leader and his party talked about during the election was under the heading, "Restoring Freedom of Speech and Association" - I assume they were lost at some juncture. Under that heading, it indicated that the Yukon Party was going to ensure that the abuse of authority and intimidation of government employees would stop.
What has the Government Leader and his government done to ensure that the abusive authority and intimidation of government employees stop?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I would challenge the Member opposite to come forward with some cases where this has occurred under our administration. I believe the message is out there loud and clear. I would challenge him to come forward with some specifics.
Question re: Boards and committees, appointments
Mr. McDonald:
The Liberal Member can pass the pump handle over to me, so I can try my hand at this dry well.
The Government Leader was too busy defending the completely indefensible position that appointments of all the prominent Yukon Party members and past executive members to boards and committees had nothing to do with partisanship, but everything to do with competence. I guess we now know, after all of this time in the Legislature, where all the Yukon Party talent went.
Can the Minister tell us when the boards and committees handbook will be published?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I do not know, off the top of my head. I can check into it and give the Member a definite answer on what they are doing about publishing an updated version of the boards and committee handbook.
Mr. McDonald:
As Members have indicated to the Minister opposite, in answer to his answer, he is the Minister responsible for the Executive Council Office. This is not a complicated process; this is only listing the names of people appointed to committees under one cover.
Would it be argumentative to ask the Minister whether or not it would be embarrassing for the government to expose all the partisan appointments under one cover?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I think the only embarrassing thing would be for them to see all the names of their philosophical supporters - Liberal and NDP - that have been appointed to boards and committees.
Mr. McDonald:
I was going to get to that, because we have yet to find people who claim to be Yukon Party supporters recently. Perhaps we have hit a stalemate here.
I would like to ask the Minister a policy question. Does he believe there to be competent and capable Yukoners, who have not yet seen fit to join the Yukon Party, who might be considered for board appointments?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I know that on different occasions there have been Members on the opposite side submit names of people to sit on boards and committees. I can remember talking to the Leader of the Liberal Party on a couple of occasions on suggestions of names for different boards and committees. I want to be very sincere in this answer: we are looking for competent people to sit on boards and committees and it does not matter what political affiliation they have.
Question re: Game farming
Mr. Harding:
I have a question for the Minister of Renewable Resources. On April 25, I asked the Minister if he would be referring the issue of game farming to the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment for review. On April 25 he said, "It is not up to me to refer anything to them. It is up to them to ask me if they want it brought there."
Then, on May 25, when I asked the Minister if he had received a formal complaint in accordance with the Environment Act, he said, "We were just advised today. In fact, a copy of it just arrived on my desk this morning, so we have not moved too far."
So, today, on June 8, can the Minister tell me this: has there been a complaint and is the Yukon government or the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment handling it?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
Apparently there was a complaint that went to the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment and it was explained to them that the way they have to do this is write to the Minister with the complaint. There are several rules - about 14. I do not think I can go through them here because the Speaker would call me on it. We try to settle the disagreement ourselves. If we cannot, we turn it over to the council.
Mr. Harding:
The Minister told me on May 25 that he had received a complaint - it went to his desk. I would believe that that would initiate the start of the process. So, can he tell me, if there are 14 things that people have to jump through to file a complaint, at what stage of the process is the complaint?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
I believe at that time I said that the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment had informed us that there was a complaint. I have not received a written complaint, as of yet. When I receive it, we will proceed from there.
Mr. Harding:
The Yukon Fish and Wildlife Management Board has said that it is not prepared to support the Minister's direction on the regulations regarding game farming in the territory. Is the Minister prepared to modify his position to meet the concerns that have been laid out by the Yukon Fish and Wildlife Management Board regarding his direction on this issue?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
The regulations will be released within the next two to three weeks for a 60-day review by interested parties. We will see what comes from that.
Speaker:
Now, for the last question of this sitting, the Hon. Member for McIntyre-Takhini.
Question re: Conflict of interest
Mr. McDonald:
I feel like I just won a prize. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. The prize goes to the Government Leader.
It is clear, after some discussions we have had in the Legislature, that the Government Leader believes that it is ethical to carry on private commercial activity while in public office. He has even shown some resistance to answering questions that have been
Page Number 2908
placed before him, insisting that we make allegations before we have all the information.
I want to ask the Government Leader a few questions in an effort to put the matter to rest. Can the Minister tell us what business Shakwak Air carried on in 1993, and for whom?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
That of a charter commercial air service.
Mr. McDonald:
Yes, I know it is a commercial air service. I know the Minister was a pilot for a period of time. I would like to know with whom the company did business, and whether or not the company was paid for the work that the Government Leader did, such as the flightseeing trips and other services the Government Leader carried on, while he was moonlighting last summer.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I have stated to the press - and I have no problem telling the Member opposite - that I did a few days' flying for the company when I was on annual leave, specifically on glacier flights. I just did some flightseeing tours over Kluane.
Mr. McDonald:
In some ways, it is too bad it is the last question. However, I would like to ask the Minister a policy question.
Does the Minister have any difficulty separating the public interest, private personal interest and private commercial interest, when he is making decisions as a Minister, on a day-to-day basis, on matters of public policy?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I can stand here and clearly say that I do not even see a perceived conflict in that. There were no government contracts. The company does not involve itself in any government contracts. It was just a matter of helping the company out for a few days, while I was on annual leave.
The Member opposite might like to lie on a beach in Hawaii; I love to fly airplanes. I see no conflict in that.
Speaker:
The time for Question Period has now elapsed.
We will proceed to Orders of the Day.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
I move that the Speaker do now leave the Chair and that the House resolve into Committee of the Whole.
Speaker:
It has been moved by the Hon. acting Government House Leader that the Speaker do now leave the Chair and that the House resolve into Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to
Speaker leaves the Chair
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Chair:
I will now call Committee of the Whole to order.
Is it the wish of the Members 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.
Before we begin today, I would like to state that it is my understanding that Committee will be dealing with the following bills: Bill No. 48, Bill No. 70, Bill No. 66, Bill No. 15, Bill No. 16. To begin with, we will be dealing with Bill No. 48.
Bill No. 48 - An Act to Amend the Condominium Act - continued
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I dealt with the principle of this bill to amend the Condominium Act in second reading yesterday. At that time, I indicated that, with the blessing of everyone in this House, I would bring forward an amendment that would give greater certainty to the proposition that this act would be subject to the authorities in the Subdivision Act.
On Clause 1
Clause 1 agreed to
On Clause 2
Clause 2 agreed to
On Clause 3
Amendment proposed
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
As Committee Members are well aware, an amendment may not amend sections from the original act unless they are specifically being amended in a clause of the bill before the Committee. As the amending bill does not open section 2 in the Condominium Act, I would ask the unanimous consent of Committee to move an amendment to add a new subsection to section 2.
Chair:
Is there unanimous consent?
Some Hon. Members:
Agreed.
Chair:
Unanimous consent has been granted.
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I move
THAT Bill No. 48, entitled An Act to Amend the Condominium Act, be amended immediately after clause 2 on page 1 by adding the following clause:
"2.1 The following subsection is added immediately after section 2(2) of the act:
`(3) This Act is subject to the Subdivision Act.' "
Chair:
It has been moved by the Hon. Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes that Bill No. 48, entitled An Act to Amend the Condominium Act be amended immediately after clause 2 on page 1 by adding the following clause:
"2.1 The following subsection is added immediately after section 2(2) of the said Act:
`(3) This Act is subject to the Subdivision Act.' "
Is there any debate?
Ms. Moorcroft:
We support the amendment and I would like to thank the Minister for bringing forward the amendment as requested.
Amendment to Bill No. 48 agreed to
Clause 3 agreed to as amended
On Clause 4
Clause 4 agreed to
On Clause 5
Clause 5 agreed to
On Clause 6
Clause 6 agreed to
On Title
Title agreed to
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I move that Bill No. 48, entitled An Act to Amend the Condominium Act, be moved out of Committee with amendment.
Motion agreed to
Bill No. 70 - Lottery Licensing Act, 1994
Chair:
Is there any general debate?
On Clause 1
Clause 1 agreed to
On Clause 2
Clause 2 agreed to
On Clause 3
Clause 3 agreed to
On Clause 4
Clause 4 agreed to
On Clause 5
Clause 5 agreed to
On Clause 6
Page Number 2909
Clause 6 agreed to
On Clause 7
Clause 7 agreed to
On Clause 8
Clause 8 agreed to
On Clause 9
Clause 9 agreed to
On Clause 10
Mrs. Firth:
Could the Minister tell us when the regulations will be ready? We had some discussion about it yesterday, but were not told when they would be ready.
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
They will be ready in about one week for approval by Cabinet. The changes are not substantial; it is just that the legislative draftspeople have not yet had a chance to get to it. I anticipate they will be ready shortly.
Clause 10 agreed to
On Clause 11
Clause 11 agreed to
On Clause 12
Clause 12 agreed to
On Clause 13
Clause 13 agreed to
On Title
Title agreed to
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I move that Bill No. 70, entitled Lottery Licensing Act, 1994, be moved out of Committee without amendment.
Motion agreed to
Bill No. 66 - An Act to Amend the Landlord and Tenant Act
Mr. McDonald:
I would like to once again thank the Minister for bringing forward the bill, and ask him as to the nature of the consultation he has had with the public respecting these provisions and tell him in advance that I have had many representations from a variety of people living in trailer courts who had wished that the Landlord and Tenant Act be amended. They had suggestions that are not incorporated into this bill, but are suggestions that may merit some further review.
I intend, over the course of the next few months, to canvass their feelings on this subject and make the results of those discussions known to the Minister and to the government in the fall.
Can the Minister tell us briefly what consultation he has undertaken up until this point and what the results of that consultation are?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
First let me say that I appreciate the remarks that were made during second reading by Members opposite regarding the somewhat unique characteristics of the landlord and tenant relationship in mobile home parks. I certainly am sympathetic to looking at a process that might review other aspects of that relationship and see whether or not a separate act or additional amendments might be undertaken. In all honesty, the current amendments before us, regarding mobile homes at least, are the result of the recent complaints surrounding the three people in the Kopper King Trailer Park and their predicament. I have had representation made to me by individuals who have trailer homes and individuals who are interested and have family and friends with trailer homes. The immediate area of concern had to do with the notice issue and the concern surrounding the very large number of people who could, under the existing law until we change it, be placed in a similar predicament to those three trailer owners and renters of space in the Kopper King Trailer Park.
There was some urgency to respond to this situation and to give a certain amount of security to all of the others who have older-model trailer homes. It certainly is not our position that we have gone into thorough consultation with regard to other aspects of the landlord/tenant relationship in the Landlord and Tenant Act.
I can say that there is a commitment from me to certainly look into any suggestions that might be forthcoming from the side opposite about the kinds of things that might be looked at, so that a more thorough and true consultation could take place in the future.
Mr. McDonald:
Based on the Minister's responsiveness to date, I can take him at his word on that point, and I can reassure him that at least, given my reading of the situation in trailer parks that I represent, I would hazard a guess - not much of a guess - that these amendments would receive very widespread support and would certainly be seen as fair under any objective analysis.
I take the Minister's word that we can continue dialogue in the future, depending upon the information that we receive from the public, and perhaps there may be some need for further amendments in the future that would improve the relationship between landlords and tenants.
I want to reiterate that these amendments are timely, given the apparent hopelessness of the situation facing the three Kopper King families. We do not want to be in a situation where we see this situation repeated between now and the time we come to a more thorough analysis and consultation.
On Clause 1
Clause 1 agreed to
On Clause 2
Clause 2 agreed to
On Clause 3
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
As I stated when Committee was debating An Act to Amend the Condominium Act, an amendment may not amend sections of the original act, unless they are specifically being amended in a clause of the bill before the Committee. As the amending bill does not open section 85 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, I would ask the unanimous consent of Committee to move an amendment to add new subsections to section 85.
Chair:
Is there unanimous consent?
All Hon. Members:
Agreed.
Chair:
Unanimous consent has been granted.
Amendment proposed
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I move that Bill No. 66, entitled An Act to Amend the Landlord and Tenant Act, be amended in clause 3, on page 1, by adding the following clause immediately after clause 3:
"3.1 The following subsections are added immediately after section 85(4) of the said act:
"(5) Where a tenant of a mobile home site receives a notice of a rent increase, the tenant may elect to treat the notice as a notice of termination of the tenancy by so advising the landlord in writing within 30 days of receipt of the notice of rent increase, and this notice of termination shall be effective on the last day of the twelfth month following the month in which the notice of rent increase was given. Where the effective day of this notice of termination would be in December, January or February, the notice shall be deemed to be effective on the first day of March next following.
"(6) Where the tenant of the mobile home site treats a rent increase notice as notice of termination, the rent increase shall not take effect until the tenant has vacated the mobile home site.
"(7) Where a tenant purports to rescind a notice of termination given under subsection (5) and the landlord agrees to accept the rescission, the tenancy continues and the rent increase takes effect on the day stated in the notice of rent increase, unless the landlord and tenant agree otherwise."
Chair:
Would the Member like the Chair to read the
Page Number 2910
proposed amendment to the bill?
Amendment to Bill No. 66 agreed to
Clause 3 agreed to as amended
On Clause 4
Clause 4 agreed to
On Clause 5
Clause 5 agreed to
On Clause 6
Clause 6 agreed to
On Title
Title agreed to
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I move that Bill No. 66, entitled An Act to Amend the Landlord and Tenant Act, be moved out of Committee with amendment.
Motion agreed to
Bill No. 15 - First Appropriation Act, 1994-95 - continued
Chair:
We move on to Bill No. 15. Is there further general debate on Justice?
Department of Justice - continued
Ms. Commodore:
I am still responding to the Minister's answers regarding the questions I asked him yesterday in general debate. I am still on circle sentencing. The Minister had indicated some displeasure in some of the things that have happened - or have not happened, I guess I should say - in regard to community-based justice. I guess circle sentencing is one of the community-based justice initiatives; is that correct? He nodded that that was correct.
One of the things that he mentioned was that if there were to be further community-based justice initiatives that there should be consultation with every segment of the community, and I agree with that. I am not criticizing that; I think that is a good idea.
But I would like to ask him if he feels there has been no consultation whatsoever in regard to the circle-sentencing courts that are being held now in the communities. He mentioned that even the department was not consulted. Is he saying that the people who are responsible for circle sentencing - the courts, for instance - did not consult with him or his department when the circle courts were implemented in the communities?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
The essential issue is that the initiative was not an initiative by the department, as such, in some cases. The initiatives were done on the basis of volunteer efforts by individuals in communities. The mandate of this government is to support community-based justice initiatives, but in order for us to be comfortable, we have to feel that there is community-based support for the initiatives.
My concern is that, in some cases, there has not been a consensus arrived at or a vast majority of people consulted in some communities. Something called a circle court, or whatever, has been implemented without even, in some cases, local justices of the peace being advised or brought into the system.
My concern is simply that I strongly prefer a situation where there is a lot of consultation before something is implemented and people are brought on side. The likelihood of having a positive reaction from the vast majority of people in the community is much better if they are in on it from the ground floor. I see some difficulty in achieving that kind of consensus in places where those foundations have not been securely put in place.
I was very impressed, when I attended the meeting in Haines Junction, with the broad-based support there for the initiative. I am hoping it will be possible to obtain the same broad-based support in communities such as Carcross, Teslin and so on.
I understand that there is very good support in some other communities, such as Carmacks and Pelly. In Upper Liard, I am advised by the Kaska, some of the RCMP and other community members - both aboriginal and non-aboriginal - that there is a fairly painstaking consultation process taking place that will probably result in most of the community being comfortable with the kind of initiatives being proposed there. My message is simply that there is a fair amount of spade work to be done at the initial stages of developing community-based justice that is extremely important.
Ms. Commodore:
The consultation in matters such as this would have to be very sensitive to the manner in which they want to go. I would be a bit concerned about the length of that process if that were to begin happening. We are looking at a Yukon-wide consultation process for gambling. We know that the majority of Yukoners are opposed to the kind of gambling being proposed by the government. That is another issue, but it also is consultation.
We know that, in some communities, there are people who are absolutely opposed to anything other than long jail sentences for any crime that is committed. There is going to be a wide variety of views from different people in all of the communities. I see it, therefore, as being a long process, involving a lot of people, to try and get a consensus.
Has the Minister had any discussions with any of the judges who hold circle courts in the communities, and have they consulted with him to talk about future plans for circle sentencing in the Yukon?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I have had some informal discussions with the judges. I want to make it clear that I support community-based justice. There certainly is some evidence that shows the potential for circle sentencing in some of the communities and there is no doubt in my mind that the program in each community will be, in some respects, tailor-made to suit the specific needs of the community.
I think the fundamental principle is, if the community is to take on ownership of its justice programs - and they are programs for those people - then it is really important that they all get on side and that there are no feelings that somehow or other, because there are only certain people involved, or because they are left out, that the system is not going to be fair. The perception of fairness is the hallmark of justice.
Ms. Commodore:
The Minister talked about the federal government taking over the responsibility of some of the community-based programs.
When the Minister talks about aboriginal and non-aboriginal needs in the community, he mentions something about the federal government having the responsibility to fund. I was not quite sure what the Minister was talking about, and I was wondering if he may have been talking about the circle courts for aboriginal people as something the federal government may have to fund. I would like the Minister to clarify that for me.
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
The way that has been described to me is that, if community-based justice takes the form of a circle court, it can be community-based justice and be there for all citizens in the community. If this system has the support of all citizens in the community, then we have no problem with proceeding to help implement those kinds of programs that sustain that type of process.
This is the distinction: if a First Nation decides, after thoughtful consideration, that it wants to have two systems of justice in the community - one for aboriginal people only and one for non-aboriginal people - and that is the type of model that that particular First Nation wants for self-government, then my understanding of the agreement on self-government is that the primary responsibility for funding comes from the federal government and that we would contribute any savings from our program to the
Page Number 2911
funding of the self-government model. That is the general principle.
What that means is that in that example - which I hope does not occur anywhere, but may - we would be left with two systems of justice, one of which would have to be funded by this government in any event and the savings may be very modest indeed. Therefore, the danger of us being out front on providing the other of two models is simply that we are off-loaded onto by the feds and that is contrary to the self-government agreement. I know it is complicated to say but that is the concern.
Ms. Commodore:
I would like to ask the Minister what he will be doing in the future to ensure that there is consultation with the community before any changes are made. He mentioned a meeting in Haines Junction that appeared to be quite successful and I am sure that will occur in other communities, but how will he ensure that it will be done prior to any new initiatives in regard to community-based justice happening?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I will be travelling - as well, my officials will be travelling more often than I, I am sure - to try to carry this message to each of the communities that is expressing an interest in community-based justice, which is virtually all of them at this point.
The problem is not nearly as serious in a virtually First Nation town or community, such as Old Crow or Pelly for example, as it might be in a community that is 50/50, or closer to 50/50, in makeup.
We want people first of all to understand just these basic things, and then to try to build on that. I intend to be travelling over the course of the next three, four or five months to individual communities with officials to discuss some of these issues and to discuss how we might approach funding and holistic programs by having officials, not only from Justice, but, in many instances, from Health and Social Services attend with me, and then to carry on at the officials level with discussions to try to move ahead and break some new ground.
Ms. Commodore:
The Minister had mentioned areas of community-based justice and some included counselling. I would like to ask him if there has been some consideration given by his department to use the services offered by Dene Nets' edet'an, because I believe that they are a strong organization that provide good resources.
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
Yes, we are very supportive of that organization. Of course, we are very pleased that we were able to second Bobbi Smith to that organization. Because of the recent murder in Watson Lake, we funded that organization to travel to Watson Lake to do some counselling regarding the very clear trauma that was inflicted upon family and friends of both the accused and the victim. We will be looking at this relationship as one possibility. Whether it is through that organization or through other types of training, we are committed to try to train people resident in the community who will remain in the community, and who will have a fairly broad understanding of issues that counsellors have to deal with that will essentially know when they are into something that is out of their depth, and know whom to phone to get help and that kind of thing.
Ms. Commodore:
The Crown Attorney transfer sounded pretty positive quite a few months ago, and I read in the paper that the Minister had indicated that it had come a little bit further than it had in the past. I have talked to individuals from the Council for Yukon Indians in regard to the devolution of the program, and the Minister has already said that they have not been a part of any of the discussions. I would like to ask him when he feels that they should start being consulted, and start being a third party to discussions in the negotiations for devolution.
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I have had one meeting with officials from CYI, and I have written a letter recently to Minister Rock, with a copy to CYI. We will be discussing with them the kind of process they would like to see put in place. We have nothing to hide on this and we would like to have their full cooperation. We have also discussed with CYI the potential of having us join with them in asking the government for an aboriginal coordinator position for CYI so that they could be involved in our discussions with the communities regarding community-based justice. It really would help if that link back to the leadership would generally keep everyone up to speed on where we are going in the various communities.
Ms. Commodore:
The native courtworker budget has decreased, but I cannot remember by what percentage. I know their services have expanded. How does the Minister expect the courtworkers to continue with the service they provide without the same amount of funding?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
There are a number of aspects to this issue. On the one hand, we are committed to not allowing the federal government to off-load their responsibilities for programs they initiated on to a junior jurisdiction - us. In that, we have strong support from other provinces and the Northwest Territories.
We are taking some steps to ensure that the level of service can be bolstered in the communities. There are various ways of doing that without departing from the initial principle, that we will not have the federal government off-loading on to us.
Accordingly, we are looking at situations where CYI may devolve a courtworker position to a community, and we bolster that position with funding for other kinds of services, although it would be the same person. The other services would be closely linked to their work. In one way, we are actually giving indirect support to the program.
Ms. Commodore:
The Salvation Army residential centre in Hillcrest has had a drastic cut in their funding. I have heard nothing about this from anyone, and I was a bit surprised by it.
Could the Minister let me know if the services are no longer needed, or will other things be available to those inmates who need that service?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
We are exploring a situation where most of the rural communities are moving in a direction to where they would like to have the responsibility to provide for inmates being released from custody. Healing centres, wilderness camps, and so on, have been built by at least eight of the 14 First Nations.
What we are caught in is the dilemma of having only so many inmates and trying to provide some programming in their home community, or their tribal council area at least, where the community can work with the individual involved.
It is a difficult transitional stage regarding the delivery of this kind of service. We have had discussions with the Salvation Army people and explained the dilemma to them. There will be a reduced need for their services, because we expect the uptake by rural communities to increase. We are going to have to work carefully to continue in the direction of community-based responsibility for community offenders.
There are other programs and services the Salvation Army could provide that are consistent with the nature of the facility they have and what they can offer there. These talks are ongoing.
Ms. Commodore:
Can the Minister tell me if the inmates who will be taking advantage of the healing centres are ones who will be finishing their sentences or those whose sentences have been completed?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
It may be both. Again, we are at a transitional stage, looking at one or two pilot projects. I am kind of hopeful that we might be able to move fairly soon with Tatl' M„n Lake, for example, but we still have not come to a firm agreement on that.
Page Number 2912
Ms. Commodore:
I have a question in regard to the maintenance enforcement program. As I mentioned yesterday, I did have a meeting with some of the people from his department to bring me up to date on some of the things that were happening. I found out that the cut in maintenance enforcement payment was due to a survey that was a one-shot deal - that the additional money was for a survey that was done last year. I would like to ask the Minister if he might let me know what we were looking for in the results of the survey and if that will be available to us when it is finished.
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
The survey was completed in April, I believe. The consultants are finalizing their report of the findings. Our officials will review the report and make recommendations to me, and I will provide the information to the Legislature once I have reviewed the report.
Ms. Commodore:
He may not be able to give me the information now, but I would like to know the success rate of maintenance enforcement payments. I know that they are pretty low all over Canada. Many deadbeat dads are getting out of making payments. I would like him to give me the latest update for the Yukon.
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I will read the year-to-date statistics.
Current files are 382. There are 151 active files in the Yukon. The amount in arrears is $335,000.
Yearly revenue to Yukon moms: 1991 was $434,819; 1992 was $533,765; 1993 was $651,672; and 1994 to the date of this note was $208,000.
Regarding reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders on file, we have 231 outstanding arrears to April 1994. Reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders in: $340,520. "In" means the claimant lives inside the Yukon.
Reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders out: $336,707. That is for debtors living outside the Yukon.
Ms. Commodore:
How do we stand, compared to other jurisdictions?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
In my most recent conversation with the official responsible, which was a few months ago, I understand that we were pretty high in terms of our success ratio in comparison to other jurisdictions. It is never good enough. When one has these kinds of arrears, one has to find ways to do better. I mean, $335,000 is quite a lot of money.
Ms. Commodore:
When we get to victim services the Minister will be explaining the cuts to me. There appears to be a cut of four percent in victim services that people are concerned about. We talked about improvements in the service. The Minister keeps talking about doing something better for less, and sometimes it is very difficult that that would be the case, but we are looking for a four-percent cut here. I am not exactly sure whether or not something is improving.
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
What accounts for the cuts are the positions that were moved from the court services area to the family violence prevention unit. It is down by four percent in one area and up in another by three percent. When we get to that area, I will be pointing it out.
Ms. Commodore:
The court reporting was contracted out to a firm from outside, which caused a lot of concern for the people who were working in those jobs. Families had to leave the Yukon as a result of it. It was done so that the government could save money.
I noticed in the list of contracts that there were some given to J.G. Moore and Associates to do some reporting. I wonder if that would have previously been done by the person who would have had the contract to do the court reporting, or is it in addition to it?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
This is for hearings other than strictly court reporting hearings. Justice pays for them. They have been given out to local contractors on a tender basis.
Ms. Commodore:
I would like the Minister to tell me where we stand right now with the First Nation policing. He mentioned yesterday that the committee had finished a report. I would like to thank his department for sending me a copy; I appreciate that.
Can the Minister let me know where his department is going with regard to policing by First Nation people?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
Essentially, we are now going to be moving into the second phase, to discuss the negotiation of tripartite arrangements with some of the communities that have expressed a keen interest in moving into the next stage. We are looking at which communities wish to go first toward negotiating a tripartite arrangement, with the understanding that we will achieve some savings, which can then be used to assist us in community-based justice initiatives.
Ms. Commodore:
I would like to ask a question about the Teslin jail. The Minister had indicated that recruitment has been done and that training will take place. There was a lot of concern from people who contacted us about the recruitment process. Some people from the community felt that not enough local people had been hired. We heard that from more than a couple of people. I phoned individuals in the community to find out whether or not they felt there was a problem with regard to recruiting.
The Minister indicated in the news last month that he hoped that it would work out to be roughly 50/50. Perhaps in the end it did work out that way, but I would like to know how many local people were hired.
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
The agreement was amended to provide for 15 of the people to be either Teslin Tlingit First Nation or Teslin area residents - that is 15 of about 20, and there are a couple of part-time person years in addition to that.
The commitment I made to Chief Keenan was that we try to achieve a goal of 50/50 Teslin Tlingit and non-status Indians in that number of 14, 15 or 16 people who are to meet that requirement. The information I have received to date is not complete, but it shows that we will meet that target and it will be about 50/50. The only issue is with regard to somebody not from Teslin being selected, but Teslin First Nation people who have moved to Whitehorse or other parts of the Yukon are eligible under the memorandum.
I am quite comfortable that we have met the basis of the agreement. I recognize there is a lot of upset, but these are jobs that were keenly sought by people who live in Teslin, which, as the Member knows, has always had an unemployment problem, so we should not be surprised at some high emotional outbursts with regard to who would get jobs and who would not. As we move along and the facility opens, it will be seen to be a situation where the memorandum of agreement has been met and where it has provided a really good economic base for the community.
Ms. Commodore:
I also asked him about the training and whether it had already started. If it has not, when will it start, and how long will it be? When does he expect the centre to be in operation?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
The training is supposed to commence on June 20. A lot of it will be here in Whitehorse, because they are going to have to work with the WCC to get some of the procedures. The opening is anticipated for late July. I was trying to find a date, and I am waiting to hear from Chief Keenan, who is in Ottawa right now, about what he feels is the best date.
I will send the Member an invitation to the opening.
Ms. Commodore:
That was actually my next question, because it was one of the things - at least, when I was in government - that I was very excited about.
I understand the Minister is going to a conference of Ministers of Justice some time soon. Could he let me know what some of
Page Number 2913
the issues are that will be discussed that relate to the Yukon? Probably all of them do.
My other concern is in regard to the Young Offenders Act. Is that on the agenda?
I have a great interest in that act, personally and politically, because it is important. While I am on my feet, could the Minister tell me where the government is coming from in regard to its support for changes to the act? Are they proposing anything new, other than what we have heard on the news?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
With regard to the Young Offenders Act, no. The proposal is to create a task force, which we hope to assist with. I have had some correspondence from the Hon. Mr. Rock with regard to that - to look at the act in its entirety. We want to participate in a positive way and get feedback, along with the federal government, with regard to the feelings of people in the Yukon.
Where I am coming from has more to do with issues on of crime prevention and working with young people to try to rehabilitate them and to deal with kids at risk - everything from youth centres to better recreation, and so on.
The toughening up of the dangerous offenders section is something we supported in the interim bill that is before Parliament right now but, from my perspective, it was not a top priority. I was more concerned with the provision that allowed for administrative decisions, to move people from open to closed custody, with a sharing of information on young offenders, particularly with schools and other social programs. Those were the two main interim steps I wanted to see fulfilled.
I took no position at all on the lowering of the maximum age from 12 to 10. I will be interested in seeing what Yukoners have to say about that.
Ms. Commodore:
I just have a couple of more questions; I know other people are waiting impatiently to ask questions of the Minister. In the budget, I noticed that there is a drop in court services. The same thing happened last year, where the actual statistics for criminal charges for adult offenders had gone up from the year prior to that. Then there is a forecast this year that more individuals will be charged with offences. So, we are looking at a drop in the funding for court services, but a rise in the estimate of numbers of people who could be coming before the courts.
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
Before we get into the line-by-line debate, the big number is the victim of crime item, $210,000, which is gone as a result of the bill being repealed last year.
Ms. Commodore:
I have asked questions in the House of the Minister and of the Government Leader - sometimes I never know who that is - regarding gambling. I think, in the end, the Minister may be responsible for any legislation that might be necessary. I would like to know whether or not he has had any representation from different groups or individuals in regard to video lottery terminals.
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I, personally, have had representations made to me by constituents and by some First Nations who are opposed to video lottery terminals. The main issue of concern is the large number of people who were once alcoholics and are now recovered, but who seem to be easily addicted to gambling, particularly bingo, and that if they encountered such things as VLTs in bars, they would become addicted to that. They would then be going into bars instead of to the bingo hall, and they would come under pressure of various kinds to start drinking again.
Ms. Commodore:
I would like to briefly talk about the issue of jury selection. The Minister indicated that he did not think that an amendment was necessary and that it simply required a little bit more work to make sure there is a roughly proportionate and appropriately-balanced population to reflect the makeup of the community.
I would like to know what the Minister has told the sheriff about the manner in which he should proceed to make sure that he has aboriginal names available to send jury notices to.
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I have not talked directly with the sheriff. I have talked with the deputy minister, who is going to convey the message and report back to me about whether there are any unforeseen problems, by me at least, to ensure that we have a representative sample that is gender balanced and balanced in terms of the population in the area where the crimes have been alleged to have been committed.
Mr. Harding:
I have one question for the Minister. I know that he probably cannot give me a response today, but I would appreciate a written response from him.
A number of my constituents have approached me about the issue of further RCMP cutbacks in my community. We presently have two officers stationed in Faro. Rumours around the community are that further cutbacks are being planned. This was alarming, given that our population has stabilized substantially and that there is still a fair amount of business for the officers - more than just casework, but also active participation in the community, which I think is a good thing.
I have talked to a few people, whom I consider to be in the know and who have said that is not the case and that these are only rumours.
Could the Minister check into this to see if he could possibly reassure me, so that I could pass this information on to my community, that we are not going to face further cutbacks unless something in terms of the population or workload drastically changes for the officers in Faro?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I did look into this, because I heard the same rumours. I was assured by the RCMP that there are no intentions to make any reductions. The community has stabilized. I understood that they were actually going to go to Faro, talk to the mayor and give him that message. I will check into that. I thought it was about to happen. I will check my briefing note.
In any event, I have checked into it. If there is any change at all or I hear otherwise, I will let the Member know. I am very sure that there is no such intention.
Mr. Penikett:
I wonder if I could just ask a couple of very general questions of the Minister.
I have never had the great privilege of being the Minister of Justice or even the Justice critic but, like many of my constituents, I am interested in the debate that seems to be raging everywhere about crime and crime statistics. The Minister referred to these in his opening remarks.
I would like to ask a general question first, in as general a manner as I can. I would ask the Minister if he thinks prisons work. I am told that most recent writing on the subject suggests that their effectiveness as instruments of rehabilitation is very small. They are even under attack from the right as being inadequate tools as punishment. Due to the fact that people do not serve the actual time they are sentenced to even suggests that prisons do not even keep people off the streets very effectively.
I do not want to express my own bias here in asking the question, but I wonder if the Minister could say anything about his own views, to the extent that they might be an expression of public policy.
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
My personal view is that, by and large, the statement that prisons do not work is correct. There is a need for change in the way that some programs are delivered in correctional facilities. There is a very great need to look at community-based justice in terms of people in the community taking on the responsibility for offenders in many cases. For this reason, circle sentencing shows some promise, because what has been happening, in my understanding, is that - particularly with young people and some
Page Number 2914
older ones - the expression that people in the community care and want to help a person get over antisocial behaviour or whatever, has led to some surprising successes.
Perhaps they should not be so surprising, but they have been to me. Some of the individuals I knew when I practised criminal law 15 years ago. So, to see them repeat and repeat and repeat, and then get out of the cycle is quite a compelling reason to support some of the things that are being talked about in terms of a holistic approach, and so on.
There is going to be a need for prisons. There are a number of people who will not be rehabilitated. One of the areas that circle sentencing, or community-based justice - whatever they want to call their system - has to be fairly harsh about is whether in their judgment, realistically, they can do something for an offender. It should not be taken as gospel or religion that one can just cure anyone.
The departments have been involved in looking at sex offenders. Some of this work has been ongoing from the previous administration, I think. In the case of sexual offenders, the outlook is very grim - very bleak. Even such liberal magazines as the New Yorker said as much in recent editorials. I think that in those kinds of cases, if we are going to err, we ought to err on the side of protecting the innocent and the young and recognize just how difficult it might be to rehabilitate that type of offender.
However, having said that, if we are realistic, then I think we can do a lot more outside of the prisons than in them. The fact remains that we will always need to have these institutions; there are those people who are dangerous and for whom the prognosis is very bleak. I would hope that some day we will be able to rebuild the Whitehorse Correctional Centre with a much smaller facility that is more humane in the eyes of modern people.
Mr. Penikett:
I thank the Minister for his observations. They square with my own amateur assessment, but I cannot see much evidence, objectively, that prisons work. It is interesting, reading about this, that people are constantly surprised to discover that prisons are actually a relatively new invention. They tend to think they have been around for ever, when in fact they have not - certainly not as state institutions, anyway.
The Minister has an opportunity that none of the rest of us have in this House, which is to participate in a national debate about this subject. It is observable that it is the nations with the highest percentage of their populations in prison who also have the highest crime statistics. This in itself tends to suggest that prisons do not work. Britain has the highest percentage of its population in prison in Europe; the United States has the highest in the world and Canada is relatively high.
In the United States, half of the prison population is black; in Canada, a very high percentage of prison population is aboriginal, suggesting some class or race base to the prison population, hinting a link with poverty.
Rather than getting into that, I wonder if, since popular prejudices, or public opinion, even, seems to want the building of more prisons - and even a quite bright person like President Clinton seems to be responding to public opinion by promising more prisons and more police and the three-strikes-and-you-are-out law - an habitual offender kind of punishment - I gather from reading, just a minute ago, actually, an article in Atlantic Monthly that suggets that this statistical and expert evidence does not work and that it is the wrong way to go, but it is very popular.
I am assuming that among the ministers of justice there is a serious and high-minded debate that is not just dealing with popular prejudices but deals with issues of justice and appropriate public policy. Does the Minister see the attorneys general meetings or the justice meetings or any other forum that Attorney General Rock may be creating, as an opportunity to have - if I can put it this way without sounding prejudiced - a rational debate about this question? We should respond to public concerns but I also think politicians should be honest enough to admit that some of the popular nostrums may indeed be wrong-headed.
Could he comment on his opportunities to participate in that debate?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
Thus far, some of the conversations have been biting around the edges of the whole issue, as put forward by the Member opposite. We have discussed the problem with dangerous young offenders, and whether that has a bearing on prisons and whether they work. There is a very keen interest in, and there will be a lot of discussion regarding, circle sentencing and community-based justice, and so on. It seems to me that that is predicated, to a large extent, on an agreement that prisons do not work. It is saying that, if communities take responsibility for their own people, it would go a long way toward rehabilitation. It is the flip side of the coin that prisons do not work. Some of the local judiciary, who have been responsible for developing circle sentencing, have taken a view that the system does not work, and that is why they are trying new things.
With regard to prisons and the cause/effect of prisons to crime, and that sort of thing, I always worry about generalizations, because there are so many causes. If a person takes a holistic approach, one has to look at a very large number of things and deal with the facts we do know. I just mentioned the one about sexual offenders and the special problems there. It would mean finding ways of protecting the innocent.
There is no question that there are a lot of psychological reasons that underlie a lot of criminal behaviour - many of the same reasons that underlie rebellious behaviour in teens, and so on. It has to do with emotional issues - love, lack of love, et cetera, lack of role models, lack of goals, lack of objectives, lack of work, sometimes lack of money. I do not know whether poverty, in itself, is a cause. Where you saw very little crime was in areas of Canada where there were strong families, working on farms, and so on, who were highly motivated. Some of the countries with very strong cultures - stronger than the main cultures in Europe and North America - have very little crime. One wonders about their religious beliefs, et cetera, and the bearing they have.
I do not know whether or not the whole area of prison reform will be on the agenda soon, given the many other things that are being explored by First Ministers at this time. Certainly, all these issues interplay, and a lot of our discussions bite around the edges of the issue.
Mr. Penikett:
Perhaps I could just make a comment in closing. I want to emphasize that I am not just talking about prisons and prison reform; I really am asking the holistic question, because I believe very strongly that there is a linkage. Regarding what the Minister says about sex offenders, I am told that there is a predictable percentage of sex offenders who do not seem to be amendable to any kind of rehabilitation that we know of. There are people who say that you cannot show any evidence of rehabilitation in prison, but there are a certain number of sex offenders who do not seem to respond to any kind of treatment.
I can quite understand a public passion that says they should be kept away from their victims, especially if the victims are children, and whatever is necessary should be done. My own personal view - and I have no expertise - is that the man who, I gather, is likely to become the next leader of the British Labour Party and indeed, the next Prime Minister of Britain, has been arguing for some time in that country that the traditional small "l" liberal approach to crime, which treats offenders simply as victims, is not working either. He says that you have to be not only tough on the causes of crime, you have to be tough on crime - which argues that being a victim of sexual abuse when you were
Page Number 2915
a child may be an explanation of why you become an offender, but it is not a justification - that being an adult in our society, being a citizen, involves individual responsibility. I must say I think a lot of his views make sense to me.
I would just make this comment to the Minister, and I have said this in other words on other occasions. As someone who is interested in the economic dimension of what is happening in the justice system, I continue to be horrified at the kinds of levels of public expenditure on the system. I look at the massive expenditures on police, prosecutors, judges, justice officials, jailers, probation officers, justice department bureaucrats, all to keep what really, in this territory, amounts to a few dozen relatively young men going through the revolving door in and out of jail. It makes me want to cry out and ask if we cannot use that same amount of money - or at least a sizable percentage of that same amount of money for other purposes - whether it is training and job creation, or whatever, that would help make these same people productive citizens. I know that in many cases we are often dealing with damaged human beings, people who have come from dysfunctional families or who may have been subject to abuse or may be dyslexic or have any number of psychological problems, which make them maladjusted.
I must say to the Minister that I see an awful lot of good people in the justice system doing their best in work that I think a sane society ought not to be doing.
I am not really making a representation to the Minister, any more than I would say that I would really like to see a wide-open debate on this question, not only in this House, but in this territory and across the country. Over the last few months and years, we have been focusing on health and social services costs and, to some extent education costs, but I do not think that we have had a really intelligent debate about the economic efficacy of the justice system.
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I agree, and that certainly is one of the reasons why I am determined to see the entire system place more emphasis on crime prevention than on dealing with criminals.
There are several things that ought to be said, and one is that government cannot do it all. The one positive aspect of a holistic approach and the desire of communities to take over responsibility means that we will have more citizens involved in the program. People are going to have to become involved, show they care, work with young people, get involved in recreation, or whatever, in order to assist individuals in realizing their potential.
The cost is absolutely outrageous. For a person who used to be a criminal lawyer and fairly keen on the adversarial system, I really have difficulty with the way the system operates in some of the smaller communities, such as huge delays. When you experience court delays when dealing with a young person, and the matter does not even get to trial for six months, for a young person who is 15 or 16 years old, that is a lifetime and, when he finally gets to court, he wonders why he is there, and you have lost an opportunity to do something with that person. There are all kinds of issues like that to be dealt with.
The other area of concern is that, when one talks about prison reform or various aspects of it - young offenders included - the debate tends to be one that is emotional, rather than reasoned. Politicians, by and large, of whatever stripe, cannot ignore the will of the people. A few bad cases, such as the horrible case in England involving the murder of a young boy and the young kids who murdered him, really get the public into a fit.
I think one of the problems that we face, even in Canada, is that emotionalism seems to play a very large part in many of the decisions that have been made over the years and in fashioning the system that we have.
One can only hope for a sober debate about some of the real issues, and hope that we can try a few things to see if they work and rely upon the patience of our electors to allow us to be understanding and, I hope, to agree that the system has not been working, and that we have to find better ways to deal with the problem.
The problems are not just in prison reform, it is not just in changing the court system, it is not just in changing the Young Offenders Act. There are all kinds of things that have to come into play, not the least of which is the obligation of citizens to become involved.
Mr. Cable:
The Member for Whitehorse Centre has canvassed most of the issues, but there are a few points I would like to address. I have a document that is undated and has sort of wandered into my file. It is called, "Ministerial Priorities" and it has seven priorities: community-based justice, crime prevention, youth programs, corrections strategy, criminal and court reform, regulatory review, family violence, sex offenders and policing. There is no date on it, unfortunately. Is that the Minister's present set of priorities - those seven?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
Those are the seven priorities I gave to the department early into the mandate. I think that if there were a date on it, it would probably be about March of the first year. It was drawn up as such, after reviewing the issues. Those are the ones on which I really wanted to move and make progress. It is time for an update, actually. I hope to have that reviewed and updated shortly. There has been a fair amount of progress made on most of the issues there.
Mr. Cable:
I would agree there has been a fair amount of action on a number of these points. Are there any priorities that the Minister has identified now that he has been in the saddle for about a year and a half - other than those seven I mentioned.
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I would have to look at the seven and review them, actually, because I do not have them in front of me right now.
Things are changing and we are getting a handle on how we feel. For example, we ought to deal with community-based justice; that is evolving. Something we are doing more and more is bringing in other departments to try to approach community-based justice in a holistic way. Aspects of each are changing. Tripartite agreements with First Nations is a priority right now - to try to get some of that going. We will be reviewing our progress in each of those seven and amending the document for the next year to 18 months.
Mr. Cable:
I have a couple of points regarding the document. Under criminal and court reform, the Minister has listed a review of the unified court concept. I do not recollect him speaking about that issue. Perhaps I missed it. Has there been any development in that area?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
Not really. It is an issue that is being discussed at Justice Ministers conferences. We expect to have a discussion on it at the next meeting of Ministers.
I drew up that document at about the same time as we changed deputy ministers. The unified court system was a high priority of the first deputy minister in the position when I took office. Some of the other areas have been higher priorities over the course of the last few months.
Mr. Cable:
Along that line, but not exactly on the same point, has the Minister given any thought to enlarging the jurisdiction of the small debts court, like raising the financial limits and jurisdictional parameters?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
Yes, we were going to do it about a year ago. We had some discussions with members of the bar. I think that we will be proceeding to increase the jurisdiction probably from $3,000 to $5,000.
Mr. Cable:
Is it anticipated that a justice of the peace would
Page Number 2916
sit, or would that be a function of the territorial court judges?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
The conversations I have had with members of the bar on the issue dealt only with the amount - the jurisdiction as to quantum - and not to changes in the process.
Mr. Cable:
One of the other ministerial priorities is a broad matter under regulatory review - review of statutes and boards and committees, in view of future human resource planning, operational efficiency and cost effectiveness.
Has the Minister launched anything in that direction?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
There is a very thorough review of the programs of the department, and a reorganization, which I referred to in my opening speech, that was done over the course of a year. As a result, there have been a lot of changes in the way the department is managed and structured. That aspect of things is largely completed.
There still remains a need to really get into a review of a Yukon Public Utilities Board. We sent letters to the various players for their comments about the cost of that particular board. That one is outstanding.
Changes that resulted from the review include, for example, the changes to the way we deal with lottery licensing, which is being amended right now, and changes to several other boards that we have already dealt with in the Legislature. We are almost through that particular priority.
Mr. Cable:
This particular item relates to boards and committees that report to the Minister, as opposed to the government as a whole - is that what we are saying?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
That is correct.
Mr. Cable:
Another matter that was touched on by the Member for Whitehorse Centre was maintenance enforcement initiatives. Not too long ago, I read an article in the newspaper about the British approach. Apparently, they have taken a really Draconian approach - you can hide, but you cannot run sort of thing.
Is the Minister aware of whether there are any approaches in Europe that are working better than the Canadian experience, with respect to maintenance enforcement?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I am not personally aware of any such system.
Mr. Cable:
With respect to our own system, is it the Minister's view that the problem, if in fact there is a problem - and the large amount of arrears would indicate there is - is a legislative problem or an enforcement problem?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
In my view, it is largely an enforcement problem. Some spouses are pretty adept at avoiding having to pay, and we are certainly reviewing our procedures. We will be looking at whatever is happening in other parts of Canada and working with other jurisdictions in trying to achieve a better success rate. The changes we announced in social assistance will be of some help in that spouses on welfare will now have a vested interest in seeing us successful in getting maintenance payments from spouses, whereas before, of course, there was no economic advantage to them whether we were successful or not.
We have made a few modest changes we hope will help, but it is still too high, and I really do not have a handle on what else can be done that would be within the Charter of Rights to ensure success.
Mr. Cable:
On another matter, there have been a number of questions on the ombudsperson, most recently in Question Period today. Is it anticipated that the ombudsperson's office will be a Justice function or an Executive Council Office function?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
We have not resolved that particular issue yet. It will probably end up being in Justice, but there are a couple of aspects of models we are still looking at and there has not been a final decision.
Mr. Cable:
I think the Minister has indicated - as he just confirmed a moment ago - that he is looking at options. Could he describe what those options are for the ombudsperson's office?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
The options really have to do with the actual delivery and the cost of running such an office. We are canvassing whether it should be done in conjunction with several other functions, where some staff could be used to do not just ombudsperson-type investigative work and clerical staff could be used for other things as well. For example, one possible model might involve having a staff common with the Yukon Human Rights Commission. Another model might involve having a common staff with the conflicts commissioner and some other similar departments.
The Member may or may not recall, in the human rights area, we were promised it would not cost more than $75,000 a year, and it costs more like $350,000 to $400,000 a year to operate. We want to have a realistic cost for running the office of ombudsperson. That is, I guess, one of our main concerns - not to create a creature that is out of control when it comes to gobbling up money.
Mr. Cable:
I think one of the hallmarks of an ombudsperson is the fairly definitive arm's-length relationship from government. When the Minister describes the use of public service staff, if in fact that is what he is talking about - besides the Human Rights Commission - it gives me some unease. Has the Minister considered the use of on-call people, such as adjudicators who are called upon by the Human Rights Commission?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
That is certainly something that is under consideration, but it seems to me that you have several areas where there is a requirement to be somewhat at arm's-length from government. We have several agencies of that type in those roles, and when one looks at a privacy commissioner, somebody determining access to information, a conflicts commissioner - the Human Rights Commission is an example - the Workers' Compensation Board, the Public Utilities Board, there are arm's-length organizations and functions right now.
Our concern is that whatever we do be cost effective as well as provide for the kind of balance and protection of individual rights that is the hallmark of a good ombudsperson's office.
Mr. Cable:
I guess the financial fears will be dealt with in part by the stringent terms of reference, if, in fact, that is a major concern.
On a different point, the court reporting services were put out under contract about two years ago to a different firm. Have there been any problems with the services provided by that firm? I asked the Minister this question during the capital debate - or some time in the past anyway - and, as I recollect, the Minister stated that he was going to look into this matter.
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
According to the information that I have - the briefing note - there were some administrative startup problems; however, they have been remedied through time, experience and implementation of procedures. I, personally, have not received complaints with regard to the court reporting under the new contract, and I was somewhat apprehensive, given the background of the whole changeover. It seems to me that it is operating in a manner that is at least as consistent as has been the experience in other jurisdictions with court reporters.
Mr. Cable:
Have any complaints been received by the court services, perhaps the Minister's staff?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I would have to inquire. I will send the information to the Member.
Mr. Cable:
Have there been any amendments to the contract - the original contract - that was entered into with the new court reporters?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I will have to get back to the Member. The terms of reference will be redrafted by court services in preparation
Page Number 2917
to proceed to call tenders, but that will be in the third year for the next call tender. The note I have here does not specifically give me information on that.
Mrs. Firth:
I want to go back to the office of the ombudsperson for a minute, and ask the Minister this: this afternoon, the Government Leader indicated that they were working on legislation. Is that happening in the Department of Justice, or is the Executive Council Office working on that legislation?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
The departments are working together on it. My understanding is that Justice is taking the lead role. Some options were to be brought back to Cabinet, and I would expect to see some options showing up fairly soon.
Mrs. Firth:
Is Justice making the options? Are they doing the options paper?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
Justice is working with ECO in preparing the next paper to come to Cabinet.
Mrs. Firth:
Perhaps the Minister could define the roles of the two departments for us, so that we know who is doing what.
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
It is a collaborative effort between the two departments. I can provide some kind of written answer as to the exact role. I think it is somewhat informal, but Justice is taking a lead role in consultation with ECO at this time.
Mrs. Firth:
I would like to see something, just so we can understand the relationship - whether the Executive Council Office is putting the political spin on it and Justice is doing the recommendations according to what goes on in other jurisdictions. It would help us understand where the government is coming from. If the Minister would give us a commitment to provide something in writing to answer those specific questions as soon as he can, then I am prepared to move on to something else.
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I will do that.
On Management Services
Chair:
Is there any general debate?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
Overall, there is a four-percent reduction of $52,000 in the forecast, due primarily to budgeting for previously unfunded clerical administrative support, as well as the consolidation of contract money to the deputy minister's office, offset by a decrease in corporate planning and accounting support.
On Activity
On Management Services
Management Services in the amount of $1,175,000 agreed to
On Court Services
Chair:
Is there any general debate?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
Overall, there is a decrease of six percent, or $201,000, of the forecast. There is a two-percent increase of $9,000 in court administration. Budget increases in compulsory court overtime and court reporting equipment maintenance are offset by salary rollbacks, Yukon bonus reductions and consolidation of contract money to the deputy minister's office. There is no increase in court operations. Budgeting for Judge Lilles' sabbatical and Judge Stewart's auxiliary secretary have been offset by the transfer of the French language budget to the Executive Council Office.
On the sheriff's department, there is a 22-percent increase of $45,000 budgeting for auxiliary sheriff, which was previously not funded. That is to do a large amount of jury trials scheduled for the upcoming year, offset by salary rollbacks, Yukon bonus reductions and jury fee reductions.
The maintenance enforcement program reduction is due primarily to the completion of the net client survey, funded by the federal government on a one-time-only basis.
The witness administration service has a four-percent reduction, due to a half-time witness administration officer, which was primarily offset by witness fee reductions. Compensation for victims of crime was due to the unilateral withdrawal of funding of $210,000 by the federal government.
Ms. Commodore:
The Minister mentioned an auxiliary sheriff. Is this a new position or has it been there for some time and we are just now budgeting for it?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
We have the same people there.
Ms. Commodore:
I would like to ask the Minister if the fine surcharge amount is listed in here somewhere or if it is in an account somewhere else.
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
It does not appear here.
Ms. Commodore:
I did not hear the Member.
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
It is in a trust account. It does not appear here in the main estimates.
Mrs. Firth:
I want to ask the Minister about the sheriff's office. Have we come to that line yet?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I would rather go line by line.
On Activities
On Court Administration
Court Administration in the amount of $566,000 agreed to
On Court Operations
Court Operations in the amount of $1,920,000 agreed to
On Sheriff
Mrs. Firth:
The sheriff's office has now taken on the responsibility of processing firearms' acquisition certificates. From having done this myself, I know that one picks up the certificate at the RCMP, fills it out and now one has to go to the sheriff's office for them to process it. Is extra staff required or is it putting the load on the sheriff's office?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
The function of that officer is transferred to community and correctional services. I will expand on that when we get there, if the Member likes.
Mrs. Firth:
That must have just happened. That was where we had to get our firearms' acquisition certificate processed. So, I will wait until we get to that line and have the Minister answer.
Sheriff in the amount of $246,000 agreed to
On Maintenance Enforcement
Ms. Commodore:
For the record, I would like to know about the decrease here, so I can pass that information on to people who want to know.
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
The decrease is due primarily to the completion of the MEP client survey, funded by the federal government on a one-time basis.
Maintenance Enforcement in the amount of $185,000 agreed to
On Victim Services
Ms. Commodore:
For the record, once again, I want to voice my concern in regard to the decrease here. We no longer have the next line item, compensation for victims of crime funding, available to us, and I understand from the information that has been given that we will be using the fine surcharge fund to put into some of these programs.
I want to voice my concern in regard to the lack of funding that most people think should be available.
Victim Services in the amount of $126,000 agreed to
On Compensation for Victims of Crime
Compensation for Victims of Crime in the amount of nil agreed to
Court Services in the amount of $3,043,000 agreed to
On Legal Services
Chair:
We will take a brief recess at this time.
Recess
Chair:
I will now call Committee of the Whole to order. Is there any debate on legal services?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I can speak to the decreases on a line-by-
Page Number 2918
line basis.
On Activities
On Program Director
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
Budget reallocation of telephones and membership fees are offset by salary rollbacks and Yukon bonus reductions.
Program Director in the amount of $195,000 agreed to
On Solicitors Branch
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
There is an eight-percent reduction of $68,000 over the forecast. There is budgeting for a legal secretary, which is offset by a reduction in a lawyer position, reallocation of telephones, membership fees, contract money, salary rollbacks and Yukon Bonus reductions.
Ms. Commodore:
I would like to ask the Minister what membership fees he is talking about.
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
The policy is under review with regard to the government paying for membership in the Yukon bar and the provincial bars where our employee staff lawyers come from.
Ms. Commodore:
Could the Minister let us know how far along that review is, because I know it was an issue a few weeks ago?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I will get back to the Member with that.
Solicitors Branch in the amount of $756,000 agreed to
On Legislative Counsel
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
This is a 28-percent reduction of $126,000, and it is due primarily to a reduction in the French language budget, since retroactive drafting and the publication of statutes is now completed.
Legislative Counsel in the amount of $321,000 agreed to
On Litigation Costs/Judgments
Litigation Costs/Judgments in the amount of $60,000 agreed to
On Outside Counsel
This is a large reduction of 37 percent, or $351,000, and it is solely due to the Curragh legal costs.
Outside Counsel in the amount of $600,000 agreed to
On Community Legal Support
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
This reduction is because native courtworkers and YPLEA have been moved from the former policy and community programs branch to legal services, which is also responsible for legal aid.
Community Legal Support in the amount of $1,133,000 agreed to
Legal Services in the amount of $3,065,000 agreed to
On Consumer and Commercial Services
Chair:
Is there any general debate?
On Activities
On Program Director
Program Director in the amount of $194,000 agreed to
On Consumer Services
Consumer Services in the amount of $675,000 agreed to
On Corporate Affairs
Corporate Affairs in the amount of $270,000 agreed to
On Labour Services
Mr. Harding:
Could the Minister provide me with some indication of whether or not the insurance agent for the director's liability fund, which was established for the Curragh board of directors, has chosen to appeal the recent decision by the Employment Standards Board?
The board upheld that wages did include severance pay and pay in lieu of notice. I know that, on May 19, there was a hearing, and the Employment Standards Board ruled that the former Curragh employees were successful in arguing, thanks to the Department of Justice, that wages did include severance pay and pay in lieu of notice. I understand that there were 14 days for the insurance company to appeal to the Supreme Court, and I wonder if they have done so.
If the Minister cannot provide me with that information, could he commit to providing me with a full written breakdown of the situation?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I will provide that information for the Member, as soon as possible.
Labour Services in the amount of $391,000 agreed to
On Occupational Health and Safety
Ms. Commodore:
I would like to know what we are getting that is better, for less money, in this line item.
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
The reduction is a transfer of a clerical position to program director in the coroner's offices. However, the program has been transferred to Workers' Compensation. We intend to move the funding from Justice to a more appropriate department, such as the Executive Council Office.
Occupational Health and Safety in the amount of $474,000 agreed to
On Public Administrator
Public Administrator in the amount of $148,000 agreed to
On Land Titles
Ms. Moorcroft:
What is the increase?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
This is an increase for a land titles clerk and surveyor costs for the examination of documents. There has been an increase in our staff, partly in anticipation of land claims.
Land Titles in the amount of $293,000 agreed to
On Chief Coroner
Chief Coroner in the amount of $278,000 agreed to
Consumer and Commercial Services in the amount of $2,723,000 agreed to
On Community and Correctional Services
Mrs. Firth:
This is a new branch within this department. Could the Minister give us some idea of the rationale behind its development?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
It is largely because of a name change to reflect what the solicitor general's branch does. It continues to group correctional services, broadly speaking, together with those programs such as victim services and family violence services that are perhaps more closely connected to correctional services than to other parts of the department.
On Activities
On Program Director
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
There is a 16-percent increase here in which the territorial firearms program responsibility has been transferred from court services. Program dollars have increased due to the introduction of new legislation and the need for testing for new firearms acquisition certificates. Renewable Resources hunter education program will now deliver the firearms safety program in addition to its hunter safety program. Funding included for increased program costs are fully recoverable from the federal government. We are also budgeting for 911 implementation funding, part-time clerical support, which is offset by transfer of the WCC cultural program contract money to Teslin, and transfer of contract money to community development and policing for training support of community initiatives.
Mrs. Firth:
I would like to ask the Minister if his department is following what is happening federally with the new gun control legislation, and whether they are having any input into the development of any new laws or regulations that the federal Liberal government is working on, and whether they are making any representation on our behalf in that we are not the same as people who live in Toronto. Perhaps he could give us some general overview of what they are doing and what positions they are taking with respect to the new gun control legislation that the federal Liberal government is looking at.
Page Number 2919
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I am personally quite concerned with the mounting emotional argument in favour of a holus-bolus canceling out of any rights to bear firearms at all in Canada.
When I was at the federal-provincial-territorial ministers conference, there was quite a strong pitch being made by some of the provinces, particularly Ontario, that was very anti-firearm. I made it very clear that we, in the Yukon and the north, would see things quite differently from the urban centres in the south, and that, while we can support banning or severely restricting firearms that are primarily designed to kill people, we would be very concerned if there were any further restrictions on guns that are primarily used for hunting and sport activities, including such things as biathlon contests, and those small number of handguns that are for self-defence in the bush.
Mrs. Firth:
I just want to put on the record my strong objections with respect to what the federal Liberal government is doing. I can remember, back in the days of Warren Allmand, having to fight the same issue with the federal Liberal government. I have never forgotten that episode. The Leader of the Official Opposition mentions Kim Campbell's name. I have to say I was also not very pleased with her Torontonian-Vancouver attitude about gun control.
II think it is fair to say that the whole process of having to have firearms acquisition certificates did not work. The government was told it was not going to work when it first established it - I do not know how many years it has been now, and it is still not working. It is not doing a thing to reduce the amount of incidents with firearms - deaths, crimes, or whatever. It is simply forcing law-abiding citizens, like me and many other Yukoners I know, who are firearms owners, to go through some expensive process. I gather the process has become much more expensive, because the fee has been increased to $50, just so we can pay for the forms, which are in quadruplicate or whatever have questions on them that are really quite ridiculous and are not going to do anything to reduce the incidence of crimes with firearms.
I am pleased to hear that the Minister is giving some direction to his department. I hope to have some input with respect to registering our objection as Yukoners to some of the initiatives that the federal Liberal government is taking.
The other concern I want to bring to the Minister's attention is with respect to the firearms safety courses. I know the individual in Renewable Resources who teaches the course is very busy and I have had people come to me - Yukoners, not just my own constituents - expressing a concern that they wanted to apply for a firearms acquisition certificate, found out that they had to have the course and that the availability of the courses is fairly limited. I would like to ask the Minister if he has had any concerns brought to his attention about that. What is the availability of the courses? Also, can only this one individual give the courses? I understood that if people took the instructors' version of the course then they, too, could conduct those courses. If we have a government employee who is doing it and they are too busy, I think it is only fair to pass the responsibility on to others who are qualified and certified to do the courses.
I look forward to the Minister's comments on those two particular issues.
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I will get back to the Member on the issue of having more people delivering. We now have two individuals who have been moved - one is Ray Taylor, who is a deputy sheriff and moved with the program; the other person is Ron Daniels, who is the new chief territorial firearms officer, replacing the sheriff, Paul Cowan. Larry Leigh, from the Department of Renewable Resources, is responsible for the delivery of the training.
I have a great deal of concern, and I am somewhat dismayed with the concept that, somehow or other, people who have grown up with firearms - it is a way of life, particularly for those who are subsistence hunters - have to take a course from someone who may know less about firearms than they do.
There is going to be all kinds of outrage expressed by individuals, particularly in rural communities, when they are forced to take this in order to purchase a new 303, or whatever. However, we are stuck with it, and I am not too happy about that situation.
We are looking at introducing a policy with regard to subsistence hunters that will negate their having to pay a fee, but it does not get around the issue of their either having to take the course or challenge it. It is really easy to say for someone to challenge the course but, when you are dealing with people who are subsistence hunters, it is very unlikely that they will pass it, because it is a course drawn up by a bunch of bureaucrats in Ottawa.
Mrs. Firth:
Having seen the book - the bible that tells one all about firearm safety and how to handle firearms - I agree that it is probably not totally suitable for the individuals the Minister of Justice has mentioned.
I guess the problem is that gun organizations - national gun organizations and rifle and pistol clubs - have bought into the argument that it was a good idea to have these safety courses. Their membership was in favour of them. They forgot that there would be bureaucrats drawing up the rules and regulations for it. I am very interested in knowing what representation the Minister is making. I am hoping the Minister will keep me informed, now that he knows I have an interest in the issue.
I know that Larry Leigh is responsible for teaching the firearms safety courses. I have received some complaints about the course not being accessible enough. I wonder if the government is looking at having more courses provided. I heard the government saying something about contracting it out. I know there are others in the community who are members of the Whitehorse Rifle and Pistol Club. I am sure there are members of the gun club that the Minister belongs to who may or may not be certified and qualified to give that course. I wonder if the Minister could update us on what is happening there, so that I can inform these people when they may be able to take one of the firearms safety courses.
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I will get back to the Member as soon as possible with a written response to that. I know there are some people who are being qualified to be able to give the course. I will get a list of who they are and what qualifications they have.
Mr. Harding:
I would like to get on the record with my two cents' worth on this issue of importance to a lot of my constituents - me included.
I am also a bit upset when I see the direction of the federal government. I was upset with the direction of the previous federal government, but I am even more upset with the direction of the present government. I believe we are being blanketed with something in the Yukon that is not entirely appropriate.
I find that it is a very important issue to my constituents, many of whom have owned a rifle and handled firearms, mostly for hunting purposes and some for sport purposes, and a combination of both, for most of their lives. I have raised this concern with the Ministers here - the Minister of Renewable Resources and the Justice Minister - and I have also raised it with the federal Minister, and I will continue to do so on behalf of my constituents who have complained to me about their fears that their rights, as law-abiding citizens, to handle firearms are being seriously eroded.
One of my concerns is that we brought in new changes, including changes that just came about on January 1, and we have barely had a chance to evaluate the effectiveness of those changes before the announcement of a full-blown review with concepts such as the total banning of handguns right across the country.
Page Number 2920
I have worked with trappers who carry a pistol in a holster as a defence against bears because they are working all the time and it is easy to have their hands free. That, to me, is quite disturbing.
I also support the law-abiding citizens in my community who like to collect handguns and shoot them at a rifle range. They have just gone through all the hoops and barrels of the new changes brought in by the federal government and now we are getting another slew.
I am also concerned, and I will not go into detail but just give this as a representation to the Minister because I know he will be communicating with his counterparts in the other provinces and with the federal Minister, about the issue of the certification for the FACs now, as a result of the changes that came in January 1.
It is difficult in a rural community like Faro. The RCMP, who can certify somebody without these new courses, are wary to do so because they are afraid of liability if they certify someone and there turns out to be an incident. They do not want to be pasted.
I have been told by people involved in the sheriff's office that a legal opinion is presently being sought on just how RCMP officers are going to respond to these requests for certification without the course.
I just recently got recertified for my FAC in October. It was good until 1998. I lost my wallet about three weeks ago and I have lost the FAC. I have now been told that even though I have owned a gun since I was 10 years old, I am totally out of luck. I cannot even recertify my FAC or get a new card. I have to go through the entire rigmarole of a new course and everything else, and I just find that it seems totally ridiculous without a proper evaluation of the recent changes.
So I would hope that the Minister continues to push for reasonable positions, recognizing our lifestyle and geographic location. Also, I believe that there are, as well, as the Minister said, some legitimate concerns about firearms safety and firearms control that I am more than willing to accept, but I just think it has gotten a little bit out of hand - in the Yukon, anyway. I do not live in an urban centre so it is difficult for me to grasp the arguments the people there make. I am sure there is some merit to them but I cannot really wrap my mind around the concepts they discuss.
I will just leave that with the Minister.
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I want to conclude by saying that my understanding is that there is no certification about taking or challenging the course. You take the course, you challenge the course or you do not receive your certification.
I think that the third option has been closed off. I will check on that and get back to the Member, but I believe that certification by a police officer has been closed off as recently as a day or two before the Member for Riverdale South approached the sheriff's office about this issue, so it is very recent. I will double-check that in case I misunderstood it.
We will be putting an ad in the newspaper asking for some submissions from the public. We will be fighting this as well as we can. It is an uphill fight, because it is one of the emotional roller coasters that is out of control in the south.
Mr. Penikett:
I think we have a fairly united front on this issue. Let me recommend that we all express our understanding that this issue is not a partisan debate. It is an issue between urban dwellers, for the most part, who have an appropriate concern about violent crime and crime with firearms, and rural dwellers, who have a different lifestyle, who hunt or fish for pleasure, for food and some for subsistence reasons.
I know that we were being light-hearted earlier on, but I think it would be useful if we make it clear that, in fact, the views expressed here are probably shared across all party lines in rural areas from one end of the country to the other.
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I thank the Leader of the Official Opposition for that comment. I was quite pleased - although I anticipated it - with the support that I received from my counterpart in the Northwest Territories about the rural and urban distinction - and north versus south.
Mrs. Firth:
I have one last question that the Minister has not yet answered.
Who determines who delivers the course? I understand that right now Larry Leigh gives the firearm safety courses. He says whether individuals are eligible to receive an FAC, but who decides if there are other individuals within the community who can instruct the course and recommend that people have passed the course to acquire an FAC?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
The ultimate decision rersts with is the chief territorial firearms officer, Mr. Daniels. I will get some specific information for the Member about who is being qualified to give the course.
Program Director in the amount of $800,000 agreed to
On Community Corrections
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
This is primarily due to salary rollbacks, Yukon bonus reductions and trimming of operating expenses.
Community Corrections in the amount of $728,000 agreed to
On Institutional Facilities
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
This increase is due primarily to the opening of the Teslin facility. It is offset by some corresponding WCC reductions of salary rollbacks, et cetera, and work camp cost savings.
Institutional Facilities in the amount of $5,571,000 agreed to
On Community Residential Centre
Community Residential Centre in the amount of $176,000 agreed to
On Victim Services and Family Violence Prevention Unit
Ms. Commodore:
I did not want this line item to go by without talking about the services that were provided by Debra Dungey, who is no longer with us; she died about two weeks ago. For the record, I would like to say that she provided a valuable service to the unit, not only in her responsibilities there, but also in other areas. Yesterday, I had an opportunity to speak with her father, who is in town with her mother to meet with people Debra was in contact with. He tells me that he is overwhelmed by the response that he has received from people of all walks of life whom she helped. At this time, I would like to say that I valued her service while she was there.
Victim Services and Family Violence Prevention Unit in the amount of $567,000 agreed to
Community and Correctional Services in the amount of $7,842,000 agreed to
On Community Development and Policing
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
Very quickly, the figures are transposed here. The program director should read 1994-95 estimate, $211,000, and the change is 82 percent. The police services should be reduced, so it reads $10,500,000, and it is a two-percent decrease.
The program director, for $211,000, which is an 82-percent increase, is a new branch, as a result of the department operational review. It is set up to be involved in the process of helping communities assume greater ownership and accountability for local justice programming. The director's operating budget has been increased to include training support for community initiatives.
The director is Bob Cole.
Mrs. Firth:
Can the Minister provide us with a copy of the operational review? There have been a few changes within the Department of Justice. It makes it a bit easier for us, as Opposition Members, to follow what the changes are if we have access to the
Page Number 2921
rationale for the change.
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
Yes, we are just preparing a document that will be going out to all the department. I will provide a copy for the Members. It explains all the changes and their reasons.
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
The total is correct. We will change it in the next supplementary, so that it is correct, and leave it at $126,000 now. We ask Members to agree to the $126,000 amount.
Program Director in the amount of $126,000 agreed to
On Police Services
Ms. Commodore:
I am interested in finding out about the changes in this item. There is a decrease in the budget. There has been a lot of media coverage of the changes that are going to be taking place in the PACE program, but I would like the Minister to tell me where the department is going in regard to some of the discussions they have had with the RCMP - what is getting better, what are we losing, and what are the future plans?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
We are going to be reviewing some things in the future, including, particularly, some of the administrative costs, which are quite high per officer. They always will be quite high because we have a small number of officers for a total division. When one has a division, one has to do certain things, but we feel there can be some efficiencies made there.
The transfers included the dog handler, the traffic safety supervisor and the third position in Mayo.
The direction we are keen on taking is twofold. One is, of course, making changes compatible and consistent with the development of tripartite arrangements with the communities. When we do that there is a cost saving, which will be handed into the community justice pot, because, of course, the cost is 48 percent for us and 52 percent for them, instead of 30/70 per officer designated under that program. My personal view is to encourage more interaction and communication, and so on, between citizens and police officers to break down any barriers that are there - to have police officers in the community more, seen in the storefronts and outside the Qwanlin Mall project. We are looking at ways to achieve those goals and certainly, I have encouraged the detachment to become more involved in assisting with things like the youth-at-risk projects we are entertaining now.
So the trend, in a nutshell, is to be more responsive to community needs, particularly aboriginal policing needs, and to be more involved in crime prevention generally.
Police Services in the amount of $10,585,000 agreed to
Community Development and Policing in the amount of $10,711,000 agreed to
On Human Rights
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
The Human Rights Commission grant has a two-percent decrease, which is simply in keeping with the objectives across government. The Human Rights Adjudication Board funding has gone up. It is usually budgeted at $41,000 annually but is reduced during the fiscal year if no adjudication hearings are scheduled, and that is what happened last year.
Mr. Cable:
Has the Human Rights Commission caseload gone up, to the Minister's knowledge?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
Not that I am aware.
On Activities
On Human Rights Commission Grant
Human Rights Commission Grant in the amount of $243,000 agreed to
On Human Rights Adjudication Board
Human Rights Adjudication Board in the amount of $41,000 agreed to
Human Rights in the amount of $284,000 agreed to
Department of Justice agreed to Yukon Development Corporation
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I do not know whether the critic had questions on this line or not. It is a $1.00 amount, as is traditional. It is for the Yukon Development Corporation. I really cannot think of any issues that have not been thoroughly canvassed. They have been ongoing.
There is a new board. It has been there now for almost one year. The issue of exploring the purchase of up to 30 percent by CYI has been canvassed rather thoroughly in these chambers. I am prepared to answer questions on any issue about which I have knowledge, but perhaps the intention of the Opposition is to clear the item.
Ms. Commodore:
I do know there were some questions people had in mind that they would like to have had asked at this time. I hope that, very shortly, someone will come in here to respond to them.
I know the Leader of the Official Opposition left some questions here for the critic - the Member for McIntyre-Takhini.
Mr. McDonald:
I have three questions to ask the Minister.
With respect to the letter of May 30, which was sent to the government and signed by Mr. Jenkins, the Mayor of Dawson, which was regarding their concerns on the privatization of some of the Yukon Energy Corporation's assets, can the Minister indicate to us whether or not he has replied to this letter?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
Sorry, could the Member repeat the question?
Mr. McDonald:
Yes, I can. The Association of Yukon Communities sent a letter to the government on May 30, regarding the privatization of the Yukon Energy Corporation. Can the Minister tell us whether or not the government has responded to that letter? If so, what was their response?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
No, the letter has not yet been answered.
Mr. McDonald:
Has the Cabinet adopted any position with respect to privatization, following the receipt of the Terry Boylan report?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
The Cabinet has authorized us to proceed with the next step, which is to explore with CYI and, ultimately, with the Government of Canada, the possibility of their purchasing up to 30 percent of the assets of the Yukon Energy Corporation from the Yukon Development Corporation.
My understanding is that the Executive Council Office is in the process of calling proposals or tendering, or something, for a negotiator for that purpose. In the interim, many of the players of CYI are in Ottawa, awaiting the land claims legislation going through a standing committee. They have asked that some officials go down and meet with them in Ottawa. So, the president of the corporation, Mr. Byers, and a long-time consultant for the Yukon Development Corporation, Mr. Osler, are going to meet with them in Ottawa to discuss various issues. However, the officials who are sent from here will not be engaging in anything except clarification of issues. They are not going to lobby or talk to the politicians about the desires of CYI.
I hope to be in Ottawa on my way back from the social assistance ministers meeting next week, and I will be contacting Mr. Joe and others about their progress on the land claims, as well as this issue. I really do not anticipate much happening until some kind of contract is entered into with a negotiator.
Mr. McDonald:
Has any Minister approached any federal Minister about this matter, even informally, to explore whether or not the federal government would be willing to write off some debt, or do anything, to assist in the transaction that the Minister is contemplating?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
No, not directly. It is my understanding, though, that CYI officials, while in Ottawa, have had some preliminary discussions with the Minister for Indian and Northern Affairs. The Minister seemed quite enthusiastic about proceeding
Page Number 2922
and having them talk to other Ministers, and so on. That is the report that I received during my telephone conversation with Dave Joe last week.
Over and beyond that, neither I nor other Ministers have had discussions bearing on this issue. In our view it would be premature for us to do that until we were going, in concert with CYI, to discuss the issues with the federal Ministers.
Mr. McDonald:
Has CYI responded to the informal proposals that have been floated by the Minister regarding the potential ownership of some of the assets by First Nations? Have they responded in any way, formally or otherwise - accepting the general proposition in the first instance and, secondly, have they expressed any encouragement to the Minister to continue along the lines that he has taken so far?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I was asked to address the leadership in late January. Then, we received a letter from CYI about the time that Mr. Boylan was in town - in early April I think it was - and I met, along with Mr. Boylan and the president of the Yukon Energy Corporation, with some negotiators from CYI. I then was asked to give them a letter setting out the views I expressed, which I did. They then had further discussions with Mr. Boylan prior to him finalizing his report to Cabinet. The way it sits now, I think, is that they are looking for further talks regarding some of the issues that are raised in the letter I provided them with - the idea being to negotiate a clear package to then take jointly to Ministers in Ottawa with regard to how they might get part of the debt as part, or all, of the purchase price of an equity position in the Yukon Energy Corporation.
Mr. McDonald:
I thank the Minister for that answer. I am not entirely sure that I understand what he believes the position of CYI to be. On one hand, it appears that CYI personnel have already broached the subject with the Hon. Mr. Irwin, which suggests that there is possibly an agreement in principle that this is something worth pursuing, in the sense that they would not have gotten Mr. Irwin or his colleagues excited at all if they thought it was a non-starter. I am not sure what expression they have given to the Minister in terms of a green light to continue.
Have they written anything to the Minister? Has the Minister received anything in writing - any statement of any sort that makes him feel comfortable that he has a green light from the organization to continue along these lines, or is he operating on the basis of some phone calls he has had with some individuals? If it is the latter, are these calls that he has had with CYI calls from people who are authorized to speak on behalf of the organization on this subject? Can he elaborate a little more on that point.
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
The people who were authorized to speak with our officials and myself at the meeting I attended were Dave Joe, Vic Mitander, Richard Sidney - who was not at that particular meeting - and Albert James. I understand that Dave Joe has prepared a one-page document that he discussed with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Resources. They wish to have further discussions with our officials about aspects of the contemplated negotiations and, accordingly, the officials I mentioned - Mr. Osler and Mr. Byers - will be meeting with them tomorrow in Ottawa.
We do not anticipate much happening until we have a negotiator hired for the next step. This will involve fleshing out the package, which will then be presented to people in Ottawa to see whether or not there is the possibility of some financing through a debt exchange, for that particular purpose, from the federal government.
If somebody wants to know what is in it for the federal government, it is a clarification and certainty regarding the First Nations' position on the debt they owe to the federal government that has been incurred for negotiating land claims over the years.
Chair:
Order please. The time being 5:30 we will recess until 7:30 p.m.
Recess
Chair:
I will call Committee of the Whole to order.
Motion to extend hours of sitting
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
Pursuant to an agreement reached by the House Leaders, and pursuant to Standing Order 2(7), I move
THAT Committee of the Whole and the Assembly be empowered to sit beyond 9:30 p.m. for the purpose of completing consideration of the bills identified for discussion today in Committee; for permitting the House to consider third reading of these bills; and for receiving the Commissioner to give assent to the bills passed by the House.
Motion agreed to
Chair:
Is there further debate on Yukon Development Corporation?
Bill No. 15 - First Appropriation Act, 1994-95 - continued
Mr. McDonald:
It appears that we are going to go some distance toward finalizing arrangements on the privatization of Yukon Energy Corporation without anybody ever having taken a formal decision to adopt or accept privatization.
The Cabinet has got what appears to be a very loose mandate to discuss privatization without ever taking a position on the subject. For its part, CYI appears not to have communicated any position, or even a position in principle, to the Minister. Yet, not only is there discussion taking place between CYI and the government, but there also appears to be some discussion taking place at the federal level - even if informally - on the subject.
The concern that I have, apart from a philosophical concern, is that, without ever having the opportunity to debate the actual terms of reference for a privatization arrangement or deal, we appear to be suffering from an inability to really review what is happening or debate the terms of that potential arrangement.
Can the Minister give us a commitment that no final arrangement will be struck, or no agreements will be struck, before the Legislature has had a chance to review the terms of the arrangement and the principles behind the arrangement, whether it be an agreement between YTG and CYI, or between YTG and AYC, or between Alberta Power and YECL. Will the government give us a commitment that they will discuss and debate this agreement before any agreements are signed?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I made a commitment here that we would not enter into a binding commitment until it was ratified, and we would expect a ratification process of some sort in the House, analogous to the kind of ratification we have asked for and received regarding land claims. Upon us having some fleshed-out agreements in principle, which would be signed by negotiators I would presume, I have said in answer to questions from the Liberal Leader in the House that we would be looking at a process to have the agreement analyzed. I will make the commitment now that we will not have a binding agreement until it is ratified in the Legislature.
In terms of exactly how that process will operate, some think perhaps the Public Utilities Board would be the method to use. Others might think that another process that would invite comments and briefs from interested Yukon residents would be a good method. We will work that out, but I can make a commitment that we will not enter into a binding agreement until such an agreement is ratified by this Legislature.
Mr. McDonald:
I do not think anyone would have any objection to a public review process that communicates the terms of an agreement widely to the general public, and allows them an
Page Number 2923
opportunity to respond before any final agreements are struck. Certainly the Minister is going to utilize some process, such as through the Public Utilities Board, or even another process that he might devise. I am certain that, in principle, there would be no objection to that, as long as there is a corresponding process in this Legislature with elected Members of the House to pass some comment and make some suggestions about the terms of any arrangement before the arrangements are finalized. Can the Minister tell us whether or not he would be prepared to communicate the terms of any negotiators' arrangements as they occur between YTG and persons who would represent interests that may take some share in the Yukon Energy Corporation? Could he do that?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
The position that I would convey is that the first stage of negotiations will consider the possibility of CYI acquiring up to 30 percent of the assets of the Yukon Energy Corporation. When, and if, an agreement in principle is concluded, we would then bring that to the Legislature for ratification. If there is another step beyond that, I would assume that we would look at the next step, which may or may not be one that involves selling some shares, or some form of interest, to Yukon residents.
The first stage is dealing with First Nations. So, I would not see negotiating in public and showing our hand and being placed at that disadvantage. I would see that it would be honourable for us to come forward with an agreement in principle for ratification by the Legislature - perhaps a process that would allow for input from concerned ratepayers in the Yukon.
Mr. Cable:
Some time ago, the Minister looked at the amalgamation of the two corporations - the Yukon Development Corporation and the Yukon Energy Corporation. We had some discussion on this many months ago.
Has the Minister given any further thought to this amalgamation, or is that off the table completely?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
To my knowledge, I have not stated anything about that possibility. The basic and fundamentally sound reason for having two corporations, as they are currently structured, is twofold. For one, under the present ownership, we are able to fairly easily maintain a 60/40 debt equity relationship. If that equity gets too big in the Yukon Energy Corporation, we can dividend out and borrow back, and maintain an appropriately low equity-to-debt ratio, thus saving money for ratepayers.
Secondly, the mandate of the Yukon Development Corporation, while it is severely limited by the order-in-council directive, to use any money for investment in energy, or reimbursement to the ratepayers, is nonetheless somewhat broader than the mandate of the Yukon Energy Corporation, which is further restricted by the kind of investments, tests and studies that are authorized by the Public Utilities Board.
I have never had any reason to plan, in any way, to amalgamate the two corporations.
Mr. Cable:
Perhaps I misunderstood our original conversations, but the Minister did in fact restrict the mandate of the Yukon Development Corporation with the bill that was brought in last year. Part of the mandate had a research and development air about it, and part of that mandate would relate to the examination of the coal deposit near Braeburn, which was mentioned, I think, on the news today. How far along is the Development Corporation in the examination of the use of coal for the generation of electricity in the territory?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
The corporation itself is at a very preliminary stage. It has been working with the Department of Economic Development to get some kind of up-to-date data on coal reserves in the Yukon, the quality of those coal reserves and the extent of them. It has been authorized by directive to explore the potential for coal in producing electricity - thermal generation. It has been authorized by virtue of the IPP, or whatever it is called - the independent power producers policy - to explore entering into agreements with third parties to purchase power from third parties if that is the better deal for ratepayers.
There have, of course, been meetings with the company that is doing the exploratory work at Braeburn and they are up to date on the exploration there, which is revealing a fairly large body of high quality coal for the purpose of producing thermal power.
That is about as far as they have gone in looking at coal. They have also been involved with doing testing with the wind generator up on Haeckel Hill, and they will be sending some people over to Alaska to explore what Alaska is doing in the area of geothermal and coal-thermal fired electrical generation.
I think really that is more or less the limit of the kinds of things that they will explore.
Mr. Cable:
Is the corporation sufficiently far along to have some idea of what these various types of power generation will produce, or at what cost will they produce this power?
I know I asked the Minister this question some time ago in relation to coal, and he was not too specific at that time. Is there any more information that would lead the Minister to believe that this coal generation project would be economic?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I do not have any hard numbers. I would expect that the Yukon Development Corporation will be exploring the issue in finer detail and perhaps getting some estimates from the proponents of that particular property at Braeburn. There have been numbers bandied about, but I would not be comfortable with them until I saw an in-depth analysis.
The wind generation concept is proving to be interesting. The Yukon is on the forefront of some of the technology that pertains to de-icing and so on. The corporation has produced a couple of videos about what they are doing up there. It is felt that, in a climate of low interest rates, wind could be very competitive, as well.
Again, there is still no definitive number as to cost per kilowatt hours, but I think that there is a good chance that wind could be a feasible alternative, particularly to diesel, in the winter.
Mr. Cable:
With respect to the coal generation, the environmental lobby has expressed some reservations about some of the pollution that is given off as a result. Is the Minister satisfied that he can meet these objections if the coal projects are moved forward?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I am firmly convinced that we can meet environmental standards set by Canada very easily, because of the high quality of the coal. I do not think that is going to prove to be much of an obstacle. There is further testing being done. Spending much money on our end on that particular project is going to be partly determined by how realistic an increase in demand for electricity is going to be. It is one of those situations where we are examining it, but we are going to move fairly carefully.
Mr. Cable:
The Minister is moving forward with a possible privatization move of the Yukon Energy Corporation, and the Yukon Development Corporation is carrying on research and development. How are these two going to be meshed together? There is a public corporation doing research and development and what could be a partly-public-partly-privatized corporation that will be doing the generation. Who is going to be paying for what?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
This is going to have to be worked out as part of the shareholder agreement, if we do move ahead with First Nations. That is one of the many complex issues that has to be worked out, examined in some detail and agreed upon by the parties.
At this point in time, we have not taken a definitive position on it. It is one of those issues that we will be discussing with CYI in the future.
Mr. Cable:
The cost of generation of electricity in Old Crow is, of course, fairly high. It is a possible site for alternative energy
Page Number 2924
development. Is there in fact any research or information gathering going on in Old Crow at the present time, or is it planned - say, the gathering of wind information or solar radiation information?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
I think we will undoubtedly see some movement toward the potential for a wind-diesel generator for the Old Crow area. As I understand it, I am advised that there have been a couple of companies communicating with the Yukon Development Corporation that are keenly interested in doing some work in that regard, and they have been doing some work over in Alaska as well. Depending partly on our success with the Haeckel Hill project here, and also depending on wind testing in Old Crow, we might see something like that in the future.
On Gross Advances
Gross Advances in the amount of $1.00 agreed to
On Less Internal Recovery
Less Internal Recovery in the amount of $1.00 agreed to
Yukon Development Corporation agreed to Yukon Liquor Corporation
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
The Liquor Corporation is anticipating for the current year similar revenues and volume sales as the past year. Challenging the corporation will be how best to achieve an optimum level of net income while faced with rising operational costs attributed to those inflation factors that are facing all Yukon businesses.
In order to help offset various costs, the corporation will, as it has in the past year particularly, refined its purchasing and inventory management practices further to reduce the total amount of inventory it requires on hand to meet the demands of both the public and the licensees. These refinements, once fully implemented, will further demonstrate the corporation's commitment to cost effective management, while at the same time maintaining or improving its service to its clients.
The 1994-95 fiscal year will represent the third and final year in the corporation's three-year plan for investments in facilities. These investments have led to not only improved facilities to better service licensees and the public generally, but also, through the construction phase, led to local employment opportunities. Specifically, during the 1994-95 fiscal year, a new liquor store and territorial agent office will be opened in the community of Watson Lake. In addition to improving the corporation's capacity to better serve the community and both avenues of service, the space vacated by the corporation in the government's administration building will provide the potential opportunity for the public library to also expand its facilities and services.
Within the corporation's social responsibility budget, the corporation will continue with various past initiatives, as well as undertaking new ones. An example of a continuing initiative is the corporation's radio campaign program that promotes various facets of responsible drinking.
A new initiative that has been introduced to the public is the corporation's program entitled BARS, an acronym for "Be A Responsible Server" program, as part of the corporation's challenge toward a pro-active approach to inspection enforcement.
This program will educate lounge and bar operators about their responsibilities with respect to the serving of alcohol and focus on various, alternative techniques and approaches to ensure participants' compliance to both their legal and social requirements and expectations.
Over the course of the 1994-95 fiscal year, the BARS program will be delivered throughout the Yukon with the cooperation and assistance of the B.C./Yukon Hotel Association and others.
The corporation will continue the teddy bear program this year. This program will represent the third year, through the generosity of the public, and at no cost to the corporation or government, that over 500 teddy bears will be made available to deserving Yukon children with the assistance of various charitable organizations and services.
Chair:
Is there any further general debate?
Mr. McDonald:
The Minister will recall, prior to the last election, that the Member for Porter Creek South, once Porter Creek West, had moved a motion that suggested that all profits of the Yukon Liquor Corporation be dedicated to alcohol and drug abuse prevention and to services to treat people who were suffering from the ravages of alcoholism.
A quick reading of the budget suggests that perhaps we have not yet achieved that goal. Is that the government's policy, and if so, when are we going to achieve the noteworthy moment that all profits are going to be dedicated to alcohol and drug abuse prevention programs?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
At the present moment, the surplus goes into general revenue, and Health and Welfare and other organizations get a percentage of that in their budget.
Mr. McDonald:
I am aware of that. The question is whether or not it is going to be 100 percent of the profits, and not just a small percentage.
Would it be fair to say that the motion presented by the Member for Porter Creek West is essentially not going to be government policy - it is not now, nor will it ever be, government policy?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
I do not believe it is in the four-year plan of this government.
Mr. McDonald:
I love to hear how that particular Member feels about things. If he were here, he might be inclined to want to criticize the Yukon Party government. He does that on occasion.
As a general proposition, the government is then not necessarily tying, or linking, profits to alcohol abuse prevention programs - is that correct?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
We have done a lot since we have been here to encourage people not to drink too much. A large percentage of that revenue goes into general revenue, and then back into the programs.
Mr. McDonald:
I am aware of many of those programs. I was interested in knowing whether or not the Yukon Liquor Corporation is going to sponsor any programs beyond what it is sponsoring now, with the responsible-server program, the labels on alcohol bottles, and that sort of thing. Are they going to be sponsoring anything else to promote more knowledge of alcohol abuse?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
We are always looking at new and inventive ideas to help control some of the problems with alcohol.
Mr. McDonald:
What are those new ideas?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
There have been no bright ideas that have come out in the last month and one-half.
Mr. McDonald:
Well, if I know Mr. Besier, this will be very high on his priority list.
The Minister indicated that he is open to new ideas, but he is saying that there presently are none, or at least not in the gestation stages.
Can the Minister tell us what the policy is with respect to the promotion of alcohol sales within the corporation? There has always been a delicate balancing act between those who want the corporation to be more entrepreneurial - to sell as much as they can and behave the way a privately owned concern would behave to try and promote alcohol sales - and put products on sale, bring in specialty products and so on, and the desire to control drinking and ensure that the social objectives are in focus. Can the Minister tell us which direction we will be going on that front? Will we be promoting sales?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
The Yukon Liquor Corporation is like any other business; it is trying to make money, not be like government
Page Number 2925
and lose it. On the other hand, we walk a very fine line and do our best to control what is going on, and we try to keep everything within reason.
Mr. McDonald:
I do not know whether I would characterize government expenditures as losing money. Some people might consider expenditures in education as being an investment in the population and, ultimately, enhancing not only its economic performance, but also the social well-being of the community. The Government Leader is shaking his head. He does not believe that.
I am more interested in perhaps the business plan of the corporation. Are they going to become more entrepreneurial in the sense that they are going to try to enhance sales beyond what they are now? Are we going to see operations around the territory that try and encourage people to buy their product?
I realize it is a delicate balancing act between wanting to promote as much as they can and maximize profits and sales, and adhering to the social need to ensure that people do not abuse the products they sell. Can the Minister tell us in which direction they are going? Will there be more sales activity and salesmanship in an effort to promote sales?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
The fact we lost two to three percent last year indicates that we have started to try and control it. We are far from controlling the people who cannot handle liquor, but at least we are trying.
If the Member is asking whether or not we are going to build more attractive facilities, the answer is yes. We have completed one in Watson Lake, as well as the Red Feather Saloon in Dawson. We have created a separate entrance in almost every Liquor Corporation building we have for the territorial agent's work. People now do not have to go near the liquor store, but go in through another door. We are doing our best to walk down the middle of the situation.
Mr. McDonald:
I do not know whether the decline in sales last year would be a sign of corporate efficiency or, by corporate design, through their sales policies, they would try to restrict the sales of our liquor or beer. One might think that perhaps the recession might be somewhat of an explanation for that.
The Minister said that the government is intending to build more attractive facilities. I hope he is not talking about Taj Mahals or anything, like the Red Feather Saloon in Dawson - the Taj Mahal of liquor stores - because, after all, we do not believe in Taj Mahals in this territory, according to the Minister of Education.
I am actually referring more to the sales policies than anything else. I am thinking more of how liquor is promoted. For example, in some jurisdictions when one goes into a liquor store one sees sales ad campaigns, promotional campaigns, and a much wider variety of products, because the ultimate goal is to sell as much liquor and beer as they can to maximize their profit.
Many people have come to me asking why our liquor stores cannot be more like that and why they cannot sell more aggressively and try to tickle the palate even more. On the other hand, of course, I have heard people say that the atmosphere in liquor stores should be as barren and as spartan as possible so that we do not encourage people to go in, nor encourage the separation of their $20 bills from their pockets. If they want to buy, we should not necessarily discourage it, but not make it easy for people to spend money on liquor.
All I am interested in is which direction we are going. As I said before, I realize it is a balancing act. We are going to stay the same, become more entrepreneurial or we are going to become more restrictive. One of those three choices, it seems to me, would be fairly obvious.
Can the Minister tell us which way the Liquor Corporation might be going? While he is on his feet, given what has happened in Alberta with respect to liquor sales, can he tell us whether or not any planning is going on about, or whether or not the Minister is giving consideration to, privatizing liquor store outlets in the territory?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
If the Member means that by having a neat, clean store and a sign up is advertising that product, yes, we are going to continue to do it that way. I think that the stores have improved tremendously. I was just in the one at Haines Junction this weekend. There is no comparison between the way it is now and the way it was three years ago. The shelves have been changed, it is neater, it looks much nicer and I do not think this will increase alcohol consumption at all. In fact, in Haines Junction it is down. As to the privatization, I am reading articles all the time about what is going on in Alberta. There has been no suggestion or policy that I know of that we privatize.
Chair:
Is there further general debate?
On Gross Advances
Gross Advances in the amount of $500,000 agreed to
On Less Internal Recovery
Less Internal Recovery in the amount of an underexpenditure of $500,000 agreed to
Mrs. Firth:
Just before we clear the whole Liquor Corporation, I want to get a question answered by the Minister. I recall being in the liquor store one day in Whitehorse and there was a promotion on and samples of a certain beer that the public could taste to see if they wanted to buy that beer. I would call that a promotional sale. Can the Minister tell me if that was the corporation's idea or whose idea was that?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
As far as I know, that has been going on ever since there have been liquor stores in the area. They have both wine and beer tasting.
Mrs. Firth:
I do not recall ever going into the liquor store in the Yukon in the 20-some years I have been here where they were giving out free samples of beer to try, but maybe I just did not hit it on a good day. I just want to know, does the Liquor Corporation get to make that decision on its own, or is the political arm of government aware that it is doing that? Does the corporation have to get permission, or does it just do that if it wants?
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
The Liquor Corporation is a corporation run by a president. I will assure the Member that as long as I am here, there will be no political interference.
Mrs. Firth:
I am not talking about political interference, I am simply asking if the political arm of government knew that this was going on. Obviously, this is a decision that the corporation gets to make on its own. If the government has not raised any questions about this, I guess they support and endorse it.
That is all that I have to say.
Yukon Liquor Corporation agreed to
On Schedule A
Schedule A agreed to
On Schedule B
Schedule B agreed to
On Schedule C
Schedule C agreed to
On Clause 1
Clause 1 agreed to
On Clause 2
Clause 2 agreed to
On Title
Title agreed to
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
Mr. Chair, I move that you report Bill No. 15, entitled Second Appropriation Act, 1994-95, out of Committee without amendment.
Motion agreed to
Chair:
We will move on to Bill No. 16, entitled Third
Page Number 2926
Appropriation Act, 1993-94.
Bill No. 16 - Third Appropriation Act, 1993-94
Chair:
Is there general debate?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
Through this bill we are requesting that the Legislature grant us supplementary spending authority for the 1993-94 fiscal year, of $5,779,000 in several departments.
Revenues have also increased as a result of a number of factors. Firstly, when the current formula financing agreement came into effect, the government of the day disagreed with the tax effort factor, also known as the perversity factor, used by the federal government.
As you know, the tax effort factor is the portion of the formula calculation used to compute revenues to the Yukon, that we do not actually raise.
The previous government undertook to review the tax effort calculations with a view to reducing the perversity factor. This review was conducted by YTG officials and a Statistics Canada official, under contract to our Department of Finance. The review was completed and submitted to the federal government in February 1993. We felt that this proved there were a number of areas where Statistics Canada data used in a calculation of the tax effort factor were incorrect.
Early this year, the federal government made their decision regarding which portions of the review they would accept. While we did not get everything we asked for, the federal government did accept some of our findings, with the result that we will gain some $6.2 million over the five years of the current formula agreement. Of this, $4.7 million is reflected in the grant shown in the existing supplementary.
While we received less than one-half of what we asked for, the review was still a very worthwhile exercise. For an investment of some $100,000 in contract monies, this territory received a return in excess of $6 million. I want to congratulate and thank those Members of the Opposition who initiated this review for doing so.
Secondly, we have just signed an agreement with the federal government that introduces an element of risk sharing into the formula agreement, thereby reducing the impact of the perversity element on the incremental, volume-induced tax revenues the territory raises. This modification is effective for the last two years of the current arrangement; that is, 1993-94 and 1994-95.
In many respects, this modification is identical with a proposal put forward by the Yukon government midway through the first formula agreement in 1987 or 1988. This measure goes some small way toward reducing the perversity on some portion of our revenues, and we anticipate it will yield an additional $2.5 million in the 1993-94 fiscal year.
Members will note that, despite these favourable adjustments to the transfer payment, the transfer payment has actually decreased some $3 million. This has come to pass because our own sources of revenues, principally income taxes, have increased substantially, and these increases are offset in our transfer payment by approximately $1.55 on the dollar.
We are dependent on the federal government for income tax projections, and they are predicting a large increase over those projected at the time Supplementary No. 1 was prepared.
The increased expenditure authority being sought in this bill relates to four departments only. The Legislative Assembly is requesting an additional $434,000 in operation and maintenance funding. These monies are for the Members' pension plan. We now believe the Assembly will lapse $102,000, so the additional funding actually required is somewhat less.
Members will know that an actuarial evaluation of the plan, recently undertaken, showed that the plan was underfunded by some $669,000, as of March 31, 1993.
In addition, the study suggested that the annual contributions to the fund should be increased. The Member' Services Board decided that the actuarial liability be made up over the course of this and the next three years. The additional appropriation now being sought represents the first installment of that deficiency, and the increase in the contribution was suggested by the actuary.
The Executive Council Office is requesting approval of the transfer of $13,000 in recoverable monies for the Bureau of Statistics from O&M to capital.
The Department of Justice thought it needed an additional $175,000 in O&M to fund the legal aid expenditures for the year just ended. Members will be aware that legal aid costs have increased substantially in recent years and that the federal government capped its contribution to such expenditures. We are in the process of implementing measures to control these costs, but in the meantime the department thought that it required this supplement to its budget. In fact, we now believe the department will lapse some $546,000 in O&M funding.
The largest portion of the funds sought in this bill, at $5,170,000, is for the Department of Finance. Vote authority is being requested to make a provision for an allowance for bad debts for various loans that have been put at risk as a result of Curragh Inc. receivership proceedings. These loans relate to the Faro Real Estate mortgage, loans for electrical energy purposes, bulk haul fees and property taxes.
Mr. McDonald:
Can the Minister tell us why the government did not go through the process of doing a formal variance to ensure that this particular supplementary was as accurate as possible? I understand this supplementary was essentially based on, with a few exceptions, projections that were established at period 4 or 5 - whenever it was - very early in the fiscal year. All this variance essentially does is to request increased funding, with a few minor exceptions. I am sort of wondering why there are these exceptions, and not others. I am puzzled about why even the revenue projections that are listed on page 8 of the budget document were not varied at all, apart from the income tax and the insurance premium tax lines - and the liquor tax, to a small extent.
In past years, property taxes, fuel oil taxes and others fluctuated somewhat from the estimate found at the beginning of the year. Whether it is on the expenditure or the revenue side, we really have a fairly static and outdated vision of what the government projects the situation to be at year-end.
Can the Minister tell us why there was no formal variance done?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
The reason there was no formal variance is basically due to the time factor. I do not think our session ended until close to the end of January. By then, the departments were preparing their O&M budgets for the spring session and there just was not the time for a formal variance.
The department surveyed the departments in February. The supplementary was drawn up on that basis.
Mr. McDonald:
I have heard that explanation before. While I do not want to cause the departments to be overworked, I was under the impression that departments had produced variances in the past, even when we were sitting. The Minister will admit that the legislative agenda for all of the departments is fairly modest. The responsibilities of the departments have been to produce one capital budget and one operations budget.
I cannot see the workload as being severe. Has something happened in the last five or six months to cause the workload to increase so much that we cannot expect variances in the future? If we sit into January, can we expect that we will not have a proper variance done for the spring sitting, in order to project the year-
Page Number 2927
end? What is the government's thinking on this point?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I can share some of the concerns after seeing some of the results that came out without the variance the Member opposite has. I hope we can do variances and I would just like to state for the record that, when the departments were putting their O&M budgets together and getting ready for the spring session, they were given a target of March 15. At that time, we still had not made a decision as to when the House would be coming back in, so there was only a period of about six or seven weeks from when the last session ended to when we gave them the deadlines for the budget. There really was not much time and we will have to do better planning and make sure we have time so that we can do the variances.
Mr. McDonald:
I agree. I would really like to see the variances. They are very useful tools for not only the Cabinet Members but also other Members in the Legislature for determining the validity of the spending plans that the government is promoting for the coming year. We would be in a better position to see such things as the inaccuracies of the projections in some departments, which lapsed considerable money in various program areas. That would allow not only Members of the Legislature but Ministers to foresee that perhaps there might be available funds to do other things of which they had not been aware, and they would be in a better position to make tighter financial decisions for the main estimates for the coming year. Unfortunately, without the variance, what we are all bequeathed is a budget for the coming year that really looks a whole lot like last year's budget, and we know that last year's budget had a few program areas where financial projections were not exactly accurate. It means that we have to live with the situation for another year.
The Minister indicated to us that he would be providing us some information about lapses when we got to the supplementaries. I am really interested in learning about those. I had asked for lapses in both the operations and maintenance and the capital side, by department, both net and gross. We got a few line items from various departments, not all, because we only made the request about the time the Finance estimates and the main estimates came along - because we were unaware that the government knew what the lapses were. So, can the Minister tell us what those lapses are?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I have a bunch of documents here for tabling - the papers that the critic asked for. I will table them at this point. I think I have one here with the lapses.
Legislative Assembly lapsed $102,000; Executive Council Office, $668,000; Community and Transportation Services, $2,101,000; Economic Development, $348,000; Education, $1,435,000; Finance was under $1,718,000; Government Services, $708,000; Health and Social Services, $10,903,000; Justice, $546,000; Public Service Commission, $1,726,000; Renewable Resources, $515,000; Tourism, $148,000; Women's Directorate, $11,000; Yukon Housing net O&M, $100,000; loan interest, $23,000.
That is a total of $17,616,000 in operation and maintenance.
Mr. McDonald:
I am not in a position to ask many questions. I will have to go through all this information, but I could probably do it in the next two or three minutes.
I sent the Minister a letter, on April 11, asking about year-end spending patterns for the past year. We got a legislative return today that broke out, in very general terms, the year-end spending, both for operation and maintenance and for capital, by fiscal year.
The information I had requested related particularly to purchase orders, in order to see whether or not the Ministers directed departments to not go on spending sprees for the final month, when they were aware of how much money they had left.
The letter I wrote said, "I would request a breakdown of expenditures for each department, by month and by allotment. I am particularly interested in year-end purchasing activities of departments, to determine whether they have respected your request of last year to curb year-end spending."
Obviously, what we were most interested in were the purchases departments would make at the end of the year, when they realized how much cash they had left over. They would wander off to some computer supply store, and buy up the shop, or buy a few extra cases of equipment, a truck, or whatever. Being mindful of the Minister's concern about this last year, and his edict to departments not to repeat it, I asked whether or not the departments had followed the Minister's edict.
The legislative return we received today from Mr. Nordling provides some interesting information, but it does not capture the subject I was interested in. It provided a summary of operation and maintenance and capital expenditures for the fiscal year, but rolls all departments together, without the corporations, and divides them into three categories for the fourth quarter of the year: construction, services, and other. It makes it very difficult to determine whether or not the purchase order is for such things as computing equipment, et cetera. It makes it very difficult for us to determine how they break out in this summary.
Can the Minister tell us whether or not we will get information that will satisfy this request?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
We thought this would satisfy the Member but, if it does not, I will request the Department of Government Services to provide him with further detailed information, on such things as purchase orders, but it will take some time - we can certainly try.
I feel quite comfortable that there was not a year-end splurge of spending, but I will try to get more detailed information for the Member opposite.
Mr. McDonald:
I do not have a lot of information to the contrary, and I am prepared to believe that the Minister believes that there was not a year-end splurge. Then again, the Minister did not feel there was a year-end splurge last year, and there was.
I would simply like more information to validate this matter, one way or another. I have waited a couple of months, and I am prepared to wait longer, if that is what it takes to get the information.
If the Minister is prepared to provide the information that I have requested at some point, I accept that offer.
Mrs. Firth:
I will follow up on this, since we are discussing the legislative return that was tabled.
I think the written question was fairly specific in that the information be broken down for all the departments. The written question stated this not only be for the Department of Government Services, but for all other departments, as well as the Crown corporations.
If the Finance officials have the information to put this in general terms - they must have had all the specific information to compile it in total - then I also want that information. I do not share the Government Leader's comfortable feeling that there has not been the year-end spending sprees for the last three months. Otherwise, I would not have put the question forward.
I believe it is also in the government's best interest to see that information in black and white, so they can tell how much each department spent in the last quarter of their spending, and in what particular areas. I only have to remind the Government Leader about the computer information we received. When that was requested by one of the Members of the Opposition, we received quite a detailed breakdown and analysis of all the computers that had been purchased in all the departments, not only for the last quarter, but for the whole year. It showed specifically how much had been purchased in the last quarter of that year.
Page Number 2928
I agree with the Member of the Opposition, who has waited for two months for an answer to his letter. I put this question on the Order Paper right at the beginning of the session - some six or eight weeks ago now. I just hope that the Government Leader can give us a commitment that we will get the information soon, and that we do not have to wait until the fall for it.
Chair:
Is it the wish of the Members to take a break 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.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
Just prior to the break, the Members opposite were looking for a department-by-department breakdown. I cannot give it to them this evening, but I have talked to the Minister of Government Services and he assures me that they can have it by the end of the week.
Mr. McDonald:
We will look forward to that.
The information the Minister provided to us is interesting and I will have a chance ultimately to review it in the next few days; if I have any questions I will certainly pose them to the Minister shortly, outside the Legislature.
One little interesting note resulting from the information the Minister has provided, particularly the note entitled "municipal debt is a percentage of municipal expenditures", is that we see a situation where the City of Whitehorse has an accumulated debt at the beginning of this year that is approximately 27.6 percent of its annual expenditures. The YTG equivalent would probably have our debt somewhere in the $125 million range. It is interesting to note that the Minister of Community and Transportation Services does not think that this debtload is excessive, yet even a surplus is considered a worrisome situation in the context of YTG's financial situation.
That is simply an aside. I will not go on and on about that point.
I would like to touch briefly on the issue of the allowance for bad debts. There is a Management Board debt write-off directive that says we must wait for one year before declaring a bad debt. Do all the items contained under the line item "allowance for bad debts" in the Department of Finance, for example, conform to the debt write-off directive?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
The directive pertains to write-offs. What we are doing here is making provisions for them. I believe the directive says that you have to wait one year before you can write it off.
Mr. McDonald:
The Minister is saying that the government is preparing to write it off. Is that correct? Are these, or are these not, write-offs?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
They are debts, and I am sure the Member opposite would have to agree with me, that it is highly unlikely that we are going to collect little, or any, money on. At this point, we are making provisions for that debt. The write-off will take place when the debt is one year old.
Mr. McDonald:
I think that I would agree that some of these debts may be difficult to collect - in a couple of cases, probably impossible. There may be a difference of opinion with respect to the Faro Real Estate debt. In my own opinion, that was certainly premature. Can the Minister tell us when they will know with certainty whether or not the Curragh debts will be uncollectable?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
It is going to be awhile yet. If we are going to get anything on them at all, it will be awhile yet. It will be awhile until we even know because, right now, my understanding is that the receiver is supposed to report back to the court on June 20. I also understand that the federal government has said that they will no longer fund the receivership after June 20.
There are several scenarios that could play out. If Anvil Range Mining and the receiver come to a sale agreement that cannot be completed by June 20, and it is highly unlikely they can, then - I am just speculating - it would probably be the responsibility of Anvil Range to pay the receiver after that. How that will sit with the lien claimants, I do not know. This is a very complex situation, but if I were to speculate at all, I would expect that it could be anywhere from a minimum of six months to possibly a year before we have any idea if we will recover anything at all on it.
Mr. McDonald:
I will not pursue this matter any further. I think we have said what we intended to say.
I received a letter from the Minister, which was followed up by a legislative return when the House came back into session, on the subject of job claims made in the main estimates and the supplementary budget No. 1. I asked specifically about the winter works program and the claim that had been made by the government on the number of person weeks that would be created by the expenditures that were dedicated to what the government called their winter works program. A large portion of those expenditures were, in fact, a reallocation of funds that had previously been dedicated to something else. I think only about $1 million was new funding, if I am not mistaken.
The response of the Minister did not adequately explain the number of jobs associated with that winter works program. The reason I raise this is because we spent some time in this Legislature discussing the number of jobs and the way that jobs were calculated. It was - and still is - my view that if the government is going to state that it will be creating a certain number of person weeks of employment, it should at least be in the ballpark of the claims it has made.
The problem that we faced before, which was not addressed in the response, is that if one reallocates money - I think it was over $5 million of the $7 million program, or just over $5 million - from somewhere else in the capital budget, one is not necessarily creating brand-new jobs.
The response does not address the number of jobs that would not be going ahead as result of the money being reallocated.
When the government came out with its claim at the beginning of the fiscal year, stating that they were going to create 700 jobs through their capital budget, they calculated in all of the capital that they were voting, including the monies that they had later reallocated in the effort to develop a winter works program.
I would like to ask the Minister - if he can answer the question now, I would like to ask him now; if he can back to me later with a more definitive answer, I would be more than prepared to wait - how many jobs did not proceed as a result of the reallocation of funds in the process of finding the $7 million for the winter works program.
For example, the first program that is listed is the home ownership program and the non-profit housing program. For example, the non-profit housing program is $1.4 million that was reallocated to the winter works program. This money was diverted from a program that would otherwise have been spent elsewhere. The Minister claims in his letter that this does not reduce the employment claims.
Unfortunately, it appeared - at least, to me - that the claim of 700 jobs did incorporate these funds. Can the Minister clarify the situation for me?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
We went through this debate for several hours in the last session. I do not think we will ever come to an agreement on it. I just want to point out to the Member that a lot of the reallocation of funds was office furniture purchases, computer purchases, and things like that, which were in the capital budget but would not have had many jobs attached to them. They
Page Number 2929
were not specifically from other construction jobs.
Some of the money was reallocated from operation and maintenance of departments, which they felt they could get along without and redirected it in that area, and some new money was put into it as well. I cannot give the exact number to the Member now, and I do not know if we can give him anything that will satisfy him. We can try to calculate something, and we do have something on paper, but I do not have it with me tonight.
If we are going to get down to arguing about whether it was 2,800 or 3,000 or 2,400 weeks, it is a waste of taxpayers' money. We know it created jobs in the community, it helped reduce the unemployment rolls, and I think that was the principle behind the winter works project.
Mr. McDonald:
One of the things I am trying to encourage the government to do - and this has been going on for some time now - is to first of all be aware that when they make claims, I am going to be here. I, along with my colleagues, am going to ask for their rationale and we are all going to ensure that the claims are not frivolously made or made without foundation.
I do not want to create employment through the Department of Economic Development by analyzing job numbers until we get absolute precision, but, at the same time, I want to be sure that the government is absolutely aware that when they make claims, we will be scrutinizing them. There will always come a time that that is going to happen - always.
In this particular case, we are talking about the number of jobs associated with a program. It is true that we spent a few hours on this subject and, at the same time, it is true that I was left with the impression that the government did not know what it was talking about, frankly, and had no right to be making the claims it did. Consequently, they should be taken to task for making unsubstantiated claims.
Election campaigns are over - when politicians can make any claim they want. When one gets into government, one has to substantiate one's claims. I am simply doing what I think is appropriate, under the circumstances.
I am not insisting the Minister come back with absolute precision on this point. I am just indicating to him that if between now and the next sitting there are more statements made that deserve some scrutiny, then I hope that he will have the homework done before we get into the Legislature, so we do not have to wait to get the details, and that he will know that ultimately questions will be asked and we will have to spend some legislative time on these matters.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
Perhaps the best way to go about it is not to put the number of jobs on it, but just state that our capital budget creates some jobs out there. We could then let the Member put whatever number he wants in there. It would not bother me at all. I know the capital works create jobs in the private sector. We should not sit here and waste the taxpayers' money for hours and hours debating whether it is 1,000 or 1,200 jobs; we should just stop identifying numbers at all.
Mr. McDonald:
That would certainly ensure one thing: we could not disagree on the details. That may be important - I do not know.
I have a couple more questions I would like to put to the Minister. I would like to ask the Minister what the policy is with respect to political advertising. What was the policy this year with respect to putting ads in the paper explaining the government's position on questions raised and issues addressed in the Legislature?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
With regard to giving the public information on what the government is doing or refuting false information, I do not consider those to be political ads.
Mr. McDonald:
Is the Minister aware that, in past years, even when the NDP government put ads in the paper advertising the business development fund, they were criticized for partisan political advertising? Is he aware that when the NDP government put any ads in the paper advertising programs with the Minister's name attached, that also was considered to be partisan political advertising? They were criticized, incidentally, by Yukon Party members.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
Certainly, I am aware that there will always be criticism of government, whether for a political or an information-oriented ad. That just comes with the job. It is an issue whether the Member opposite is in government or we are in government.
Mr. McDonald:
It is not quite that simple. Certainly, governments are going to be criticized from time to time for doing what governments must do, but there is some expectation, particularly with respect to basic policies, that what a politician will enunciate while they are in opposition would be somewhat similar to what they would state while in government. That is a basic underpinning of so-called honesty in politics. Certainly, the public, who are weighing the pros and cons of voting either for the Liberals or for the Yukon Party or for the NDP, wants to be able to anticipate what they can expect when those people gain office.
If they say something while they are in Opposition and do something completely differently while they are in government, then obviously, from the public's perspective, that would be very problematic.
The policy, as I understood it in the past, was that, when it came to defending a public position, we have always depended upon eloquent debate in the Legislature reported by the media to get the message out. That was supplemented by the franking privileges that were given to all Members and the mailing privileges given to Members to communicate with the constituents as to their policies and, if they are in government, their programs. What appears to be new is the government's attempt to carry a debate from this Legislature on to the pages of the paper at public expense - not through media reporting but through political propaganda. The change appears to be that now, and presumably by policy for the year under review here, it is appropriate to put out ads like this one that showed up in today's paper, titled "Reality", with a check-mark beside it. Basically, it carries on all the arguments made by the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission in a particular debate, that were in fact recently debated in the Legislature, regarding public sector compensation restraint. In fact, some of the arguments that are being made here have everything to do with concern about the federal debt, about which I know the Members on the Cabinet benches have had a disagreement.
Clearly, it has been authored by the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission. I do not think there is any doubt about that - his fingerprints are all over it. Can the Minister tell us whether or not he regards this kind of political propaganda as being a legitimate expenditure of public money?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
If we did not, it would not have been authorized.
Mr. McDonald:
Can the Minister tell us precisely who authorized this? Was it the Minister? Was it the Cabinet? Is this acceptable behaviour, in the Minister's opinion?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
The ads were vetted in the normal manner that ads are, and it was approved.
Mr. McDonald:
The Cabinet communications secretary approved these ads - is that correct?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I did not say that at all.
Mr. McDonald:
Can the Minister tell us then what the process is?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I can bring the Member back a written
Page Number 2930
reply about what the process is. I do not have that with me. I was aware of that ad before it ran.
Mr. McDonald:
I can understand, then, that perhaps the Minister was aware and supportive of this particular ad.
Could the Minister, in his written response, provide us with the costs associated with this political propaganda?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I can provide the Member with the costs of that ad.
Mr. McDonald:
Not to put too fine a point on it, but this ad is pure, political propaganda. It is absolutely outrageous. The Minister has got to be reading his horoscope and thanking his lucky stars that this legislative session is over tonight, because this would be the cause c‚lŠbre for the next month in this Legislature if we had known that the Minister was going to try to undertake this kind of measure.
We had no knowledge whatsoever that this government felt that they had the right to spend public money enunciating Yukon Party partisan positions out of this Legislature and onto the street, buying large public advertisements - half-page advertisements - to carry on their side of a debate they could not effectively defend in this Legislature, to the point that the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission stopped answering questions, because he could not defend the actions, or think of a decent argument.
We have a situation where it now appears to be policy that we were not aware of that suggests that this type of activity is appropriate or supportable. Where does this government get off doing this kind of thing?
Does the Government Leader not know that if the NDP government had ever tried anything even close to this, Ministers would have been toast done over many times - we would have been fried to death for this.
Ministers had to run the gauntlet just to defend the fact that they wanted to promote the business development fund, without even a Minister's name on the ad. Now, we have got something that is clearly political propaganda - making reference to the federal Liberal government, the Ontario NDP government. It is making the same arguments that the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission made and the phone number to call if one needs any answers, is a politician's number. It is not even a department. Can we expect more of this kind of thing? Is the government going to be buying large ads in the newspapers whenever they feel they have not been able to be articulate, or perhaps be eloquent enough - they have got the majority in this Legislature; they can do whatever they want. That is not enough for them? They feel that they cannot make the arguments well enough - they have got some of the most sympathetic media, at least in one newspaper, that one could possibly imagine. They have been absolutely blessed by part of the reporting corps of this Legislature. Even with that generally favourable reporting - people who want to report that the government is doing a good job - they feel they have to supplement that now, by buying large advertising space, using my own tax dollar to do this. I pay taxes, too, and I just helped fund that nonsense - arguments that we have presented to the Minister on a number of occasions, and the Minister has backed right off, yet, we get to see it again at my expense.
I am sure the public servants are happy to see this thrust into their faces today.
I am really shocked. I cannot contain myself. This is absolutely outrageous. I have been in this Legislature for a long time. By the old standards of this Legislature, I am sure we have pressed the limits of what is acceptable behaviour by announcing that we are going to be undertaking the LEOP program or promoting the business development fund, but I have never seen a debate in this Legislature, in point form, with this cutesy checkmark logo included, and presented to the public in such a brazen way, so immediately after the debate in the House on the same issue.
Not only did the government ram this bill down our throats - and we could tell that some of the Ministers wished they had never brought the bill forward - but, in order to sell it, in response to the criticism from the Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes that it was not sold well enough, the government broke another standard practice by undertaking this kind of political propagandizing at the public's expense.
Can the Minister give us some information about precisely what the policy is for this kind of advertising? Can he tell us, for example, whether or not, for bills for which there is disagreement in the Legislature - and perhaps an alternative opinion being expressed - the government is not only going to use its majority in this Legislature to press its point and win the day and use its considerable resources to persuade, through argument, its position, but it will also buy advertisements in the newspaper to supplement its case if it does not feel that its case has been effectively enough put or reported?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I have heard the Member's representation, and he certainly has a different view of the ad than I. I have heard his representation, and we will be reviewing it. It is not a policy of ours to use government money for political purposes.
Ms. Moorcroft:
It certainly surprises me to hear the Government Leader say it is not their policy to use public funds for partisan political expenditures, then to read this ad in tonight's paper, because that is exactly what they have done. They have hit new limits of desperation. This is the last day of this sitting. They could not make their arguments in debate. The Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission just sat there and refused to stand up and attempt to answer the questions and arguments the Opposition put forward, opposing the Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act, 1994. Then, we have the ads in tonight's paper where, for more information on the Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act, 1994, you are to call this phone number, which is that of the Minister responsible. If that is not a partisan political ad, I do not know what is.
Is that common practice? Is the Government Leader going to defend that as a common practice - to pay for ads out of taxpayers' money to ask the public to phone the Minister responsible for a piece of legislation and inquire about it?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I said I had heard the representation from the Members opposite, and we will be reviewing this. I have a slightly different view from the Members opposite.
Ms. Moorcroft:
We know they have a slightly different view. They have a different view when they are spending taxpayers' money on these advertisements.
Look at this: reality check, they call it, with a big checkmark running through it. The Ontario NDP government, the federal Liberal government - there is no debt in the Yukon. We are not in a deficit position here. They have one of their checkmarks beside "to ensure a bright future, everyone needs to share the burden of restraint".
I wonder how the teachers and public servants - who have to sit down and pare their budgets back by two percent, because this government has rammed legislation down our throats to reduce their pay by two percent - are going to feel about the government taking the money they have saved on public servants and spending it on their partisan political ads.
They are talking about everyone sharing the burden of restraint, and unchecked territorial spending leading us right back into debt. That is the language they use in their ad. Why, then, did the Government Leader write a letter to a federal Minister, pleading with them not to reduce the forestry economic development agreement
Page Number 2931
funding? Why did the Government Leader write and say that budget cuts, at this time, signal a lack of confidence in the business sector, and a lack of confidence in the economy?
Can the Government Leader explain that inconsistency?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
We have already gone through that debate.
Ms. Moorcroft:
He says we have already gone through that debate. Well, he cannot answer the question. Just as they could not answer the questions in the debate in the Legislature, now they cannot answer the questions about why they are spending our own money on trying to sell their arguments, when they could not do it here in this Legislature. They are obviously desperate, and this is really new depths. I am just appalled.
Mrs. Firth:
I am not surprised at the Minister's comments tonight, particularly his comment about having a slightly different view from the Members in Opposition, because I think the Minister and the Government Leader probably have a different view on just about everything, compared to the view of most Yukoners. Perhaps that explains why his government and his image and their image is in so much trouble.
I know that the Government Leader does not have a clue what the policy says, because I have asked him this question several times in the House, and he has never been able to stand up an enunciate his own policy with respect to communications.
I just happen to have a copy of that policy, so I am quite familiar with it. I wrote and asked the Minister for a copy of the policy, and maybe he should read things before he passes them on to other MLAs to kind of refamiliarize himself with the policies that he is making. This policy is dated May 12, 1994. It was issued under the authority of Cabinet meeting No. 94-21. I have some questions to ask the Minister about the process of this ad being placed. The first question I want to ask him is this: who initiated this advertisement?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I believe the ad was placed by the Executive Council Office, but I will check on that for the Member.
Mrs. Firth:
What I would like to know is whose idea it was. Whose idea was this ad? Who initiated it?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
It was viewed as an information ad; it certainly was not viewed in the partisan political way the Members opposite view it. I said I have listened to that representation and we will be discussing this matter. I will deal with it.
Mrs. Firth:
I do not care if we are here until midnight, I am not letting the Minister off the hook with this one. I am asking a very specific simple question for him to answer. Whose idea was this ad? Who came up with this idea? Who initiated it?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
This ad does not have much to do with the supplementaries that we are discussing. I am prepared to discuss it for awhile but I think we should get back to the supplementaries. I will get the information the Member opposite wants, or whatever information I can. I am not about to discuss things that transpire between Ministers.
Mrs. Firth:
It is very important that we get some answers to this question. I have not even started making any accusations yet about the politicalness and the propaganda. I am just trying to figure out where the ad came from. The Minister stood up in the House this evening and said he was aware of the ad before it went out. Where did this ad come from? Who thought this was a good idea, before it was further supported by the Government Leader? Who came up with this idea?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I believe it is marked as coming from the Public Service Commission, is it not? Is it not marked on the ad? I have not seen the ad tonight. I do not have a copy of it with me, so I do not know.
Some Hon. Member:
(Inaudible)
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I was aware it was going through; yes, I was.
Mrs. Firth:
Can you see, Mr. Chair, why we may be here until midnight?
This ad that the Minister approved - but does not remember what is on it, and does not remember where it came from, but he approved it - states "For more information on the Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act call 667-5493". I believe that is the phone number of the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission. That does not come from the Public Service Commission, or anywhere. Just a minute ago, the Minister said it came from the ECO office. It says on the bottom corner of the ad, "Yukon Government". So it came from somewhere here in this government - maybe the ECO, maybe the Public Service Commission, maybe the Minister's office.
When the Minister approved this, did he not even think to ask where it came from? If I were the Minister and had looked at this, I would not have approved it. So, obviously, the Minister just sort of said, "Yes, it is a good idea", and did not even look at what he was approving. Does he believe in the principles of it? Did he ask who made up this ad? There are so many questions to answer about it. Did the whole Cabinet approve it, or did just the Minister approve it?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
No, it was not approved by Cabinet and the Member is right; I looked at the ad yesterday, and I did not view it in the same light as the Members opposite are viewing it.
Mrs. Firth:
Obviously, I would like to speculate as to why it happened. I think the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission had this idea. The Minister can correct me if I am mistaken, but I think it was the Minister's idea. I think the Minister probably initiated it and the Government Leader approved it, which is completely contrary to policy with respect to communications and advertising. The policy states very clearly that the departments are responsible for initiating the advertising and the Ministers are responsible for approving those initiatives.
I think that we are being completely fair in the conclusions that we are drawing, because it does have the signature of the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission all over it.
I would like to ask the Government Leader what other approval process this went through before it was published and paid for by taxpayers' money. The Government Leader saw it; the Cabinet did not see it, so was it just the Government Leader and the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
No, I saw the ad. It was my understanding that the ad went through the same procedures as other ads.
Mrs. Firth:
Did the Minister ask that question at that time whether or not it had been through the same procedure?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
Not specifically, I did not.
Mrs. Firth:
So, do you think I am being harsh, Mr. Chair, in assuming or saying that the Minister was rather sloppy in the approval process of this ad? The Government Leader did not ask if the ad went through the normal procedure; he did not ask who had initiated the ad; he did not ask whose idea it was. I do not think I am being unkind when I say I think it is being very careless and very sloppy, and a sloppy way to approve things.
According to this government's policy with respect to ads and communications, there is a communications advisory committee who is responsible for the assessing the appropriateness and completeness of communication strategies. Did that advisory committee approve this ad, or did they even see it?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I cannot answer that question for the Member here tonight, but I can get the information for the Member.
Mrs. Firth:
So there is another step that the Minister did not check. For clarification, did the Minister say specifically that
Page Number 2932
Cabinet did not see this ad and Cabinet did not approve this ad?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
That is correct.
Mrs. Firth:
As far as we know, then, there are only the two Ministers that approved the ad. This is in complete violation of their own policy. The Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission and the Government Leader violated their own communications policy - that is the first fact.
I would like to get into some of the details of the ad. I have noticed on a couple more news releases that the number that is being given for information has been the Minister's number. Another recent example that comes to mind is the news release that was issued with respect to the employment standards legislation being postponed. It stated that, for further information, people could phone Willard Phelps, who was the Minister responsible. His phone number was on the news release.
I do not know if that is, again, just sloppiness, but it is not the way it has been done in the past and it is not the way this communication policy says it should be done. Usually, it states that one should call a communications person, either in the Cabinet office or within the department. My first recommendation is that Minister's names and numbers not be included in a general press release that is being issued to the public. It is contrary to the policy. Can the Minister tell me if this is going to become a continuing practice?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
It is certainly not. I did not realize that ad included the Minister's number. I also did not realize that the ad regarding the employment standards legislation had the Minister's number on it. If that was the case, it will certainly not happen again.
Mrs. Firth:
It is good that we have the Minister's commitment that this will not happen any more.
This ad, as far as I am concerned, is political propaganda. The Minister is nodding his head. Perhaps he is getting the message that people are going to think this is political propaganda. It is political propaganda.
I have never seen a government ad make reference to the political affiliation of government. I think that is completely inappropriate. It is very bold and smacks of political manipulation. I do not believe that is appropriate at all.
I, too, have some concerns about the points that were raised. Neither the Minister or any of his colleagues stood in this House and defended the legislation. They all had the opportunity to do so and raise all these points; they failed to do that.
Then, to have the ads published in the newspaper the day the session is ending, just shows how desperate this government is. I recommend that the Government Leader give us a full accounting and report as to what happened with respect to this ad being published. He said he would get back to us with information about that - I expect him to do that, as soon as possible.
Also, I want to know how much it cost, and I want to have a commitment from the Government Leader this evening that no more ads like this will appear in the paper again.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I will bring the information back for the Member. As I said, this ad will be discussed thoroughly in Cabinet, and a decision will be made at that time. Certainly, it is not our intention to run political ads with government funding.
Mr. Cable:
I had a look at this ad over the supper hour. I think, to be fair, if we lined 100 people up on the street, we would find out that 99 and 44/100ths of those people would say that this is plainly a political ad. The ad on page 19 of the Yukon News talks about reality. The bottom part of it says, "For more information on the Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act, call such-and-such a number." Above that, it says, "over 80 cents of every revenue dollar the government spends comes from the federal government." That is not in the provisions of the Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act, 1994.
It says, "continued federal deficits will put pressure on federal government transfer payments to the Yukon." That is not in the Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act, 1994.
It says, "the federal government legislated wages for 228,000 civil servants for the fifth and sixth years in a row." That is not in the act.
"Unchecked territorial spending will lead us right back into debt." That is not in the act.
The Minister has been great on talking about restraining public expenditure, but if he reaches the conclusion, as I think, frankly, everybody else in this whole territory will reach, that this is plainly a political ad, will he ask the president of the Yukon Party to reimburse the public treasury for this waste of public money?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I will certainly take that under advisement.
Chair:
Is there any further general debate?
On Yukon Legislative Assembly
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
The total amount being requested is $434,000 in operation and maintenance. The reason for this request is to cover the liabilities on the MLA pension plan for March 31, 1994. The actuarial evaluation on the MLA pension plan, prepared by the Alexander Consulting Group, indicated the plan was underfunded as of March 31, 1993, by $669,000, and the figure used to calculate the annual amount allocated to the Legislative Assembly retirement allowance fund, expressed as a percentage of the MLA payroll, should be increased to 48.7 from 26.3, as of April 1, 1993.
The Auditor General of Canada has agreed that past liabilities to March 31, 1993, of $669,000, plus earnings, may be amortized over three fiscal years - 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 - with the payments being made on March 31, 1994, April 1, 1994, and April 1, 1995. The amounts required for each of these fiscal years is $248,000.
An increase in the amount allocated to the Legislative Assembly retirement allowance fund, from 26.3 to 48.7 of the MLA payroll, results in an annual requirement of $460,000 for the 1993-94 fiscal year. As of April 1, 1993, $289,000 had already been appropriated, leaving a requirement of a further $171,000.
The interest on this shortfall for 1993-94 is calculated as being $15,000. In summary, the breakdown of the total requirement of $434,000 is as follows: $248,000 to cover the amortization of the underfunded liabilities to March 31, 1993; $171,000 to cover the increase in the amount required to be allocated to the Legislative Assembly retirement allowance fund during the 1993-94 fiscal year; and $15,000 to cover the earnings that are forecast to have been made on $171,000, had it been in the fund during the 1993-94 fiscal year.
Members will note that the actual amount being requested for the retirement allowance and death benefits program is $439,000. The additional $5,000 has been used to obtain a consultant's advice on the technical amendments that would be required by the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowance Act to satisfy the concerns raised by Revenue Canada. The additional $5,000 was found within legislative committee activities and is identified in the supplementary under the legislative services program.
Mr. McDonald:
I just have a brief comment that I would like to make, having been an observer of the development of the MLA pension plan from its beginnings until now, and having watched the Members' Services Board operate in the last year or so.
The actuarial evaluation that was done some time back, which caused an increased expenditure to support the MLA pension plan in 1991 or 1992 - I cannot remember when the actual appropriation was made - suggested that sum of money would be sufficient to meet the obligations under the plan. I was under the impression
Page Number 2933
that the evaluation had demonstrated that sufficient funds had been appropriated to cover the plan. I was surprised that another evaluation had been done, which showed some unfunded liability.
I have also been an observer of a larger pension fund, the workers' compensation fund, and I have been very interested in seeing how that has been evaluated over the last one and one-half years. The Minister will remember that, when the Yukon Party first came into office, they were somehow under the impression that the Workers' Compensation Board was underfunded, and the reserve accounts were not sufficient to meet the obligations under the act.
I understand that an actuarial evaluation has just been completed and suggests that the reserve accounts are, I think, 146 percent to 152 percent funded, which suggests that they are probably overfunded, not underfunded.
I do not want to have a debate about the workers' compensation fund; I was kind of hoping the Member for Klondike would allow us that opportunity in his Private Member's motion. The point to be made, though, is that there are wide fluctuations among what professional actuaries recommend. Obviously none of us are in that field and none of us feel comfortable second-guessing their advice, but it does suggest that we should be very cautious about accepting advice without at least having a second or third opinion.
As much as I am a supporter of the general program here - not more supportive than other programs but certainly supportive of it in general terms - I am nervous about simply accepting the view that this fund was underfunded without more advice. I would recommend to the Member Services Board that if they were to invest in another professional evaluation to give us a greater degree of comfort on this matter, I, for one, would not be opposed to it, because I think the odds are that we may be over-funding the fund. Given that there are competing interests for available public money, it may be the wise and prudent thing to do.
I only make that point because I know that the Member Services Board Members have agonized over this, but it should not, in my opinion, be considered case closed with respect to the estimates on the costs that the actuaries are encouraging us to support. I would think that if the Members wanted to review this again, it might be wise and prudent.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I thank the Member for his observations on this, and he is right. The Member Services Board did have difficulty dealing with this. I believe we even thought about getting a second opinion at that time. It has been some time ago, and I forget what was decided. At any rate, I think there is another actuary coming up two or three years from now. With this being a new plan, it should get us on track with what we are doing now, and we will see what the next actuary comes in at.
I agree with the Member opposite that there is a variance of opinion on these issues, and I will take the Member's representation to the Member Services Board.
On Operation & Maintenance Expenditures
On Legislative Services
Legislative Services in the amount of an underexpenditure of $5,000 agreed to
On Retirement Allowances and Death Benefits
Retirement Allowances and Death Benefits in the amount of $439,000 agreed to
Operation & Maintenance Expenditures in the amount of $434,000 agreed to
Yukon Legislative Assembly agreed to
On Executive Council Office
Chair:
Is there any general debate?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
The supplementary estimates before you do not involve any increase in funding. The department is seeking approval to move $13,000 from the operation and maintenance budget to the 1993-94 capital budget. These funds are for the purchase of three computers for the Bureau of Statistics, replacing computers that are now seven years old and no longer capable of keeping up with the research needs of the bureau, or the requirements of the software used.
The $13,000 is cost-recoverable from Statistics Canada, and it has approved the expenditure for this purpose.
On Operation and Maintenance Expenditures
On Bureau of Statistics
Bureau of Statistics in the amount of an underexpenditure of $13,000 agreed to
Operation & Maintenance Expenditures in the amount of an underexpenditure of $13,000 agreed to
On Capital
On Bureau of Statistics
Capital Expenditures in the amount of $13,000 agreed to
Bureau of Statistics agreed to
Department of Finance
Mr. Cable:
I am on now. I would like to know about the write-off procedures for bad debt allowances.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I will try to expedite the debate. If I gave the Member a bit more information, it might help him with that.
Members will note that the sum required is entirely for the line item called allowance for bad debt, as it is a non-cash expense that sets up the provision in our balance sheet for the eventuality of certain accounts receivable that may not be collectible.
I hasten to add that making a provision for the doubtful account does not constitute a write-off. It is merely a recognition that the asset being shown on the books will not be worth its face value.
In the case of many of the items compromising the provisions being made here, the courts will be deciding their relative priority, once the quantity of monies to be distributed is known as a result of the sale process currently underway. It is apparent, however, that the claims against Curragh Inc. will far exceed any potential sale price for the property. Prudence, therefore, requires that allowance be made for debts due us from Curragh that constitute only a small portion of the total claims of the assets of the corporation.
There is $5.2 million being asked for in the supplementary, including finances comprised on unpaid property taxes on both mines in the amount of $777,000, unpaid bulk haul fees for both mines in the amount of $242,000, electrical bills for Faro assigned to government by the Yukon Energy Corporation in the amount of $2,361,000, Faro Real Estate Ltd. mortgage in the amount of $1,790,000, for the total of $5,170,000. I believe that the property taxes and bulk haul fees are self-explanatory, but the electrical bill issue may require some clarification.
Subsequent to CCAA proceedings, Curragh has incurred six monthly charges for power without payment. In order to relieve ratepayers from carrying the burden of these unpaid bills, the government agreed to pay them and take them over from the Yukon Energy Corporation on the basis of an assignment of debt.
Were it not for this action, the electrical rates in the territory would have to increase substantially more to cover the loss of revenue to the Yukon Energy Corporation.
Members will note, from my previous remarks, that we also made provisions for a mortgage for the Faro Real Estate Ltd., as the company's financial health depends on the mine's operations. The making of such a provision would appear to be the prudent thing to do at this time.
I will now answer any questions the Members opposite may have.
Mr. Cable:
For the third and last time: what triggers the write-off mechanism? Is it solicitations out of the public service,
Page Number 2934
or do the politicians review the debts that are outstanding and initiate the procedure?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I just want to make it clear for the Member opposite that is not a write off; it is a provision, and it is based on recommendations from Finance, as to when those provisions are made.
Mr. Cable:
Is the procedure that is used the same sort of procedure that, say, a banking institution would use, or what they call generally accepted accounting principles?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
Yes, it follows generally acceptable accounting principles. If we were not to make allowances for them, the Auditor General would probably ask us to do it.
Mr. Cable:
The reason I ask is that during previous debates here, we have had the economic development fund bad debts discussions. Some of them are in excess of three years. It would appear to me that most banking institutions would have those designated those as allowances for bad debts or they would have written them off when they are outstanding for that length of time. What is the difference between the treatment of, say, the business development fund, and the loan to Curragh?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
They would have already made provisions for them. They may not have been written off, but there have been provisions made for them.
Mr. Cable:
Well, the return that was given, dated April 30 - I do not want to belabour the economic development funds; they are not a part of this debate - appears to show some inconsistency in the treatment of bad debts that arise in that fund from the bad debt that we are talking about now. Are they treated according to the same generally accepted accounting principles?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
My understanding is that, yes, they are and they certainly should be. I believe that what the Member has in front of him now on what is outstanding is up to date. I believe there have been write-offs in the past.
Mrs. Firth:
I just have a couple of quick questions about this. I want to know if the government has done this before - put an item in the budget for this allowance for bad debts. I do not recall seeing an item like this in the budgets in the time I have been here.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
My understanding is that, yes, they have been there in the past, but they have always been relatively small figures because we have not had a situation like this for quite some time.
Mrs. Firth:
The difficulty here is trying to pin down exactly what this is. The Minister says it is not a write-off, yet it is a very large amount identified in the budget. I would call it a write-off. I have the write-off of uncollectable debts Management Board directive in front of me. In that directive, it gives the limits and it says that Management Board has to make a decision if it is above those limits. It also says that no debt or obligation that is due or owing to the government shall be written off within one year of the date of the debt or obligation. I do not think it has been a year yet - maybe it has. It also says that the write-off - if this was being called a write-off, it is just being called a debt - or part of the debt or obligation to the government does not extinguish the right of the government to collect the debt or obligation written off if it is included. What the government is stating as the reason for it being here is a bit inconsistent, as it is not classed as a write-off. It would be nice if the Minister could tell us exactly what it is. Maybe it is just a bookkeeping exercise.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
It is an accounting principle. For the Member's information, all of these have been outstanding for more than a year. There had not been a payment on Faro Real Estate in some 18 months, I believe. They have all been outstanding for more than a year. The first step is to make provisions for them. They are still carried on the balance sheet, and then at some point in the future they will be wiped right off of the balance sheet and will not even show on the government's balance sheet any more - that is when they are written off.
Mrs. Firth:
That is what puzzles me about why it is not being called a write-off, yet the Government Leader keeps standing up and saying it is not a write-off.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
At this point we have not yet written it off; it is a provision for a bad debt. There is some uncertainty about how much we are going to be able to collect on them, so you make provisions for them, using general accounting principles, on your balance sheet. When you write them off, they are taken right off your balance sheet - they no longer show on your balance sheet.
Mr. Cable:
Is it the general practice to put them in the budget at the bad debt allowance stage or at the write-off stage?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
The general practice is that you make allowances for them before they are written off.
Mr. Cable:
There will only be one entry at either stage. You cannot do it twice. We are not going to see this figure again, are we?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
The Member is absolutely right; there is only one expense, and that is now.
Mr. Cable:
Is it conventional accounting practice to have a bad debt allowance for specific bad debts?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
According to my assistant, yes, it is.
Mr. McDonald:
After this appropriation, will it change the unconsolidated position of the government at all, or will it change the consolidated position of the government?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
It changes both of them.
Mr. McDonald:
If at some point the unconsolidated position is changed, if at some point this $1.79 million to Faro Real Estate does in fact turn out to be collectable, how is the money put back on to the books? In my own opinion, I do not think it is uncollectable at all, I think that 379 units, or whatever, in Faro, as an asset is something that we should not simply write off altogether. I am not saying that the Minister is not going to consider trying to collect, but making the appropriation now and coming back later to find out that the houses can be sold and that Faro continues and the money is paid back is definitely within the realm of possibility. What happens? How will the Minister get the money back on the books?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
In order to realize any money on that it has to come back to the government as income to the government.
Mr. McDonald:
What it means is that now the expenditure is made, surpluses are drawn down and later, when it turns out that some of the money is collectable, then our income will increase in the year that the government collects. Is that right?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
Yes, the Member is right; that is how it would work.
On Operation and Maintenance Expenditures
On Allowance For Bad Debts
Allowance For Bad Debts in the amount of $5,170,000 agreed to
Operation and Maintenance Expenditures in the amount of $5,170,000 agreed to
Finance agreed to
Department of Justice
On Operation and Maintenance Expenditures
Chair:
Is there any general debate on Justice?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
This was supplementary funding for legal aid over and above the 1993-94 budget allowance. At the time the request went to Management Board, legal aid was actually over $330,000. The Department of Justice covered off $155,000; $100,000 was for French language publication requirements and for statutes and regulations and $55,000 was from outside legal contracts; therefore, the requirement was reduced to $175,000 that
Page Number 2935
Management Board approved on March 9, 1994.
Since that time there have been lapses. These lapses essentially came from special native constable program. Eleven to 13 positions had been staffed during most of the year.
The RCMP, at the time of this briefing note, lapsed $265,000 partly because the criminal caseload was down in terms of high profile and expense of cases. The mild winter produced lower heating cost savings, and litigation costs were under by $30,000. This happens with court delays and so on. Subsequent to March 9, we were made aware of the lapses from the RCMP and litigation.
Mr. McDonald:
How much of the additional, unexpected expenditures here were recoverable? The Minister did mention French language translation services. Was there any increased expenditure that was recoverable here?
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
This was removed from the French language publication. The overrun in legal aid was $330,000. We were under by $100,000, roughly, in French language, so we covered part of the overrun with that money. We were under $55,000 from outside legal contracts at that time. We covered a portion with that, and the balance we asked for in the supplementary from Management Board. So, we were $175,000 at that time, which resulted in this supplementary.
Subsequently, we had the lapses in the RCMP, special native constable and litigation costs.
Mr. McDonald:
I guess I had my question reversed - my understanding was reversed too. With respect to the French language translation services, is the agreement between the federal government and the Yukon government for French language translation services a recoverable as-we-go agreement - in order to collect the money from the federal government, the government has to spend it for a specific purpose? If that is the case, I am wondering how that money would be used to support something like legal aid, for example.
Hon. Mr. Phelps:
The budget reflects the anticipated expenditure. That does not impact on the recovery side, except that we do not get the full recovered dollars. The question is one on which I am afraid I will have to get back to the Member.
On Attorney General
Attorney General in the amount of $175,000 agreed to
Operation and Maintenance Expenditures in the amount of $175,000 agreed to
Department of Justice agreed to
On Schedule A
Schedule A agreed to
On Schedule B
Schedule B Agreed to
On Clause 1
Clause 1 agreed to
On Clause 2
Clause 2 agreed to
On Title
Title agreed to
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
Mr. Chair, I move that you move Bill No. 16, Third Appropriation Act, 1993-94, out of Committee without amendment.
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:
At 7:31 p.m., the Committee of the Whole passed the following motion:
THAT Committee of the Whole and the Assembly be empowered to sit beyond 9:30 p.m. for the purpose of completing consideration of the bills identified for discussion today in Committee; for permitting the House to consider third reading of these bills; and for receiving the Commissioner to give assent to the bills passed by the House.
Further, the Committee of the Whole has considered Bill No. 48, An Act to Amend the Condominium Act, and Bill No. 66, An Act to Amend the Landlord and Tenant Act, and directed me to report them with amendment.
Further, the Committee has considered Bill No. 70, Lottery Licensing Act, 1994, Bill No. 15, Second Appropriation Act, 1994-95, and Bill No. 16, Third Appropriation Act, 1993-94, and directed me to report them without amendment.
Speaker:
You have heard the report from the Chair of the Committee of the Whole. Are you agreed?
Some Hon. Members:
Agreed.
Speaker:
I declare the report carried.
GOVERNMENT BILLS
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
I request the unanimous consent of the House to waive Standing Order 59(2), in order to give third reading to Bill No. 48 and Bill No. 66 at this time.
Speaker:
Is there unanimous consent?
All Hon. Members:
Agreed.
Speaker:
Unanimous consent has been granted.
Bill No. 16: Third Reading
Clerk:
Third reading, Bill No. 16, standing in the name of the Hon. Mr. Ostashek.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I move that Bill No. 16, entitled Third Appropriation Act, 1993-94, be now read a third time and do pass.
Speaker:
It has been moved by the Hon. Government Leader that Bill No. 16, entitled Third Appropriation Act, 1993-94, be now read a third time and do pass.
Motion for third reading of Bill No. 16 agreed to
Speaker:
I declare that Bill No. 16 has passed this House.
Bill No. 15: Third Reading
Clerk:
Third reading, Bill No. 15, standing in the name of the Hon. Mr. Ostashek.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek:
I move that Bill No. 15, entitled Second Appropriation Act, 1994-95, be now read a third time and do pass.
Speaker:
It has been moved by the Hon. Government Leader that Bill No. 15, entitled Second Appropriation Act, 1994-95, be now read a third time and do pass.
Some Hon. Members:
Agreed.
Some Hon. Members:
Disagreed.
Speaker:
I believe the ayes have it.
Motion for third reading of Bill No. 15 agreed to
Speaker:
I declare that Bill No. 15 has passed this House.
Bill No. 48: Third Reading
Clerk:
Third 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 third time and do pass.
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 third time and do pass.
Page Number 2936
Motion for third reading of Bill No. 48 agreed to
Speaker:
I declare that Bill No. 48 has passed this House.
Bill No. 70: Third Reading
Clerk:
Third 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 third time and do pass.
Speaker:
It has been moved by the Hon. Minister of Justice that Bill No. 70, entitled Lottery Licensing Act, 1994, be now read a third time and do pass.
Motion for third reading of Bill No. 70 agreed to
Speaker:
I declare that Bill No. 70 has passed this House.
Bill No. 66: Third Reading
Clerk:
Third 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 third time and do pass.
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 third time and do pass.
Motion for third reading of Bill No. 66 agreed to
Speaker:
I declare that Bill No. 66 has passed this House.
ASSENT TO BILLS
Speaker:
We are now prepared to receive the Commissioner, in his capacity as Lieutenant Governor, to give assent to certain bills which have passed this House. Commissioner enters the Chamber, announced by the Sergeant-at-Arms
Commissioner:
Please be seated.
Speaker:
The Assembly has, at its present session, passed certain bills to which, in the name of and on behalf of the Assembly, I respectfully request your assent.
Clerk:
Third Appropriation Act, 1993-94; Second Appropriation Act, 1994-95; An Act to Amend the Condominium Act; Lottery Licensing Act, 1994; An Act to Amend the Landlord and Tenant Act.
Commissioner:
I am pleased to assent to the bills as enumerated by the Clerk, and I take this opportunity to wish each of you and your families a most pleasant summer.
Commissioner leaves the Chamber
Speaker:
I will now call the House to order.
Hon. Mr. Brewster:
I move
THAT the House, at its rising, do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of the Speaker, after consultation with the Government Leader, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet;
THAT the Speaker give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time; and
THAT, if the Speaker is unable to act owing to illness or other causes, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purpose of this Order.
Speaker:
It has been moved by the acting Government House Leader
THAT the House, at its rising, do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of the Speaker, after consultation with the Government Leader, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet;
THAT the Speaker give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time; and
THAT, if the Speaker is unable to act owing to illness or other causes, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purpose of this Order.
Motion agreed to
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:
At this time I would like to wish everyone a good summer. For those of us who are not healthy now, I hope that, when we come back for the fall session, everyone will be healthier and ready to go again.
This House now stands adjourned.
The House adjourned at 10:16 p.m.
The following Legislative Returns were tabled June 8, 1994:
94-1-362
Trapping/fur industry: 400 trapping licences issued for 1993-94 season (Brewster)
Oral, Hansard, p. 2713
94-1-363
Expenditure summary for last quarter of fiscal years 1991-92, 1992-93, and 1993-94; contract register for Yukon Development Corporation (1991-1994) (Nordling)
Written Question No. 48, dated April 20, 1994, by Mrs. Firth