28th Legislature, Session 2, Thursday, April 4, 1996

Whitehorse, Yukon

Thursday, April 4, 1996 - 1:30 p.m.

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 with the Order Paper.

TRIBUTES

Recognition of 100th birthday of Sarah Abel

Mr. Schafer: It seems like I am always doing the tributes, but this is a special one. Since I will be away from the Legislature next week, I would like to take this opportunity to ask Members of the Legislature to join me in wishing Sarah Abel a very happy 100th birthday, on Wednesday, April 10, 1996.

Sarah Abel is a well-known and respected Vuntut Gwitchin elder and has contributed much to the community through her long association with our church and the women's association.

Sarah is the mother of Charlie Abel, the former chief, and the grandmother of the former Member of the Legislative Assembly, Johnny Abel.

I, together with the people from Old Crow and members from the other Gwitchin nations, will be in Old Crow next Wednesday to help Sarah celebrate this wonderful day.

Mr. Joe: I had the honour of meeting Sarah Abel a couple of times. She is respected always among the Gwitchin people in the Northwest Territories, Alaska and Yukon. She raised many children. She is the grandmother of my friend, the late Johnny Abel. I wish her a very happy 100th birthday. She is a fine elder who has guided her community for many, many years. Thank you.

Applause

Recognition of 80th birthday of Alex Van Bibber

Hon. Mr. Brewster: I would like this Legislature to pay tribute to Mr. Alex Van Bibber, who today will be 80 years old - or 80 years young, I should say.

I met him many, many years ago when I first came to the country. In fact, his family, the Van Bibbers and the Jacquots and the Chambers, were the first people who I really got to know when I arrived up here with 40 head of pack horses, to work for the government. I do not think that Alex, to this day, looks any older than the day I came here; he does not seem to have changed much. I think we have a mutual respect for each other, especially around horses.

I can recall the first time, in Silver Creek, when the horses were in there and there was one that was whip-broke. Some people may not know what this is, but it is a horse that will come right to you and sometimes kick you and strike at you. Of course they put me in there to see what this young white guy thought he was doing. I had been taught how to do this by cowboys outside and by having been kicked a few times, and when the horse came up, I grabbed it by the nose and squished the air from him. The horse stopped, of course.

They were talking in a First Nations language, and I suspect that they were saying, "You know, that white guy might know something - we have never seen that before." I think Alex and I then learned that where I came from, and where he came from, horses are horses; we had a great deal of respect for them, and we started to have a great deal of respect for each other.

Also, as young people, he went into the Canadian Army and I went into the Canadian Army. He did not get to travel quite as far around the world as I did; however, he made an attempt.

In one story he tells, when he came back and married Sue, he told her he was going to take her around the world. They arrived in Vancouver, and then about a week later, he said, "Come on. Let us go," and he brought her home. She said, "What do you mean?" He said, "Well, we went around the world." He and I both come from the sticks. We did not really understand what the world was.

I would like to say that it is a great honour to be able to say this about Alex. We have known each other for many years now. As I said, I do not know when he will get old, quite frankly. Maybe he is trying to be like me - stay young, while everyone is trying to make us old.

I would like everyone to congratulate him very much.

Applause

Speaker: Introduction of visitors.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Ms. Moorcroft: I would like to welcome a couple of guests who are in the gallery today - Kerry Huff, the president of the Yukon Teachers Association and Maureen Morris, who is the president of the Canadian Teachers Federation. Ms. Moore has been meeting with teachers about the Canadian Teachers Federation's campaign to promote the value of the public education system. We are happy to have them here today.

Speaker: Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I have some documents for tabling.

Speaker: Are there any reports of committees?

Are there any petitions?

Are there any bills to be introduced?

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

Bill No. 98: Introduction and First Reading

Hon. Mr. Phillips: I move that Bill No. 98, entitled An Act to Amend the Historic Resources Act, be now introduced and read a first time.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Hon. Minister of Tourism that Bill No. 98, entitled An Act to Amend the Historic Resources Act, be now introduced and read a first time.

Motion for introduction and first reading of Bill No. 98 agreed to

Speaker: Are there any notices of motion for the production of papers?

Notices of motion.

Statements by Ministers.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Community Employment Training Fund for Ross River

Hon. Mr. Nordling: It is the policy of this government to work with individual communities to design and implement training programs. Today, such an initiative is being put into place for the residents of Ross River.

The Ross River employment training agreement is a joint agreement with the Ross River area Development Society and is another positive step in the economic development of this community.

Today, I met with Mike Rawlings, a representative of the Ross River area Development Society and also general manager of the Ross River Dena Development Corporation. We talked over this agreement and the success of previous agreements.

The Yukon government's contribution of $100,000 to the community training fund established under the agreement will be administered by the society for the community. This agreement is demonstrating the community's willingness to be positioned for economic development.

The agreement includes provisions for leverage funding. Successful applicants to the fund would receive 50 percent of the total training costs, with the balance coming from other partners. Ross River has socio-economic agreements in place with both Anvil Range and Cominco, and training is included as one of the main components of those agreements.

As Mr. Rawlings pointed out, an important part of this agreement is that the society will be able to form partnerships with potential employers that will lever additional funding for the training of individuals or groups.

The government is pleased and proud to support the residents of Ross River in their economic development goals.

Ms. Moorcroft: I am pleased to stand and congratulate Ross River and Chief Sterriah and his council and other Ross River area residents who will benefit from this announcement about a training trust fund for their community. Training trusts have been tried and tested before and have proven successful. The New Democratic government established training trust funds in Watson Lake with Sa Dena Hes and at the Faro mine, with the Building Trades Council and with the Tourism Industry Association.

What is good for Ross River is good for other communities. The government has no excuse for not supporting communities with similar development proposals and training needs. I look forward to a similar announcement about a training trust with the Northern Tutchone Council, which has been seeking government support to meet their training needs and economic development goals.

I also hope that the government will maintain close ties with Yukon College in the planning of training trusts, no matter who is the recipient of the training trust. The college has an important role to play in offering education and training in the communities and it should be involved in this.

Speaker: This then brings us to Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Question re: Northern Network of Services, charges against juveniles

Ms. Commodore: My question is for the Minister responsible for social services. The Minister may recall a couple of years ago when concerns were raised in this House about alleged abuse of children in the Northern Network of Services treatment group home. On March 22 of last year, I asked questions in this House about those concerns and about charges that were rumoured to be laid against those children by authorities in that facility. I was told in a letter dated May 3, 1995, that there had, in fact, been 28 charges laid against seven children in that facility at that time.

It has always been my understanding that these children are in the homes to receive treatment. I now find out that some of them are coming from there with additional criminal records. Can the Minister tell us how these actions help in the treatment and rehabilitation of those children in care?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I have not been briefed on that situation at all. I cannot comment on it until I receive more information, but I will be quite happy to bring the information back to the Member opposite.

Ms. Commodore: It has been almost a year since I received information from the former Minister. I understand this facility is under new management. When the Minister brings back that other information for me, could he inform this House of the results of the 28 charges laid against those children by the people who were looking after them, and if further charges have been laid against them? We are concerned about the care the children receive while they are there. Could the Minister also provide me with that information?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I will bring full and comprehensive information back.

Ms. Commodore: There was a lot of concern about the things that were happening there. I was later told in a letter - I think it was dated May 29, 1995 - that a program was being developed by departmental staff and Northern Network of Services staff on an alternate dispute resolution approach, patterned on the circle, or family, conference model to help resolve matters that might otherwise lead to charges.

At the time the letter was written, this program was being implemented by those groups of people. Has the new approach been successful? Have First Nations people been involved in that approach? I was told they were getting rid of a lot of those cultural programs being used at that time.

Can the Minister provide me with that information? We are concerned. I see the Government Leader has just passed the Minister a note, so we will hear what the Government Leader had to tell him.

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Yes, I will bring the information back to the Member.

Question re: Civil servants, direct approach by politicians

Ms. Commodore: My question is to the same Minister and it is in regard to a computer printout that I received and the subject was responding to calls from Opposition Members' offices. It says, "I want to remind staff that all calls from politicians or their offices should be referred to the Minister's office. This can be done with some discretion, such as taking the name and number of the caller and telling them that you will have someone else call them back. He should let Amar know so that she can pass this information on to the Minister and also let me know so that I can advise Anne. Please advise staff of this direction." It is signed by someone at Juvenile Justice. I want to ask the Minister if he can tell us if this is the normal practice of his department, or does it only apply to specific branches, such as the juvenile justice branch?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: I think that kind of information probably applies to all branches, and it is a policy that I believe was carried out in the past by the previous government and is being carried out now. People are concerned when they get calls directly from politicians who are seeking information. I think it is just common courtesy if the politician has a question that they direct it through the Minister and the Minister can gather the information or put them on to the right person so the information can be made available, but the concern is that -

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Speaker: Order. Please allow the Member to answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Phillips: The concern of some of the employees of the Government of the Yukon is that they are not quite sure of the information that they would release, and so I think the fact of the matter is that it is courtesy to notify the Minister and in most of the cases the calls will be replied to.

Ms. Commodore: Here is an example of common courtesy as the Minister described it. Just before Christmas last year, on December 22, we were contacted by a father about a concern that he had about his child who was in the care of the mother. I, knowing what their policy was, contacted the department to let them know what was happening and, in addition to that, I wrote a letter to the Minister. It was hand delivered to his desk that day and two months later we had not heard a response from the department in regard to a concern about alleged child abuse.

We contacted the Minister's office and we were told that they could not remember the letter. They could not find it and in fact, they did not know where it was. After a further call with a copy of the letter, we were told that, yes, they did have it. It was on a bring-forward file for January 9. By this time it is February 22.

Finally, on I think it was March 11, almost two months later, we received a letter from the department regarding the father's concern. I would like to ask this Minister - I do not want the Minister of the Public Service Commission to tell me - I would like to ask the new Minister if he can assure us that, under his direction, concerns from the Opposition will be dealt with in a more serious and open manner? Can he assure us of that?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: As most people are aware, I worked for the government for better than eight years. The policy has always been that, if an Opposition politician phones a bureaucrat, that bureaucrat will answer the questions raised by the politician if it is strictly information being sought, but under the previous administration the bureaucrats were required to immediately make notes of who called, at what time, what was generally the issue, and pass those details on to the deputy minister for the information of the Minister.

I was unaware of any change in that. There has been no change in policy for the Department of Social Services, as far as I am aware.

Ms. Commodore: I can recall looking at all the election propaganda from that government; it talked about a more open government. I am finding out that it is much more closed.

This Minister is also responsible for other departments right now and I would like to ask him what his policy is in the departments for which he is responsible. I would like to ask him if he thinks his policy with regard to calls from the Opposition is more open than that of the previous Minister of Health and Social Services. It is a concern, not only with us but also of those people who come to us wanting information.

Hon. Mr. Fisher: The issue has not come up since I have taken over Health and Social Services. In my other departments, if, for instance, the Members opposite were to phone Renewable Resources, Economic Development or Health and Social Services, they would be given whatever may be public information. I have never, ever asked for advice from my departments on whether someone has called or has not called. Periodically, I have been told by the deputy minister that so-and-so has called seeking information on such-and-such an issue, but no new policy has been given to any of my departments.

Question re: Braeburn coal-fired electrical generating project

Mr. Cable: I have some questions for the Minister responsible for the Yukon Energy Corporation about the coal-fired generating project at Braeburn.

Yesterday, the Minister of Justice, in speaking to the motion on energy issues, seemed to suggest that it would be necessary to put together a 40-megawatt generating plant in the near future to service new mines. The Minister mentioned the phrase, "40 megawatts," 10 times during the course of a 20-minute speech. Some of the comments were made in the context of a discussion about coal-fired generation. I know the Government Leader said that there have been no commitments made, but for the record, is the government actively considering the construction or promotion of a 40-megawatt coal-fired generating plant?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I believe if the Member was listening to the debate, the Member would have heard not only what the Minister of Justice had to say yesterday, but also what I had to say, and he would have heard that I quite clearly answered the question.

I stated that coal is being explored as an option for future power needs in the Yukon, but we do not know what those future power needs are at this point.

Mr. Cable: I was listening very closely to the debate, and I related back to the Government Leader that I had heard him say there were no commitments made. The Minister of Justice used the words, "40 megawatts," on 10 occasions. That is the reason I brought the subject up. There appeared to have been some decision in the offing.

The Minister of Justice mentioned that there are new mines coming on stream in the near future and there seems to be some sense of urgency expressed in making the decision. What date has been targeted for a decision about whether or not to go ahead with a coal-fired generating plant?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: Again, let me make it quite clear for the Member. There has been no decision made to proceed with a coal-fired generating plant.

The Opposition is trying to relay the message to the public that a decision has been made, but it has not. This government changed the mandate of the Yukon Energy Corporation to allow it to consider coal as an alternate source of energy to create electricity. That is all that has been done to this point.

At some point this summer, as I said in my speech yesterday, the Yukon Energy Corporation will be going before the Yukon Utilities Board with its capital plan for the next two fiscal years. That plan will include what it perceives to be needed for a further supply for the base load, what it would like to work on for grid extensions and all of the different issues that will have to be approved by the Utilities Board before it goes any further.

Mr. Cable: What the Government Leader said was quite clear, but the question I asked him was also quite clear, and that is this: when was the decision date on whether or not to go ahead with the coal-fired generating plant? I did not ask what date it was to be built. The Government Leader can address that, if he chooses.

The rumour mill is now going full blast about who will build this plant if, in fact, it is built. Could the Government Leader tell us, for the record, if there have been any discussions with third parties - non-government organizations of any sort - on the construction of the plant.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: For the third time, there has been no decision made to go ahead with a coal-fired generating plant. How much clearer can I make it?

Question re: Blood bank, trial program

Mr. Harding: I have a question for the Member responsible for the Department of Health and Social Services.

For four months in 1995, I tried unsuccessfully to get the government to help a Faro family deal with a surgeon's recommendation to have whole blood drawn for their daughter's spinal bifida surgery. I was summarily dismissed by the government at each and every turn. I was told that no options existed and that my constituents should simply accept the situation.

Less than a year after we were told that it would never happen, we were shocked to hear that the request the family was refused was granted to a Whitehorse resident. In the name of fairness, why were my constituents refused?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I should thank the Member for the question, because one of the reasons this program is being carried out - on a strictly trial basis at this point - is because of concerns that have been expressed by the Member and other residents of the territory. The program has been initiated by the hospital. Interestingly enough, until very recently, the political people were not even aware that the program had been initiated. It is being carried out on a trial basis, and an evaluation will be done after three or four people have taken advantage of the program.

Mr. Harding: The problem with the political people not being aware is because my correspondence was summarily rejected by the then-Minister of Health and Social Services. He did not even attempt to look into the matter.

On February 13, I wrote, "My other question concerns options. Could the blood not be drawn here and then sent to British Columbia, or does that involve more than I am aware of? If there are potential options such as this, please let me know."

The Minister wrote back to me on February 21, "The option of drawing blood here and sending it to Vancouver was discussed with the hospital and is apparently a non-starter, as the blood would not be kept separate."

My question is this: why were our pleas ignored, and options declared non-starters, and not looked into more thoroughly and communicated to my constituents in that fashion?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: The advice we received from the hospital at the time was that it was a very expensive and difficult program to start in the Yukon. I think that is what was transmitted to the Member opposite. However, because of concern and requests for the program, the hospital has decided to put it in, strictly on a trial basis, to see what the benefits and costs are. We hope it will be affordable and something we can continue.

Mr. Harding: I think this government's response had more to do with politics than with cost, and that is very disappointing and a concern.

Because of this government's lack of fairness in this matter and the refusal to consider options we presented, will the Minister agree to reimburse my constituents for the cost of travelling to Vancouver, so they can donate this money to the B.C. Spina Bifida Association for research? That organization helped my constituents when this government refused. Would that not be fair?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: No, we will not be reimbursing them. As I said before, the program has just started. It is strictly on a trial basis and is administered by the hospital.

Question re: Dawson school, design contract

Mr. Sloan: Yesterday, the Minister responsible for Government Services stated he was unsure why the design of the Dawson elementary school had been awarded to an Alberta company that had previously been sued by the government for shoddy work.

I have since been informed that two local firms had submitted lower bids on this contract. Given the fact that there were two lower local bids, and one firm appealed this decision, why did the Minister not know about this contract, when there was such controversy surrounding it?

Hon. Mr. Nordling: I am not sure. It never got to my level. Neither of the local firms approached me with concern over this.

My understanding is that the Alberta firm of Wood, O'Neill and O'Neill had the highest rating, slightly higher than Florian Maurer Architect Ltd., although that firm has worked for us before. The fee component was 25 percent for the total cost; 20 percent being fees and five percent for disbursements. In that area, I was told that Wood and O'Neill's fee was $240,000, while Florian Maurer's was $245,900.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Nordling: I did not hear the Leader of the Official Opposition, so I will sit down and let him ask the question.

Mr. Sloan: As I pointed out yesterday, the initiative of the Yukon Party in its four-year plan was to, "give Yukon contractors a preference when bidding on government contracts". However, a local firm submitted a design contract for the Dawson elementary school and was denied it. When I take a look at some of the elements in the evaluation criteria for contracts, I notice that there are such elements there as past performance on commissions with YTG and local knowledge and accessibility.

I wonder if the Minister can give us some kind of assurance that his government will live up to its election promises and address the issues on which they were elected.

Hon. Mr. Nordling: Absolutely, and that is the component where the local firms should score higher than any outside firm - on local knowledge and accessibility. That is a criteria that has been put into evaluations specifically to assist the local firms.

Mr. Sloan: Yesterday, the Minister expressed his desire to help local architectural and construction companies survive, as he put it. I have given the Minister one example of where this has not been occurring and, by my estimate, since 1994, over $1 million has been given to outside companies in terms of design and architectural contracts.

I am wondering if the Minister would acknowledge that there are indeed serious flaws in this whole concept of proposal evaluations if outside firms continue to receive contracts at this rate, while local firms are bypassed.

Hon. Mr. Nordling: As I answered yesterday, we are helping the local firms with that evaluation criteria. If they come to us and say that they cannot afford to compete with outside firms that can undercut them, perhaps there is something more that we can add or do for them, but my information is that the local accessibility and local knowledge does give them an advantage.

With respect to the Dawson school, this contract was awarded last August. If there was concern about a local firm not getting it, it is a shame that I did not get to look into it or do something about it sooner than this.

Question re: Social assistance, fraud investigations

Mrs. Firth: I, too, have a question about fairness and equal treatment of Yukoners. My question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Department of Health and Social Services.

The previous Minister revealed in debate that a social services fraud investigator was being hired by some special arrangement that had been made through the RCMP. He told us that they explored the possibility of a secondment from the RCMP and that that did not work out, but that the department was advised that an individual was retiring. The department interviewed that person and was prepared to hire him by the end of March or early April.

I would like to ask the Minister if this person has been given this job and has been hired.

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Not at this time.

Mrs. Firth: We raised concerns about the fairness of the process. We felt that it should go through the Public Service Commission and that the job be advertised, so that all Yukoners and all retiring RCMP could have a fair and equal opportunity to apply for the job. I would like to ask this Minister if he agrees with that and if he will be using that more suitable hiring practice?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: My understanding is that the Public Service Commission is involved in the hiring of a fraud investigator. To what extent, I am not sure.

Mrs. Firth: The previous Minister said that the Public Service Commission would be approving the job once it went through the process, and that there was an appeal process involved. This means that the Public Service Commission will be involved after the job is filled.

I would like to ask the Minister to give this House a commitment today that he will advertise the job through the Public Service Commission, so that it is not a special arrangement and so that an equal and fair opportunity will be provided to all persons interested. Will he make the commitment today to advertise this job in a fair manner, rather than in some special way?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: The Public Service Commission is involved in the hiring of this position. To what extent I am not certain, but I will ensure that it is a fair process. Other than that, I cannot make any further commitments.

Question re: Students Financial Assistance Act, proposed amendments

Ms. Moorcroft: I have a question for the Minister of Education who has been a part of what the Government Leader calls a small, close-knit group around the Cabinet table for the last two years.

Why does the Minister of Education not know what is controversial about the government's proposed amendments to the Students Financial Assistance Act?

Hon. Mr. Nordling: The document tabled by the Member was not a Cabinet document and it was not discussed around the "close-knit" Cabinet table at any time over the last two years.

Ms. Moorcroft: The buck stops there - the Minister is responsible. I might mention that three other pieces of legislation on this calendar are on today's Order Paper.

I would like to ask the Minister if he is going to tell us what the government was considering? Why is the Minister not in charge of his department? What controversial amendments to the Students Financial Assistance Act was the government considering?

Hon. Mr. Nordling: That document, I believe, is dated June 6, 1995. The Member for Faro says, "So what?" I will get to that.

My understanding is that those were proposals from the department. If the Member reads the heading above the comment, it refers to "departmental comments", and that is not something that I did as the Minister of Education, and I do not believe the previous Minister of Education initiated that. That was initiated by the department and were the department's comments.

Ms. Moorcroft: It sure would not be controversial if they were planning to increase student financial assistance. The Minister of Education should know the answer to this question. Why is the Minister not in charge of what is happening here? Why can the Minister not tell us what the controversial amendments are that are being prepared for the Students Financial Assistance Act?

Hon. Mr. Nordling: It is simple. Nothing is happening there.

Speaker: The time for Question Period has now elapsed. We will now proceed with Orders of the Day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

Speaker: It has been moved by the 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.

We will take a brief recess at this time.

Recess

Chair: I will now call Committee of the Whole to Order. We are dealing with Bill No. 73, entitled Taxpayer Protection Act. We are discussing the amendment to clause 3. Is there any further debate on the amendment?

Bill No. 73 - Taxpayer Protection Act - continued

On Clause 3 - continued

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: When we left debate last night we had the Leader of the Official Opposition preaching conservatism to us. It was an eye-opening experience, but let me try to see if I cannot clear up the confusion about why we are not supporting the amendment.

I would also like to try to clear up what I believe to be a misunderstanding by the Leader of the Official Opposition about the interpretation of clause 7. The Leader of the Official Opposition was concerned that if we waited until we came to that clause, we could not do anything about it, so I will try to provide some clarification for the Member.

I will go back to the second amendment put forward by the Member for Riverdale South, which deals with surpluses. It really is not clear to me how the amendments requiring that surplus money be used to pay off debt or to establish a fund of equal to one month's expenditures tied in with the previous amendment, which we had previously discussed and defeated, and which permitted deficits if they were offset by compensating surpluses from the previous fiscal year.

I do not understand that at all. Aside from that issue, if we look at the legislation as drafted by us, it automatically applies to any annual surplus to a reduction of an accumulated deficit and any debt resulting from an accumulated deficit. That is one of the principles of the bill - that annual surpluses are applied to the reduction of an accumulated deficit or debt.

If, for whatever reason, there is an accumulated deficit, and there is a surplus the following year, the first thing to happen is that the accumulated deficit will be automatically reduced by the amount of the surplus. That is one of the principles of the bill.

Since the bill we presented to the Legislature prohibits increasing an accumulated deficit, or it prohibits creating one, no annual surplus can be spent until such time as the accumulated surplus or debt-free state exists. It cannot be done. If an accumulated deficit exists, it must be paid off first. The surplus cannot be used for anything else. That is why we do not understand the amendment.

The annual surplus can only be spent up to the point where a further expenditure would result in an accumulated deficit or debt position. Those are the principles of our bill. With respect to that particular aspect of the Member's amendment, we are in agreement, and it is already covered in the legislation, as it is drafted. Therefore, we do not believe that the amendment is necessary.

It is from that point on, however, that we - on this side of the House - and the Member for Riverdale South begin to drift apart. The Member for Riverdale South wishes to dictate, through this legislation, the manner in which accumulated surpluses are utilized. We, on the other hand, believe that this is a matter that is best left to each Legislature to determine. That is where we start to differ. That would be the explanation for those.

I now would like to turn to clause 7 and see if I can put my interpretation of it on the record for the Leader of the Official Opposition and see if we cannot get some reconciliation on it.

This clause deals with a situation where an accumulated deficit exists. That situation could arise for several reasons. A previous government could have breached the act, gone to the people as is required by the act, and lost the election. Therefore, the new government would inherit an accumulated deficit. Second, a government could have breached the act, gone to the people and won the election. It would then have to live with the accumulated deficit it originally created, in contravention to this legislation. Third, the government could receive permission from the Legislature to go into an accumulated deficit, most likely as the result of some emergency, or, in other words, the Legislature has amended the legislation for that particular instance of deficit financing.

Our legislation requires that the government table a plan to eliminate that deficit. Unlike the Member for Riverdale South, we do not believe that some arbitrary number of years to eliminate that accumulated deficit should be placed on the government.

We chose not to do this. If an accumulated deficit was very large, elimination of it over too short a period of time could have very serious consequences for our economy, for government programs upon which people depend or on our citizens in general. We felt it would be better to deal with each particular instance on its own merits and let the court of public opinion and the Members of this Legislature decide upon the validity of the time period the government is proposing to use to deal with the problem in the plan it lays before the House.

No, there is no penalty in this bill for a government not meeting the goals set out in its deficit-elimination plan. Once again, we feel it is a case where the public will make its feelings known to the government in the normal course of events.

However, the public is protected, in that the government cannot make the accumulated deficit it inherited any worse, and any annual surplus it may incur in the years following will automatically reduce that accumulated deficit. That is one of the principles of the bill I spoke to earlier.

The feeling the Leader of the Official Opposition has with that clause is that, if a government inherited an accumulated deficit and did not eliminate it by the next set of public accounts, it would be forced to call an election. I believe that is the interpretation he laid out in the House last night.

We do not interpret that clause in that way.

As long as the accumulated deficit is not increased, if that deficit is inherited, then one has not created it; a deficit cannot be created twice. If a deficit is inherited, it was already created by the previous administration. It cannot be recreated because it was not dealt with in that year.

So, if it was created previously - and a particular deficit can only be created once - the only thing one is bound not to do is to add to that deficit.

If it would give the Members opposite and the Leader of the Official Opposition any comfort, we could propose an amendment in clause 6, where it says, "If the non-consolidated public accounts laid before the Legislative Assembly or distributed to its Members show that an annual accumulated deficit has been created or increased, the Government Leader must ..." We could change that, deleting the expression, "has been created or increased," and substitute the expression, "has been created or increased as compared to the immediately preceding non-consolidated public accounts". It would be quite clear then that the new administration, if it did not eliminate that deficit in the first year, would not be forced to call an election because it did not create it, and if it did not add to the deficit, it would be in a legal position.

If that would give the Members opposite any comfort, I certainly have no difficulty changing the wording of clause 6 of the bill.

Chair: Order please. I would just like to remind Members that we are dealing with clause 3 and the amendment. I realize there is some overlap and I do not intend to try to limit debate. I would just ask Members if they would please try to deal with the clauses as they show up.

Mr. McDonald: I understand some of the things that the Government Leader is saying, but not others. First of all, I would just like to say that the Government Leader, in his closing remarks last night, said that no one could ever accuse me of being a conservative. I would just like to say that that is just about the nicest thing the Government Leader has ever said about me. I would like to thank him for that and I will return the favour by saying that, based on the act, he is not really, a truly conservative person himself. Since we are both exchanging compliments, I just thought I would do my part. From an ideological perspective, saying that someone is not a conservative is in fact a compliment.

I understand what the Government Leader is saying about the principle of the bill being that there should not be an accumulated deficit; that it is simply not allowed. As we of course know, accumulated deficits will take place as long as departments make commitments, or they might take place as long as departments make commitments beyond the available funds that the government has under its control. We can outlaw it, but it does not necessarily mean that it will not happen.

The question is, what happens when it does happen? I was making a point from what I thought to be a conservative perspective. What would the government do if it did have a surplus? Would it apply it, from a conservative's perspective, first to paying off the accumulated debt? If it did have an annual surplus, would it simply sit on it or use it for something else or would they pay off the debt?

I thought that that would be what a conservative would say and that is what I expected to hear from the government. In the context of this amendment, I expected to at least hear a measure of support in principle for this amendment. I was surprised that I did not.

I understand what the principle says. It is not a very long act. I have read through the act many times, trying to get a new appreciation for how things might work. I still do not see how it is automatic that the payment of an accumulated deficit is the number-one priority.

I think the amendment does make it clear that paying off the debt is the number-one priority. I am still not clear about this, and maybe the Minister might want to enlighten the Conservatives, together with all of the people who are acting for the conservative conscience in the Legislature.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: In my opinion, the Member opposite is mistaken, because that is the way the accounting system works. If you are carrying an accumulated deficit and during the next fiscal year there is an accumulated surplus, you cannot have both an accumulated surplus and an accumulated deficit.

The accumulated surplus automatically applies to accumulated deficit, and vice versa. That is the way the books are kept. It is automatic; we do not need the amendment.

Mr. McDonald: So the Minister is saying that there is no such thing as an annual surplus if there is an accumulated debt - is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: Essentially, if one was in an accumulated surplus position, one would have no debt. That is what I am saying.

Mr. McDonald: No, I said that there is no such thing as an annual surplus if you have an accumulated debt - is that right?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: The Member opposite is correct.

Mrs. Firth: The Minister seems to have the impression that the clause with respect to surpluses is me dictating something. I just want to point out to the Minister that it is far from dictating anything, other than protecting the taxpayer, which is what this bill is supposed to be doing.

The first clause - the Minister is right - does what his bill is supposed to do. We agree with that. The second clause does what his bill is supposed to do. We can agree with that, too. The third clause gives some direction with respect to what should be done with the surpluses, and that was the question that the Minister asked us in our discussions. What does one do if surpluses just keep building and building?

I tried to provide some constructive advice with respect to what one should do with the surpluses. One of the initiatives that has been of particular interest to many of the Yukoners I have talked to - those who had to bear the brunt of the tax increases - was that the tax increases should be turned back to the people, so that the money would be put back in the hands of the people and would be spent by people, rather than being taken away by the government to be spent on their behalf.

The fourth part of the amendment is far from dictatorial, because it allows Yukoners to have some input into how their surpluses are spent - on highways, schools, Beringia centres, visitor reception centres, or whatever. There are all kinds of opportunities for Yukoners to become involved in the decision making. I know that Alberta is doing that with some of the surpluses it is fortunate to have.

I am not dictating anything. I am simply making some suggestions in the form of an amendment, which I think are good suggestions. I understand that the Minister of Finance - the Government Leader - is saying that the government is not prepared to accept any of the amendments, so we may as well vote on it.

Mr. Harding: I would be remiss if I did not enter into this debate.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Harding: Actually I said it would be remiss, but that went over the top of the Minister of Justice's head, which is not that hard to do.

Part of the reason I became a Yukon New Democrat was the storied fiscal record the New Democrats had. It was exemplary, in terms of balanced budgets and no tax increases. Being somewhat fiscally conservative, I felt that was the party for me. That decision I made way-back-when has been reinforced by the record I have seen of the Yukon Party government, where we have seen major tax-and-spend initiatives brought forth by the government - bigger budgets every year and bigger spending. We saw the obscene, record tax increases that the Yukon public was told it would never see. However, just after the Yukon Party was elected, its true philosophical tendency toward taxes, much the same as the Mulroney administration, came forward and we got big tax increases from the so-called conservatives.

It has been refreshing, at least in this House, to bring the debate full circle and hear a little bit of true conservatism. Unfortunately, it is all from the Opposition benches. It has been comforting to me to know that true conservatism is still alive here today in the Yukon Territory. Unfortunately, it always has to come from the Member for Riverdale South, not the Yukon Party government.

That makes our task more difficult. When Members opposite are speaking about their particular brand of conservatism, they usually put forward what we like to refer to as a moving target. They often talk the talk but rarely walk the walk.

When one actually measures the rhetoric about spending and taxation with the actions, we see that not only has it been the biggest spending government in Yukon history, but it has also been the biggest taxing government in Yukon history.

It is about time someone called a spade a spade. As a fiscally conservative New Democrat, I am absolutely amazed that this government would put this kind of surplus-building and spend-spend-spend philosophy forward. I thought it would have accepted the philosophy of this amendment, which I believe is a conservative-type initiative and a conservative-type amendment.

That, of course, is to make the issue of accumulated debt pay-down the first priority. Once that is accomplished, if surpluses are built, then indeed the tax increases would be returned to the citizens of the Yukon. The Yukon Party ripped it right out of the pockets of Joe and Mary Yukoner in 1993 and have reaped a windfall from the good, hard work of Yukoners. I would have thought that the government would have been prepared to start to pay it back - once a surplus was built up - as good conservatives would do. Again, I am perplexed by the rhetoric from the government in this symbolic, so-called, self-professed, right-wing bill, and I am perplexed as to why they would not be prepared to accept this amendment.

I will just say that I think that good, true conservatives would have accepted this amendment. It is disturbing and confusing at times to hear the rhetoric from the Members opposite and not see it matched by the actions. Often, we have to hear the true conservatism from the Opposition side of the Legislature, and that is a pity.

Chair: Are you prepared for the question on the amendment?

Division

Chair: Division has been called.

All those in favour of the amendment, please rise.

Members rise

Chair: All those opposed, please rise.

Members rise

Chair: For clarification, would all those who are opposed to the amendment please stand.

Members rise

Chair: The disagreeds have it and the amendment is defeated.

Amendment to Clause 3 negatived

Clause 3 agreed to without amendment

On Clause 4

Clause 4 agreed to

On Clause 5

Amendment proposed

Mrs. Firth: I move

THAT Bill No. 73, entitled Taxpayer Protection Act, be amended in clause 5 at page 3 by deleting the words "an accumulated deficit or an increase in it or would be one if a proposed appropriation is made", and substituting the following: "a deficit or an allowable deficit".

Chair: It has been moved by the Member for Riverdale South

Mrs. Firth: That, again, is just a clarification of the definitions.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: We cannot support that amendment because it accommodates the prohibition against annual deficits, and therefore we disagree with it, since it is the accumulated deficits that we believe must be contained.

Mrs. Firth: I just want to point out again the difference between the side opposite and me, which is that I do not believe in deficits but the side opposite does.

Amendment to Clause 5 negatived

Clause 5 agreed to without amendment

On Clause 6

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: This is the one about which I was saying that I am quite prepared to give more comfort to the Leader of the Official Opposition. I will propose an amendment.

Amendment proposed

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I move

THAT No. 73, entitled Taxpayer Protection Act, be amended in clause 6 by deleting the expression "has been created or increased" and substituting for it the expression "has been created or increased, as compared to the immediately preceding non-consolidated public accounts".

I will have a further amendment later.

Chair: It has been moved by the Hon. John Ostashek

THAT Bill No. 73, entitled Taxpayer Protection Act, be amended in clause 6 by deleting the expression "has been created or increased" and substituting for it the expression "has been created or increased, as compared to the immediately preceding non-consolidated public accounts".

Is there any debate on the amendment?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: This would like to make it explicitly clear that the new government is not responsible for the deficit that was created by the previous administration. If it does not eliminate the deficit by the end of the fiscal year, it would not be forced into an election.

Mr. McDonald: Was the Minister providing an explanation for the second amendment that he is going to give?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I may have been speaking to the second amendment. What this one will do is clarify the wording. The copies are being made right now.

Clause 6 will now read, "if the non-consolidated public accounts laid before the Legislative Assembly or distributed to its Members show that an accumulated deficit has been created or increased, as compared to the immediately preceding non-consolidated public accounts, the Government Leader must then..." and so on. The heading on that will indicate that there is an exemption for the new government coming in.

It clarifies when a government must call an election.

Mr. McDonald: The Minister was saying in his explanation that this amendment he is moving now makes reference to not increasing the debt, and that the next amendment will refer to not affecting new governments for the actions of old governments - is that right?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: That is correct and I will distribute that amendment now so the Members will have it when we get to it.

Chair: Is there any further debate on the amendment to clause 6?

Amendment to Clause 6 agreed to

Amendment proposed

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I have a further amendment, which I will read. I move

THAT Bill No. 73, entitled Taxpayer Protection Act, be amended in clause 6 at page 3 by adding the following new subsection:

"6.(2) The Government Leader does not have to comply with subsection (1) if the accumulated deficit was created or increased in a fiscal year in which neither the Government Leader nor any member of his or her Executive Council was a member of the Executive Council."

Chair: It has been moved by the Government Leader that Bill No. 73, entitled Taxpayer Protection Act, be amended in clause 6 at page 3 by adding the following new subsection:

Mr. McDonald: For clarification - Members on the other side were asking for a question, so I will ask a question.

In the event that an election is called, say at the beginning of March, one month before the end of the fiscal year, there is a change in government, a new Cabinet is sworn in on March 20. They serve in Cabinet for 11 days - they are Members of Cabinet for 10 days, technically at least - during which time a deficit is created. The clause would still kick in and an election would have to be called. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: The clauses would kick in, but we would expect that, in that circumstance, the government would come forward with an amendment for a one-time exemption to the bill.

Mr. Cable: I wonder if the Government Leader would cast his mind to a minority government situation, where a government could be brought down coming before the House for an exemption, having virtually no responsibility for the deficit. Does the Government Leader not see the danger in that sort of situation?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: Yes, but a minority government can be brought down at any time.

Chair: Are you prepared for the question on the amendment?

Amendment to Clause 6 agreed to

Chair: We are still dealing with clause 6.

Amendment proposed

Mrs. Firth: I move

THAT Bill No. 73, entitled Taxpayer Protection Act, be amended in clause 6 at page 3 by deleting clause 6, and substituting the following:

"Consequences of Allowing a Deficit

6. If the non-consolidated public accounts laid before the Legislative Assembly or distributed to its members show that a deficit has resulted from government spending, except as specifically allowed by a 75 percent majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly, the Government Leader must impose penalties on all members of the Executive Council for the fiscal year in which the contravention of this Act occurred."

Chair: It has been moved by the Member for Riverdale South that Bill No. 73, entitled Taxpayer Protection Act, be amended in clause 6 at page 3 by deleting clause 6, and substituting the following:

"Consequences of Allowing a Deficit

Mrs. Firth: This amendment places direct responsibility on the individuals who are supposed to be held publicly accountable for their budgets. The Minister of Finance maintains that there is a harsher action to be taken, which is the election - an election is harsher than imposing penalties on individuals.

We have found over the years that there is one group of individuals that the public has no way of holding publicly accountable. That group is the deputy ministers who are drawing up the budgets and advising the Ministers. It is the Minister who has to be held accountable for the deputy minister's actions.

The reason I want to see this amendment in place, putting direct responsibility on the Ministers is so that they will hold their deputy ministers accountable.

I have a great deal of concern about comments that the Minister of Finance has been making in this House regarding weakening or reducing the accountability that deputy ministers already have under the Financial Administration Act. I see the government, particularly at the political level, very definitely moving away from requiring accountability of the deputy ministers who are charged with the responsibility of bringing balanced budgets to them. We have had some incidences where the Auditor General has reported that there were illegal expenditures, we have supplementary budgets of varying amounts, and we should be tightening this up, rather that loosening it.

That is why I brought forward this amendment.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I appreciate the Member's concern. When she talks about direct responsibility, I do not think there could be a greater direct responsibility than having to go to the people. That is the Member over there who believes in recall, and I say this is a form of recall. If one creates a debt, one goes to the people.

As for the accountability of deputy ministers, if a deputy minister knows his or her Minister is going to be fined, one can rest assured that that deputy minister is going to put enough padding into that department so that it will not happen. It would create an atmosphere and an environment where there would be padding of budgets without trying to be reasonable and rational in one's spending. We believe that, by the government having to go to the people, it will keep the government acting more responsible and keeping its finger on the pulse a lot closer than it would in any other circumstance.

The other difficulty we have is apportioning fines to Ministers who may not bear much of the responsibility.

If one changes the Minister, as the Leader of the Official Opposition said, when a government changes in the last couple of weeks of the fiscal year, I do not think a Legislature would be so harsh on a new government coming in when there would be no reasonable grounds to believe it caused the deficit. However, if we are going to fine the Minister, we may have a Minister who changed portfolios in January or February, found his predecessor had been very slack in his control of the finances, and there was a tremendous deficit in the department. The new Minister would then work very hard to reduce that deficit before the end of the fiscal year. Then, if he could not get rid of it all, he would then be fined for his efforts. I do not think that is fair.

When we looked at all the other situations and legislation in Canada, and we felt this was the fairest way to deal with it. If there is a deficit, the first step is that the government has to come to the Legislature and ask for a one-time exclusion from the act or go to the people. There are no other choices. That keeps the loopholes to a minimum. We believe this is workable and worth a try.

Mrs. Firth: The whole argument the Minister of Finance has been putting forward reinforces my claim that we should have some penalties. He has just made about four different excuses as to why we should not hold the Ministers accountable. He is saying he did not say that, but he did. He went on about some bad Minister making a deficit, and a new guy coming in.

Someone has to be held accountable. I think the individuals should be personally held accountable, as well as the whole government.

There are a lot of jurisdictions that have formulas in place for penalties for individual Ministers. Manitoba has one that the Canadian Taxpayers Federation keeps referring to. It has a percentage system in place - 20 percent for the first year and 40 percent for the second. As for the Minister of Finance's argument about padding the budget, or whatever he said, his whole budget has a contingency fund built into it. What is that, if not a form of padding?

This has been an issue ever since I have been a Member of this Legislature. The whole question of doing estimates has been an issue in this Legislature - the amounts of money, the lapsed funds, the money predicted for budgets and budget estimates not being accurate. This question has been raised by this group of people when Members of the Opposition, and this group should still be raising it as Members of government. It is not. The government has not done anything to tighten it up.

I remember them as Opposition Members, criticizing the previous government about its sloppy estimates. They have not improved. Someone has to be accountable for that. When the time comes that the taxpayer is being asked to pick up the tab for it, I think the responsibility lies personally with the Ministers.

I feel very strongly about this amendment. I believe a lot of people in the public do, too. A lot of people in the business community also feel very strongly about it. As business people, they know where the buck stops. They know who has to be held responsible and accountable.

That is my position on the issue; it is unfortunate that the government disagrees with me.

Mr. McDonald: I have a couple of questions. Again, the government backbenchers have been asking us to ask questions.

First of all, the Minister has indicated that deputies and Ministers will pad their budgets if there is a penalty that involves pay cuts. He is presuming, then, that they would not pad their budgets if the penalty is a general election. Is that the basic proposition?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I would think that there would be less tendency to do it that way, because they would have to go to the people. That is the biggest penalty one could impose. We are talking about a $1,000 fine for every $1 million over the budget. In Manitoba, the penalty is 20 percent of the Minister's salary. In the Yukon, the Minister's salary is $20,000. That is what the Member opposite is proposing.

In the interest of simplicity, more than anything else, and in order to have a penalty that really has some teeth, we felt that this was the way to go.

Mr. McDonald: I am just trying to get a hold of this padding argument idea. The Minister is arguing that the penalties that he is imposing are, in fact, not only simpler but also more severe than a simple pay cut. Why would the departments not want to pad to avoid a penalty that is more severe, but would pad to avoid a penalty that is less severe?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: Well, I guess Members opposite would not want one of their Ministers to be held responsible for having to pay fines out of general revenues, although the clause says all Members of the Legislature would have to pay fines. Maybe, even with this legislation, they will pad budgets. I do not know, but I think it would be more controllable.

Mr. McDonald: I would like to ask the Minister about a possible scenario. If the government draws down the finances of the territory very close to the line before to an election, what happens if a single deputy Minister overspends his or her department and causes an accumulated deficit? In that particular case, a single deputy would cause the government to call an election. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: The Member is correct.

Mrs. Firth: The question to be asked is what happens to that deputy minister?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I do not think that question needs to be asked.

Chair: Are you prepared for the question on the amendment?

Some Hon. Members: Agree.

Some Hon. Member: Disagree.

Some Hon. Member: Division.

Chair: Division has been called.

Division

Chair: All those in favour, please rise.

Members rise

Chair: All those opposed, please rise.

Members rise

Amendment to Clause 6 negatived

Chair: Is there any further debate on clause 6 as amended?

Amendment proposed

Mrs. Firth: I move that Bill No. 73, entitled Taxpayer Protection Act, be amended in clause 6, at page 3 by adding the following new clause:

"Penalties

"6.1(1) If at the end of any fiscal year the government is in contravention of this Act, or any part thereof, the amount payable to each member of the Executive Council who formed part of the government which is in contravention and who is still part of that government, as remuneration for services as a member of the 12 month period immediately following publication of the non-consolidated public accounts for which the contravention relates, shall be reduced by $1,000 for every $1 million, or portion thereof that the non-consolidated public accounts show that government spending expenditures exceeded revenues.

"(2) If at the end of any fiscal year the government is in contravention of this Act, or any part thereof, the amount payable to the Government Leader, who formed part of the government which is in contravention and who is still part of that government, as remuneration for service as the Government Leader for the 12 month period immediately following publication of the audited non-consolidated public accounts for which the contravention relates, shall be reduced by $2,000 for every one million dollars, or portion thereof that the non-consolidated public accounts show that government spending expenditures exceeded revenues.

"(3) If the members of the Executive Council or the Government Leader who formed the government when the contravention took place, are no longer members of the government, each shall pay a fine to the Consolidated General Revenues which is equivalent to $1,000 for every one million dollars, or portion thereof that the non-consolidated public accounts show that government spending expenditures exceeded revenues.

"(4) The government shall not issue any order in council or present any bill to the Legislative Assembly that increases the remuneration for service for members of the Executive Council or for members of the Legislative Assembly while the government is in contravention of this Act."

Chair: May I ask if it is acceptable to have this deemed as read?

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.

Chair: We will deem that as being read. Is there any debate on the amendment?

Mrs. Firth: This answers the Minister of Finance's question about what happens if someone is no longer in office. It lists very specific penalties and fines for Ministers who allow their deputy ministers to go over their budgets.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: We have already stated in the previous amendment that we disagree with the principle, so we will be disagreeing with this amendment also.

Chair: Are you prepared for the question on the amendment?

Amendment negatived

Chair: Are you prepared for the question on clause 6 as amended?

Some Hon. Members: Division.

Chair: Division has been called.

Division

Chair:

For clarification, we are voting on clause 6 as amended. All those in favour, please rise.

Members rise

Chair: All those opposed, please rise.

Members rise

Speaker's casting vote

Chair: The results are eight yea, eight nay.

Beauchesne states that, in the case of an equality of votes, the Chair shall give a casting vote. In general, the principle to be applied to bills is that the bill should be left in its existing form. It is therefore my duty to vote for the clause as amended, and I declare the clause carried.

Clause 6 agreed to as amended

On Clause 7

Mr. McDonald: What does the Government Leader have in mind when he talks about developing a plan for limiting the deficit? How would the plan be presented and what kind of format would it take? What is the Government Leader talking about?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: The way we visualize it is that this plan would be presented with the budget and, depending upon the size of the deficit, it would state the period of time over which it would be eliminated.

The Minister of Finance must present with those accounts a plan for eliminating the deficit. So, when the accounts are tabled in the Legislature, tabled with them will be a plan for eliminating the deficit over the next year or the next two years or whatever method was chosen to eliminate the deficit. That is what we would consider a plan. `

Mr. McDonald: In terms of making an imperative that the deficit be eliminated, I understand what the Minister said before about surpluses applying to the debt. In terms of making room, of clearing out expenditures so there is room to pay down the debt, is no one making a statement about making the debt recovery a priority?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: One could, and if the government thought it necessary, one could even go so far as to say where one hoped to derive the surpluses to pay down the debt.

Mr. McDonald: The government does not want to make any statement in the legislation about the priority. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: We will leave that to the government of the day.

Clause 7 agreed to

On Clause 8

Amendment proposed

Mrs. Firth: I move

THAT Bill No. 73, entitled Taxpayer Protection Act, be amended in clause 8 at page 4 by adding, in subsection (1), after the words "or Fuel Tax Act", the following: "or any other act that allows for the collection of taxes".

Chair: It has been moved by the Member for Riverdale South

Is there any debate on the amendment?

Mrs. Firth: This amendment was brought forward because I did not want to exclude any taxes, as the government is excluding. Again, it is the government's form of selective direct democracy. It wants Yukoners to participate in referendums in the slimmest possible way, as opposed to participating in as great a way as they can.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I have already stated that we disagree with the position put forward by the Member for Riverdale South. I understand what she is doing with the amendment, but we covered new taxes - any government who wanted to impose a sales tax would have to go to the people.

We have covered the taxes that are the revenue generators for the government - income taxes and fuel taxes are the largest revenue generators. We feel that this is adequate protection for the taxpayer.

Amendment to Clause 8 negatived

Chair:

Is there any further debate on clause 8?

Amendment proposed

Mrs. Firth: I move

THAT Bill No. 73, entitled Taxpayer Protection Act, be amended in clause 8 at page 4 by adding the following new subsection:

"8. (2.1) The Government of the Yukon shall not increase fees, or any other non-tax revenue measure unless:

"(a) the increase does not exceed the cumulative increase in the consumer price index since the last increase, or

"(b) the increase receives unanimous approval from a Standing Committee of the Legislative Assembly, which consists of at least one member of each recognized political party in the Legislative Assembly, or

"(c) the increase is approved by a majority of the votes cast in a Territory-wide referendum."

Chair: For clarification, we have moved to subsection 8(2).

It has been moved by the Member for Riverdale South that Bill No. 73, entitled Taxpayer Protection Act, be amended in clause 8, at page 4, by adding the following new subsection:

"8.(2.1) The Government of the Yukon shall not increase fees, or any other non-tax revenue measures unless:

(a) the increase does not exceed the cumulative increase in the consumer price index since the last increase, or

(b) the increase receives unanimous approval from a Standing Committee of the Legislative Assembly, which consists of at least one member of each recognized political party in the Legislative Assembly, or

Mrs. Firth: The Minister of Finance indicated in his comments during general debate that he thought this particular amendment is overkill. I do not agree with that all. Governments are notorious for increasing licence fees and using the concept of user-pay fees in order to raise extra revenues. It is generally referred to as a form of hidden taxation.

If people in the Yukon are going to be asked through a referendum if they want tax increases, I think they should be asked about all tax increases - and about hidden tax increases. as well.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I appreciate where the Member is coming from and what her concern is, but we disagree with her. In practical terms, licence fees and other fees imposed by government are supposed to have some bearing in relation to the cost of providing that service. In many instances, fees by government sit for many years and are never updated. At some point, they have to be updated, and that is why I believe that it is overkill to have to obtain referendum approval to bring them all up to date and to competitive levels. I simply do not agree with the philosophy of the Member on this one, and we will be voting against it.

Mrs. Firth: I understand that it is related to cost increases, and I understand that they have to be updated. I think Yukoners would understand that, too, and is something that could be presented to them in the form of a referendum. I do not think it is overkill at all. I think Yukoners can be provided with the information, so that they can make an informed decision on the issue and participate in this form of direct participatory democracy.

Chair: Is there any further debate on the amendment?

Mr. McDonald: I would like to ask the Minister whether or not he regards medicare premiums as being a fee or a tax.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: We do not have any. That is a good question. We have never thought about bringing the premiums back in, so how they are viewed in other jurisdictions is not something we considered. They are viewed as being a fee and not a tax. I do not know how the Government of Yukon would view them. I really have not thought about it.

Mr. McDonald: Obviously, I can appreciate the Minister perhaps not knowing yet, but it would be helpful if he could ask the Department of Finance how it would be regarded, in the context of this bill - to know whether or not a government feels that it could increase fees without the use of a referendum, if the fee were medicare premiums. How did the government regard this in the past, when there were medicare premiums?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: Our officials would regard it as a fee, but we have not thought about it at the political level at all.

Mrs. Firth: I would like to ask the Minister of Finance what his position is regarding medicare premiums. Does he agree that people of the Yukon should pay medicare premiums?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: We are quite satisfied with the way the situation is now. It is paid out of general revenues. We feel that, in a society as small as ours is up here, with the unions, the employer ends up paying the major portion of the premium for the employee anyway, so the way things are now is a far more equitable playing field than if medical premiums were instituted again.

Let me be quite honest with the Legislature: when we were looking at the requirement to raise taxes, we certainly looked at whether or not we wanted to implement medicare premiums again, but we just felt that it was inequitable.

Mrs. Firth: What would the Minister's position be regarding a new system of medicare premiums where it was not inequitable, where each and every Yukoner was required to pay a medicare premium unless they were financially unable to, when assistance would have to be given? I am not satisfied with the system where the employer pays or the union or whoever pays. What is his position with respect to Yukoners taking some responsibility for their medical health care and having a new system in place where each person would be required to pay? Does he support that?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: It is purely hypothetical, because these are issues that are negotiated in the collective bargaining process. They are incorporated in the collective bargaining process right now, even though we are not paying them. I believe if the premiums came in, the government would have to pay on behalf of their employees and it would not be a level playing field. It is a hypothetical situation right now and I would not respond to it.

Mrs. Firth: Perhaps the Minister would respond in a philosophical sense. What is his party's position with respect to medicare premiums?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: We are quite happy with the way they are now.

Mrs. Firth: What the Minister is saying is that the Yukon Party does not believe in paying medicare premiums, which is a position consistent with the Liberals and the New Democrats. I am certainly not embarrassed as a conservative to stand up here today and say that I support Yukoners paying medicare premiums.

I would like to ask the Minister of Finance this question: is he prepared to put the question with respect to whether or not Yukoners should be paying medicare premiums in the form of a referendum?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: No, I am not.

Mrs. Firth: It is clear on the record that the Government Leader, the Minister responsible for Finance, does not want to know what Yukoners' opinions are with respect to the whole issue of medicare premiums. I think it is an issue that should be researched. I think it is a question that should be put to Yukoners. I think the government may find that it would be very surprised with the answer it may get.

Amendment negatived

Chair: We are now on subsection 8(6).

Amendment proposed

Mrs. Firth: I move

THAT Bill No. 73, entitled Taxpayer Protection Act, be amended in clause 8 at page 5 by deleting subsection (6) and substituting the following:

"(6) When the referendum has been held, proceeding with a Bill referred to in subsection (1) may take place only when approval of the imposition of the new tax or increase in the rate of tax is given by a simple majority of the votes cast at the referendum."

Chair: It has been moved by the Member for Riverdale South

THAT Bill No. 73, entitled Taxpayer Protection Act, be amended in clause 8 at page 5 by deleting subsection (6) and substituting the following:

Mrs. Firth: I have heard a lot of points of view expressed to me about this particular clause and a lot of support indicated for this amendment to clause 8. The Minister of Finance stood up and made some comments about the Municipal Act, and in fact I read the clause from that act, which also required that a simple majority of votes be cast, so I am not sure what municipal act he keeps making reference to.

With the way the government has worded the clause, if 50 percent plus one of the people do not go out to vote, the government essentially gets to do whatever it wants to do, and I do not think that is right. It completely takes away or negates the whole concept of having a referendum. A referendum means going out to the people to seek their opinion. If it is just a certain percentage of people who participate, their opinion should at least be valued, but this government is saying no, it will not be, and that unless 50 percent plus one of the people go out to vote, the government will move on and do whatever it wants to do. I do not agree with that. It should be decided by a simple majority of the votes cast at the referendum.

This was also a point that was raised by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, when it recommended to the government that it have a lower threshold for the rejection of a new tax or tax increase. That is a widely supported principle.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: The Member opposite is aware that this government disagrees with her position on the bill. It is not a matter of the government just going ahead and doing what it wants. This government does not believe that a minority should carry the day. There may be many people who are indifferent to a tax increase and will not bother to come out and vote "yes" in support of an increase.

This government believes it is giving people the opportunity. If they feel strongly that taxes ought not to be increased, then they should exercise their democratic right by coming out to the ballot box and casting a vote. The government cannot support the amendment.

Mrs. Firth: I find it quite interesting that the government is putting its own spin on what it would analyze or draw a conclusion from as to what would be support for its initiative.

If 49 percent of the people went out to vote, I would think that would be a very strong indication about what people want. This government is saying it would not accept that, and I do not agree with that; I think it should be by a simple majority of the votes cast at the referendum.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I think the Member opposite is putting her own spin on it. What happens if only 20 percent of the people turn out to vote?

Mrs. Firth: As the government offers in its defence, I do not think that would happen. The Government Leader seems to have this concern that there is a silent majority that is in favour of tax increases - I fail to see that silent majority. I think people would come out to vote on this issue. I think it is a given, and I cannot understand why the government does not seem to think that over 50 percent of the people would come out to vote on the issue.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: If the Member feels it is a given, then there is no debate, and it would be defeated if people felt that strongly.

Mrs. Firth: Why does the government not support the principle of the simple majority of votes?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: We have quite clearly laid out our position on this matter, and we and the Member opposite are going to differ on it.

Amendment to Clause 8 negatived

Mr. McDonald: I would like to ask the Government Leader what would happen, in clause 8(7), if the cost of conducting a referendum would cause the government to move into an accumulated deficit situation.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I would suspect that the government would not bother to call a referendum.

Amendment proposed

Mr. Cable: I move

THAT Bill No. 73, entitled Taxpayer Protection Act, be amended in clause 8 at page 5 by adding a new subsection (8) as follows:

"(8) Prior to the conducting of any such referendum, the Government shall first fully inform the electors of the consequences of rejecting any such Bill, and the specific programs, services and capital projects that will be cut or reduced thereby, together with the specific amount of such a cut or reduction."

Chair: It has been moved by the Member for Riverside

THAT Bill No. 73, entitled Taxpayer Protection Act, be amended in clause 8, at page 5, by adding a new subsection (8) as follows:

Is there any debate on the amendment?

Mr. Cable: The bill, as presented by the government, could be construed as setting up a yes-no type of referendum where the voters do not really have a full snapshot of both sides of the income statement. While I have considerable reservations relating to the tax referendum provision generally, I think it useful to get any improvements that can be obtained in this provision because I think it is fairly obvious that the bill is likely to pass. I put this amendment forward in that spirit. I think, in a small way, this will introduce to the voters the consequences of voting no.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: As I stated in general debate, we do not have difficulty with this and we will be supporting this amendment.

Amendment agreed to

Clause 8 agreed to as amended

Amendment proposed

Mrs. Firth: I move

THAT Bill No. 73, entitled Taxpayer Protection Act, be amended by adding after clause 8 at page 5 the following new clause:

"Amendment or Repeal

9. Upon coming into force, the government shall not introduce any Bill to the Legislative Assembly that amends or repeals this Act unless the government first puts the question on the advisability of proceeding with said amendment or repeal to the electors in a Territory-wide referendum, and the further actions of the government shall be determined as indicated by the majority of the votes cast at the referendum."

Chair: It has been m

oved by the Member for Riverdale South that Bill No. 73, entitled Taxpayer Protection Act, be amended by adding after clause 8 at page 5 the following new clause:

"Amendment or Repeal

Mrs. Firth: This simply says that if the government feels it has such a great bill, it would like to see that bill stay as part of the laws of the Yukon, and that the only way it can be removed is to have Yukoners make that decision. Again, it would be by the majority of votes cast at the referendum.

If there are going to be any changes to the bill, I think my preference would be that Yukoners, if they are the ones who are supposed to be protected by this Taxpayer Protection Act, should be the ones making a decision about whether or not the bill is changed, amended or remains as it is.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I can sympathize with the Member opposite and could probably agree with her in principle, but the way that our bill is drafted it would be totally unworkable. It is our feeling on this matter that it is this Legislature that is passing the law and therefore it should be this Legislature that amends the act.

Should any government try to amend this act in some devious manner to avoid its provisions or to repeal the act, I am certain that a court of public opinion would prevail and would make it known to the Members of this House. The way our act is drafted, it is conceivable that an emergency may arise that would drive the government into an accumulated deficit position. I think we all agree that there is that possibility, and we identified that possibility when we were drafting the bill.

This act has no blanket emergency out, as does the amended act as proposed by the Member. The difference between our act and the acts of other jurisdictions is that there are no escape clauses from this act.

We anticipate that a government would call an emergency session of the House - if it were not in session - to consider if the situation was indeed an emergency. In such a case, depending on the circumstances, it may not even be feasible, given the time constraints, to hold a referendum.

While I may agree in principle with the Member, I want to see the act remain untouched. There are situations when I believe the government of the day may have to ask for a one-time exemption from the act.

Mrs. Firth: I find it quite interesting every time the Minister of Finance talks about the court of public opinion, direct democracy and allowing people to make decisions about their financial affairs and protecting people.

As I recall, the court of public opinion did not prevail when the government increased taxes. This government increased people's taxes without even a thought about asking people whether or not it should.

Not even a hint of it was given. Now, they are bringing a piece of legislation in three years later, after they have amassed huge amounts of money from that tax increase, telling people they are going to protect them from bad politicians who increase their taxes. It is absolutely bizarre. It is a bizarre turn of events.

I find the theory quite interesting that, if the next government does not like something, it can just amend it for one time. I do not see that anywhere in the bill. I do not know if the Minister is making up laws as he goes along, or what he is doing. It is going to be very interesting to find out what happens when that Minister of Finance is sitting over here - and this is all really hypothetical; he may be sitting over here, or he may be sitting up here, or he may even be sitting beside me as an Opposition Member - and the next government tries to move one of these so-called one-time amendments. It would be very interesting to hear what that Member says if he is part of the Opposition of the Legislative Assembly after the next election. I know he will stand up and there will be a completely different story - it will all be somebody else's fault, and it will not be his fault, he will not agree with the one-time amendment. One can see the writing on the wall. They have been around once now, so we can pretty well predict that.

I know the Minister of Finance is going to disagree with this, and that is fine. This is the last amendment of the package of amendments I have proposed. They did not support one of them. Not one Member on that side was even interested in debating them, because they were practically calling for the question before I had even read the amendment into the record. I think Yukoners will remember that, and it is certainly in Hansard for everyone to read.

Amendment negatived

On Preamble

Preamble agreed to

On Title

Title agreed to

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: Mr. Chair, I move that you report Bill No. 73, entitled Taxpayer Protection Act, out of Committee, with amendment.

Motion agreed to

Chair: We will move on to Bill No. 10 when we come back from a break. We will take a brief recess at this time.

Recess

Chair: I will now call Committee of the Whole to order. We are discussing Bill No. 10, entitled First Appropriation Act, 1996-97. We are discussing capital expenditures in the Department of Community and Transportation Services.

Bill No. 10 - First Appropriation Act, 1996-97 - continued

Department of Community and Transportation Services - continued

On Capital Expenditures - continued

Hon. Mr. Brewster: May I answer the questions that I was asked previously or shall I wait?

Chair: Please read the answers into the record.

Hon. Mr. Brewster: I will read the answers to the questions that Members asked me earlier during Committee of the Whole.

In answer to the question, in what two-year period were four separate meetings held and a request for the formation of a committee that, according to the Minister, the First Nations did not comply with, the dates of the four separate meetings were February 19, 1992, April 1, 1992, August 12, 1992, and December 2, 1993.

In answer to the question of how many people are involved in the engineering division, and how many people are involved in the planning and development of highways and future highways, the number of transportation engineering full-time equivalents are as follows: operation and maintenance administration, 7.2 intermediate; capital, 40 intermediate, one term, six auxiliary and 12 casuals, for a total of 59.

On sports and recreation, the question was asked if there is a deadline for responses from people in the communities, or if it is open for the next six months or so. The deadline for submissions of responses to the sports and recreation branch is April 30.

In answer to the question of how many lots will be developed in the coming year, the following Whitehorse area lots will be in various stages of planning or development during the 1996-97 year. No new lots are anticipated to be completed and available for sale. There are five to seven parcels of agriculture land; country residential, 45 lots; and urban, 130 lots.

In answer to the question of whether or not the Golden Horn mobile-home park commercial rezoning application will be decided strictly based on the number of yes and no votes received from the survey, the Cabinet will review the survey results and other issues the community may have raised through the survey. Other planning issues will be examined, which include density school impacts, fire safety, surrounding land uses, compatibility and other issues. Cabinet will make the final decision about granting the rezoning.

For this survey each lot is worth one vote. If there is more than one owner, then the value of the votes is in proportion to the makeup of one vote.

Another question asked who was involved in deciding which projects would share the $62,000 in the Yukon government's youth investment fund. The youth investment fund project applications are approved by a committee twice a year. In 1996-97, approval will be done on May 1, and either November 1 or December 15, 1996. The Department of Health and Social Services dispenses the funds to the applicant. This fund is sponsored by the Departments of Community and Transportation Services, Health and Social Services, the Women's Directorate, and the Departments of Justice and Education.

With the exception of the Community and Transportation Services contribution, it will be recoverable from Yukon Lottery Commission. The budget for this is all in Health and Social Services.

Ms. Moorcroft: I hope you will permit me to ask a question about the information the Minister has brought back about the survey of property owners on the rezoning for a mobile-home park in Golden Horn. Can the Minister tell me if the deadline has passed to receive all of the responses from the property owners and, if so, how many were received by the department if it has passed?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: The Bureau of Statistics handled that - I have not heard anything about it - and will follow up with a telephone call to any property owners who have not responded, to see whether or not they would like to respond. We have found that approach to be quite successful in the past - after we had phoned them, some people who had not responded the first time, did respond the next time.

Ms. Moorcroft: Could I ask the Minister if he could come back to me with the deadline for receiving all the responses? I would also like to ask him if he knows how long it will take for it to be taken to Cabinet for a decision.

Hon. Mr. Brewster: I will get back to the Member with an answer to both questions. We will have to check with the Bureau of Statistics.

Ms. Moorcroft: Does the Minister know how long it may take for that to be brought to Cabinet for a decision?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: Cabinet usually runs with a two-week delay. From the time I get it, it would go forward two weeks later.

On Top of the World Highway - continued

Hon. Mr. Brewster: The Top of the World Highway's budget of $2,256,000 is for two projects. These projects are 50 percent non-government funded under the Canada/Yukon strategic highway improvement program and 50 percent funded for resurfacing. The way the budget is set out, these are on two lines so I will finish it off. Yukon funded resurfacing is for kilometre 0 to kilometre 60; a budget of $1,186,000 for drainage improvements, crushing and stockpiling; reconstruction of kilometre 60 to kilometre 105, the budget is $1,070,000, and includes base course construction, crushing and stockpiling aggregate, and BST surfacing.

Top of the World Highway in the amount of $1,128,000 agreed to

On Other Roads

Hon. Mr. Brewster: The main project here is the Freegold Road, and the amount of $500,000 represents 50 percent of the costs shared with Canada under the strategic highway improvement program.

Other Roads in the amount of $500,000 agreed to

On Highway Construction - YTG funded

On Alaska Highway

Hon. Mr. Brewster: On the reconstruction of kilometre 1008 to kilometre 1634, South Alaska Highway, the budget of $8 million is for comprehensive upgrading of the Swift River to Watson Lake section of the highway. Work includes reconstruction, BST, hydroseeding and related works.

Alaska Highway in the amount of $8,000,000 agreed to

On Klondike Highway

Hon. Mr. Brewster: The Klondike Highway budget of $575,000 consists of two projects: shoulders, repair and overlay, kilometre 192 to 248, in the amount of $475,000, including partial asphalt overlay from the Alaska Highway junction to the Hot Springs Road; and South Klondike rock scaling for $100,000, which involves the scaling and removal of rock at kilometre 62 to 64.

Ms. Moorcroft: I have a question on the South Klondike highway. We have had calls requesting a guard rail at the stretch of highway by the Five Finger Rapids. I would like to ask the Minister if he could report any progress on that request?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: I had not heard any complaints about it, but I am informed that there are some guardrails there. I will look into it to see if it is completed in that area.

Klondike Highway in the amount of $575,000 agreed to

On Campbell Highway

Hon. Mr. Brewster: Reconstruction of BST from kilometre 0 to 50, with a budget of $100,000 representing the unrecoverable portion to BST previously reconstructed road at kilometre 31 to 33 and kilometre 45 to 50; gravel pit development, kilometre 50 to 427; a budget of $800,000 for the pre-engineering and development of gravel pits from the Sa Dena Hes mine cutoff, kilometre 50, to the Mitchell Road, kilometre 427.

Mr. Harding: This is the first opportunity I have had to get information back from the Minister on the work that is planned on that highway. The Minister has just laid out the plan for $900,000. As he stated, it does not include any funding for the Campbell Highway for capital upgrading from the Faro or Ross River portion through to Carmacks. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: That is correct in terms of capital. In O&M, we have to bring the road back to the way it was when Curragh was hauling on it, in order to look after the heavy trucks that are now on it.

Mr. Harding: The road is in pretty bad shape right now. We are getting more worried about it, especially with the spring thaw upon us. It needs some pretty solid work, because it is extremely uneven in many places and cracks are showing in the roads. It needs some surfacing, as well as some grading. There is a lot of work that has to be done.

I am pleased with the O&M budget increase. I hope that extra work gets started as soon as possible before it starts to thaw out too much and those ore trucks are beating it up - along with the increased citizen traffic on the highway - for the quality of the drive, as well as the safety.

I would also like to ask the Minister why the department would, again, for the fourth budget in a row, neglect to do any capital upgrading or BST surfacing on that road, even though the populations of Faro and Ross River would certainly benefit from the improved quality of road. As well, there would be reduced rock flying and a better overall drive, particularly in the spring.

Hon. Mr. Brewster: As everyone realizes, the thaw is coming right now and some of the roads are already under a road ban. We do not put that road ban on the ore trucks. I find it rather strange. I talk with Anvil Range at least once a week. The only time I heard a complaint lately was when there were snowslides on the road to Skagway, and we had to hold the trucks up to remove them.

Any other time I have talked with the company, Anvil has indicated that it is satisfied with the road the way it is. With the thaw, there will be cracks, which occurs in the Yukon every spring. We have to do our best to get those fixed up as fast as we can.

Mr. Harding: I am not arguing that there will be no damage to the highway by the ore trucks during the normal conditions of the spring thaw. I am arguing that a case can be made for some capital upgrading of that highway, with BST surfacing on new portions of that road, after four years with no capital commitment for upgrading by the Yukon Party government.

Quite frankly, I have a large disagreement with the Anvil Range chairman in charge of transportation - Mr. Upton - on the condition of the road. I drive the road every week, and sometimes twice a week. I have lots of constituents who complain to me about the condition of the road. Mr. Upton normally lives in Whitehorse and does not travel the road as much as I do, as well as many other citizens of Faro.

I am not the MLA for Anvil Range; I am the MLA for the citizens of Faro. The citizens of Faro have expressed some concerns and a desire to see some BST capital upgrading done. I am communicating that to the Minister.

I hope he believes me on that score, because it is true. I hope I will not have to produce a petition, or something like that, to verify it. I hope he would trust that I do receive numerous lobbies for some BST capital upgrading.

When there is $8 million budgeted this year for more discretionary capital on the Alaska Highway, along with a $25 million non-territorial government funded amount, as well as numerous other millions of discretionary dollars being spent on other highways, and now that the mine is up and has been running since September 1994, I would like to know why the government will not agree to some capital upgrading on this highway.

Hon. Mr. Brewster: First, I am certainly not going to argue with the Member, who has a strong case. There are also a lot of other roads that have a strong case. The $8 million has been spent on the Alaska Highway because the traffic between Watson Lake and Whitehorse is the heaviest in the Yukon. We are trying to complete that road so that we can move on to other roads. However, we can only do so much per year. If that is all the money we have, then that is all we can do.

Mr. Harding: The Minister says that a strong case can be made for a lot of other roads. I have been hearing that for four years now. There has not been one red cent of capital dollars donated to the portion from Ross River/Faro to Carmacks of the Campbell Highway. For four years, a lot of other roads have received more attention.

I would have said to the government that the case for BST and capital upgrading dollars may not have been as strong when the mine was shut down, but the mine has now been operating since we started staffing the town in November 1994. We have a lot more citizens living in the area. I think the population of Faro is up to about 1,800 now. We have a mine that is operating and there is talk of other mines being developed in the next couple of years in the Kudz Ze Kayah and Wolverine Lake areas. I think it is only fair that my constituents should receive some of the capital upgrading investment, particularly now that the mine is operating again. After four years, why does this particular portion of the road continue to receive no capital upgrading funding?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: The department is fully aware that the Campbell Highway is a necessary road and is watching it very closely. There are heavier trucks travelling it now than there have been before. We have already admitted that more maintenance is needed in order to keep the road going. Some of the road bed is really not worth applying BST to, based on the life cycle of the road. We are doing our best.

With respect to the argument about the two new mines possibly operating, I quite agree with the Member. We have been sitting on pins and needles for two years to find out which direction they want to go in, so that we can concentrate on improving the road. Up to this date, however, they have not told us if they are coming this way to Skagway, or if they are going the other way to Watson Lake and down to Fort Nelson. We have no idea.

Mr. Harding: Let me just submit that I would obviously like to see this development come through the Ross River-Faro area, but that, to me, is a side issue. Whether or not those mines go ahead, I think the good citizens of Faro deserve some investment and capital upgrading on the highway, particularly when the mine is open. When the mine was closed, the government used to say that it was not going to put any money there because the mine was closed. Now that the mine is open, the government has another argument. It says that even now with the mine open, other roads are going to continue to win out, in terms of getting funding from this government. I am more and more convinced that the only thing that will ever get any investment for the citizens of Faro and the capital upgrading of the highway is a change of government and philosophy.

I guess that is going to be decided in the next few months. I see no reason to belabour the point, but I would like to say to the Minister that I do think it is somewhat unfair. Every year, I stand up in this Legislature and argue for some capital funding.

I actually thought, based on the $900,000 amount, that we were going to get it. I gave the government credit for that. I feel bad about that now. I am going to have to tell my constituents that I was not well enough informed about where the capital funding was going to go. It actually will go to the highway toward Watson Lake which, incidentally, I heard was not well-received by that town, either. It wanted more to go there. We got nothing. Watson Lake got $1 million and wanted more.

I would like to also express to the Minister a concern I have. I have been getting this more and more lately. Perhaps it is due to the condition of the road in the spring, as I do detect that it is getting worse. Although it is drier and the traction is better, it is dustier and there are more rocks flying. It is due to Lomak trucks. Some of the drivers are very good about pulling over to their side on corners and respecting the smaller vehicles with citizens in them on the highway, but I have been getting a number of complaints lately.

The other day, a woman told me that she actually almost had to pull over right into a ditch on a corner. Both she and her passenger thought they were going to be killed, because the truck's trailer kept closing in as the truck went around the corner. They pulled off, almost going into the ditch, to a complete stop. It was very traumatic. In the last few weeks, there have been five or six others complaining about some of the Lomak drivers and the experiences they have had.

I have travelled the road quite a bit, and have not had many problems, but I am getting concerned about the number of calls I have been getting. I have communicated this to the Lomak people, but would appreciate it if there were a generic reminder or action taken by the government to help me to remind them to act courteously on the road and move over. I think that most of them do, but it does not hurt to reinforce this idea with the Lomak company.

Hon. Mr. Brewster: I have no problem with that at all. We have certain rules, which they signed and agreed to, that they are to go at a certain speed, they are to stay a certain distance apart and they are supposed to be in radio contact with each other. I certainly will contact Anvil first thing in the morning and bring this to their attention and ask that their safety inspector check to see just what these vehicles are doing.

Mr. McDonald: The Mayor of Watson Lake, who is now a declared candidate for the Yukon Party, says that the amount of money the government is investing in the Campbell Highway is insufficient to meet the needs of the people of the Watson Lake area and the future prospects for the mines that will border on the Campbell Highway.

Clearly, there is a division of opinion, not only in this Legislature but also among Yukon Party candidates and Members about whether or not there is sufficient investment in the South Campbell Highway.

Can the Minister tell us what the plan is in the coming year for construction in that area, the area immediately north of Watson Lake?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: I just got through reading that out, but I will do it again. Reconstruction and BST from kilometre 0 to 50 - a budget of $100,000 representing the unrecoverable portion to BST the previously reconstructed area of kilometre 31 to 33 and kilometre 45 to 50. Under gravel pit development for kilometre 50 to 427, there is a budget of $800,000 for the pre-engineering and development of gravel pits for the Sa Dena Hes mine cut-off at kilometre 50 to Mitchell Road at kilometre 427.

I have a little more on that on another question, which concerns this, so I am not getting away from what Mr. Chair wants me to do.

The question was from the Member for Faro to provide preliminary cost estimates on the understanding that they are ball-park figures for the improvement required on the Campbell Highway for the Kudz Ze Kayah project. The estimates available at this time are very preliminary, having been arrived at without benefit of detailed field investigations, survey information or material source identification. The estimates are for capital work and do not include maintenance costs. Based on a design standard of 90 kilometres with 150 mm gravel surface only, the costs are estimated to be as follows: south route, kilometre 10 to 232, $53,877,000, which is $241,000 per kilometre; north route, kilometre 232 to 411.6, $43,585,000, which $239,000 per kilometre. The ore trucks have not been identified to the department at this time as is required, so it has not been possible to develop the final design standards that will apply. As a result, the actual cost could vary from the estimates given above.

As I have already said, nobody will tell us which way they are going and I will repeat it again: I am not building roads into nowhere.

I have to know where it is going to be used and justified. I am not just building roads anywhere. Perhaps I should, as John Diefenbaker did. They said he was building igloo to igloo, and look at what we have now. It cost us $4 million a year for probably 45 cars a week, probably, using it in the winter.

Mr. McDonald: I will not stand for any criticism of the Chief in that manner. We have had a lot of bad things said about General John, but I have to tell you that I do not want anyone bad-mouthing the Chief now.

Actually, I appreciate the information the Minister gave, and I realize some it was a reiteration of what he had already said, but what I am specifically interested in is what the government plans to do in terms of the total funds - not in the year in which it is spending $900,000, but in the immediate following years. Does it have any specific plans for the years 1997-98 and 1998-99?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: First of all, I defend dear John. I am probably the only one who had a picture of him with Mr. Nielsen in my office - when he was a very young man with a lot of hair. There was a young guy standing by him wearing a nice tie with a horse on it. I do not know who that individual was, but he is there. I would defend him because he had the guts to do something, but everyone told me he was crazy. He is an old farmer and he had the guts to do it. I admire him; I was not criticizing him. You were leading me up to something I did not say.

Now that is everyone is through laying eggs, can we go on with what I would like to do? The Member for Mount Lorne assured me that we are going to get through this so I should not talk too long. I think that is what she meant, so I will cut the talk short.

What we are trying to do this year is decide on how much we are going to have to do when those roads have to be fixed for the mines. There is no question that they are going to have to be. In one conversation that I had with Cominco, the company assured me we would have one year's lead time before it would be wanting to put trucks on the road. We made a number of suggestions about how we might have to do some of it for a year or two to get the road going. There seemed to be no trouble, or they did not seem to be worried about it. It is just a matter of not being sure which way the trucks are going to go. I would suspect the mine at Wolverine may influence them to go the other way, because that will be two big mines going the other way.

That is all I can tell the Member. In the area of mining, governments always want to make sure that they know what they are doing before they do it.

Campbell Highway in the amount of $900,000 agreed to

On Top of the World Highway

Hon. Mr. Brewster: Resurfacing from kilometre 0 to kilometre 60 is budgeted at $1,186,00 for drainage, improvements, crushing and stockpiling. Reconstruction at kilometre 16 to kilometre 105 is budgeted at $1,070,000 and includes base course construction, crushing and stockpiling, aggregate and BST surfacing.

The reason that I am reading some of these twice is because we have a breakdown in the budget as to what is non-funding and what is funding.

Top of the World Highway in the amount of $1,128,000 agreed to

On Bridges - Numbered Highways

Hon. Mr. Brewster: The main project for this line item is to strengthen the Teslin River Bridge for $922,000. This project involves seismic upgrading by replacement and upgrading of supporting barriers. Other 1996-97 projects include bridge assessment and inspection for $150,000, for the assessment and rating of all bridge structures on a rotating schedule; and $40,000 for repairs to Snafu, Tarfu and Haunka Bridges on the Atlin Road.

Bridges - Numbered Highways in the amount of $1,112,000 agreed to

On South Access

Hon. Mr. Brewster: The South Access has received a budget of $4 million for the road reconstruction as negotiated in the comprehensive devolution agreement between Community and Transportation Services and the City of Whitehorse.

Ms. Moorcroft: I have a couple of questions on this line item. I thank the Minister for providing me with a copy of the agreement and of the functional design that was done by UMA Engineering.

I note, in the design work, that there is an indication for the need for left-turn protection and signals at the Second Avenue intersection. It also states that signals would eventually be required at the South Access Road intersection with the Alaska Highway, and possibly at Fourth Avenue.

I am disappointed that the agreement does not mention the requirements for those signals. I think that is an important safety concern that should be met.

The question I have for the Minister is whether or not any signals that would be required at the South Access Road intersection with the Alaska Highway would remain the responsibility of the Yukon government, as responsible for the highway, or if it is something that would have to be negotiated with the city.

Hon. Mr. Brewster: The signals for the Alaska Highway are included in the $8 million.

Ms. Moorcroft: Are the signals at the Second Avenue intersection also included in the $8 million?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: No, those are the responsibility of the city. Perhaps I can explain it better. The first part of the highway to the city boundary belonged to us until it was built. So, rather than both of us planning them - with one ending up in kilometres and one in miles and not joining - we decided, when we turned the nine roads over to the city, to turn the contract over as well. It will do the construction, so there will only be one person in charge. The city may want to second some of our engineers to help, and we will certainly cooperate all the way.

Ms. Moorcroft: The representation I have made to the Minister, which I do not believe needs further repetition, is that there should be signals at Second Avenue, as the engineering report recommends. That should have been part of the agreement, as a safety concern.

Does the Minister know how much work will be done in the coming construction year - in the 1996-97 budget year?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: It is up to the city. If the city starts at this end, it needs water licences to dump rip-rap and move the road out toward the river. It must receive permission from Fisheries. I suspect that will take the rest of the summer, so it will probably not be started until late fall, if it is started by then.

Ms. Moorcroft: I was aware these negotiations were proceeding, even when we were in budget debate last year. I wonder why no work was done in advance to get those approvals. The engineering report was completed in 1993. Does the Minister know if the applications for water licences have been put forward yet?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: The reason it took so long is because there were a number of things that had to be thought out. The two departments worked together and then we would get together with city council, and it just took this long to get to this point. From here on, the city is responsible for when it wants to go. We did not make any projects ahead of time because no one knew who was going to have the project until it was signed.

Ms. Moorcroft: The final point that I would like to make note of, since we are on this line item, is that the engineering report also shows a design for a wide shoulder for a bicycle path and for a sidewalk at the bottom one and a half kilometres of the South Access Road. I do hope those features are there, because I think they are an important safety concern and something that the citizens of the Yukon would use to good advantage.

Hon. Mr. Brewster: The agreement requires them to follow the main plans of UMA Engineering, and we suspect that, with the negotiations we had, they will pretty well follow the main plans.

Mr. Cable: As I read the agreement, the project involves a three-kilometre run between the government and the city. Is it the view of the Minister's staff that this project can be handled efficiently as a two-year project - in calendar years 1996 and 1997?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: The largest portion of the work will probably take place in 1997. They have to get their permits from the Department of Fisheries and that will take some time. It will be up to them whether or not they fast-track it in one place or take the two years that they have to do it.

Mr. Cable: I think the Minister has made the city's prerogative clear. Is it the view of the Minister's staff, and from the experience that the Minister's staff has, that the project can be completed in 1997 calendar year if all of the permits are in place and the rip-rap is started in this present calendar year?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: I think they will need all of 1997 and part of 1998 to complete the whole thing.

Mr. Cable: Have any traffic projections been made by the department for the South Access Road for the 1998 centennial year. I know that these issues have been touched on before, but I have had some reservations expressed to me about keeping the road out of operation during the centennial year, or cluttering it up with construction equipment.

Hon. Mr. Brewster: The city engineers are quite aware of the situation. When construction was taking place on the Two Mile Hill, there was not a great deal of disruption there. People have to slow down to obey flag people, but traffic keeps moving. If there is a period where they have to block it off, they will have to be rerouted down the Two Mile Hill for a short period of time. Much of the work can be done after the tourist season is over.

Mr. McDonald: Something caught my ear when the Minister was talking about the South Access Road. Did I hear correctly that the Minister had asked his department to abandon the metric system in favour of the old imperial system, knowing that the City of Whitehorse was still on the metric system and the Department of Community and Transportation Services was now working on the system of miles - that they knew they could not work together when it came to putting together a construction project?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: The Member should talk to his partner, the Member for Mount Lorne on the other side, because she promised me we would get through this by 5:30. If the Member wants to start playing games with me, okay. The Member should have had lots of experience with this, as I believe some contractors built some houses at Swift River for him and they did not meet when they came to the end. I am not say the government or the city cannot do it. I am saying maybe the contractors cannot. I would just as soon have one contractor doing it so that it all meets.

Mr. McDonald: The Minister quite correctly identified a serious problem here. I am under the impression that he has admitted that the Department of Community and Transportation Services works on the basis of miles, whereas the City of Whitehorse works on the basis of the metric system. Would he fear that the two roads would not meet at some point as their length might be a little different? Was that the nature of his concern?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: As I pointed out, the Minister over there has had experience on this, because he could not even get two basements to meet. I am still on the mile system and I will stay on the mile system for the rest of my life; therefore I am not going to be on that contract because everybody else uses metric. Does that help the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. McDonald: My understanding of the Minister's comments is that it takes him longer to get anywhere than it takes anybody else, so I can appreciate what he is saying. I am just hoping that nobody in the Department of Community and Transportation Services or Government Services feels badly that there were some screw-ups at the construction site of the Swift River camp.

Nevertheless, if the Yukon government has any hand in the funding of the South Access Road, does it mean that the mileage markers on the road and the speed limit signs will be in metric, or will they be in imperial?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: I suspect they will be in metric.

I would like to answer the question about my taking longer to get somewhere. That is correct. I am a little bit older, but I go a lot longer when I am going.

I would love to have that in mileage, for the advertising it gives tourists. I believe the Leader of the Official Opposition remembers me sitting on the other side and fighting violently to get the mileage back because of our tourism. I got back 83 when I should have had 1016 to Haines Junction from Dawson Creek.

Chair: Order please. I would like to say to the two Members that I think this conversation is starting to border on the ridiculous. I would like to ask them to keep their comments relative to the South Access Highway line item.

Mr. McDonald: I will not take exception to the comment that you do not like what we are talking about, Mr. Chair.

Chair: Order please. I did not say that. I said I feel that some of this conversation is starting to border on the ridiculous. I did not mean in any way, shape or form to limit the debate. I would just ask that Members keep your comments relevant to the line item.

Point of order

Mr. McDonald: On a point of order. The comment I made with respect to this matter was with respect to the South Access Road. We are on the South Access Road line item. I made reference to the fact that we were talking about highway signs on the South Access Road. I was asking the Minister a policy question. It certainly -

Chair: Order please.

Mr. McDonald: I am on a point of order.

Chair: Order please.

Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chair, I am on a point of order.

Chair's apology

Chair: Order please. At this time, I would like to apologize to you, Mr. McDonald. I believe the Member misinterpreted my remarks. I was referring more to the comments about one Member being slower than the other, and the comments the other Member made. I am sorry I have upset the Member. It was certainly not my intention. I was trying to keep this in good humour, and I do apologize. I certainly did not intend to upset the Member, and I apologize for that.

Mr. McDonald: I hope I have not lost my sense of humour here, after having gone through that exchange. It was obviously some lighthearted banter on a late Thursday afternoon.

I did have one follow-up question of the Minister, which is at least semi-serious, given the fact that the Minister indicated he fought violently, in a manner of speaking, to have mileposts on the highways generally.

Can the Minister tell us what progress he has made with the Department of Community and Transportation Services, now that he is Minister of that department, to see to it that mileage signs are part of the general highway system?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: I have not done anything. It was quite apparent that I was in the minority; I lost and I am quite prepared to let it stay that way.

South Access in the amount of $4,000,000 agreed to

On Other Roads

Hon. Mr. Brewster: The main project is the Freegold Road, in the amount of $500,000. This amount represents 50 percent of the costs shared with Canada under the strategic highway improvement program. Other projects include miscellaneous reconstruction, at $100,000, for various road upgrading requests.

Ms. Moorcroft: I would like to ask the Minister if there are any discretionary funds available for miscellaneous requests at this time?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: There is $100,000 available for various road upgrades.

Ms. Moorcroft: I would like to ask the Minister a question about the requests I have been putting forward to improve the M'Clintock River valley road. Both the Minister and I know there has been a rural roads application submitted and I received a letter from the Minister today stating that the department would re-inspect the road in the spring of 1996. Could the Minister tell me - although by the calendar this is spring and there is still a lot of snow on the ground - when the department will be re-inspecting the road and when it might decide whether or not it can upgrade the M'Clintock River valley road?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: It will be as soon as we can get in and see the road. Also, the residents in the area have agreed to contribute some sweat equity on that road by clearing some of the brush, and so on. We also have to determine - from the application that has just been received - if there are enough people living there to have a road maintenance policy.

Ms. Moorcroft: On another matter, the department pulled a vehicle out of Annie Lake this spring, after a couple of months and a flurry of letters being sent to the Ministers of Renewable Resources and of Community and Transportation Services. Initially, the hamlet council and the residents had been told that there was no provision for anyone to take responsibility to tow the vehicle out of the lake, when the owner had not done that. In the end, I believe that Community and Transportation Services was the department that pulled the abandoned vehicle from the lake. I would like to ask the Minister what the cost of doing that was, if a policy was followed in doing that, or if the government just decides to do it

Hon. Mr. Brewster: It was recovered under the Motor Vehicles Act, and the cost was approximately $1,800. We hope to recover the cost from the sale of the vehicle.

Ms. Moorcroft: Can the Minister tell me what the provision was under the Motor Vehicles Act? Is it normal government policy to take an abandoned vehicle and pull it out of a lake or ditch if it has been left there for a certain amount of time?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: We will have to get back with an answer in the specific clause, but if there are any vehicles along the highways in the ditch, yes, we remove them.

Ms. Moorcroft: What the residents have been told was that there was no legislation in place to force the vehicle to be removed, so I would appreciate getting that information from the Minister. People also heard that no one was willing to bear the burden of the cost of removing the vehicle. I wonder if the government will remove a vehicle in a case like this if they do not believe that it can recover the costs.

Hon. Mr. Brewster: We understand that the Environment Act does not provide powers for removing a vehicle. We do it under the Motor Vehicles Act, and we will bring back that section.

Ms. Moorcroft: I would like to ask the Minister, as well, if he can come back with any policy the department has on driveway accesses to public highways.

The Minister indicated that, at times, the department may be able to help fund necessary improvements. I would like to know when that might happen and when it would not.

Hon. Mr. Brewster: It is the responsibility of the owner to join on to the highway. It would have to be severe circumstances where we would help. We would have to look at that case by case, because there is certainly no policy where we accept roadways that come on to the highway.

Ms. Moorcroft: I would like to thank the Minister for the fact that Duncan Drive was chipsealed in the past year since the last session, because I was making representations for road improvements on Duncan Drive in the budget debate last year. It has been done.

There is still a problem with the way Duncan Drive comes out and then turns on and meets the Alaska Highway. The school buses are longer than the length of road that is there for them to turn on to the Alaska Highway.

I would like to ask the Minister if the department can look at making improvements in that area. I know some residents have written and suggested that the department look at an alternate route through another road allowance to the school. I would like to make the representation to the Minister that the department continue to look at improving Duncan Drive, including the access to the school. There are a number of sharp turns.

Hon. Mr. Brewster: Yes, we have already looked at this, and the department feels that it is all right the way it is right now.

Ms. Moorcroft: Is the department aware that when vehicles first turn off the Alaska Highway on to Duncan Drive that stretch of road is not long enough for a school bus, and that when the school bus comes to a stop sign, there is not a lot of room there?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: Yes, I believe the department is aware of it. The department has commented that traffic has to move slowly in that area.

Ms. Moorcroft: Perhaps the Minister would like to drive out and check it out for himself. Could I ask the Minister for a copy of a report or any findings that the department put together after it reviewed the Duncan Drive access?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: Yes, I will get the report for the Member. Undoubtedly, as soon as the Legislature adjourns, I intend to travel and get away from this building, so I will make a trip out there.

Other Roads in the amount of $600,000 agreed to

On Aviation/Yukon Airports

On Airports

Hon. Mr. Brewster: The capital budget for airports for 1996-97 consists of eight projects. There is capital maintenance in the amount of $60,000 for ongoing minor and capital repairs of aviation facilities. There is a planning and engineering budget of $50,000 to carry out studies, planning and survey work, and a budget of $50,000 to do runway resurfacing.

The Dawson airport development planning budget of $150,000 is for functional planning and geotechnical work, and the Old Crow airport has a budget of $50,000 for planning additional space in the terminal building. Other 1996-97 projects are the Haines Junction airport, $30,000, to do apron improvements; Dawson airport, $30,000, to do apron and taxi-way improvements; and Faro airport, in the amount of $15,000, for apron run-up, pad and plug-ins.

Ms. Moorcroft: I note that the Minister said that there is $30,000 for Dawson airport improvements and that there is a significant amount of money for doing a study on the relocation of the Dawson airport. Does he know when that study will be completed?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: No, it is not a study for a new airport. It is simply a study to see how we can improve the airport. It extends from a study that suggested that, with some study and minor changes, the airport could be better used instead of building a big new airport.

Ms. Moorcroft: So the Dawson airport development planning is for planning at the existing airport, then.

Hon. Mr. Brewster: Yes.

Airports in the amount of $435,000 agreed to

Transportation Division in the amount of $44,900,000 agreed to

On Municipal and Community Affairs Division

Hon. Mr. Brewster: Mr. Chair, I move that you report progress on Bill No. 10.

Motion agreed to

Hon. Mr. Fisher: 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 the Committee of the Whole?

Mr. Millar: The Committee of the Whole has considered Bill No. 73, entitled Taxpayer Protection Act, and directed me to report it with amendments. Further, Committee of the Whole has considered Bill No. 10, First Appropriation Act, 1996-97, and directed me to report progress on it.

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

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.

Speaker: I declare the report carried.

Mr. Sloan: I move that this House do now adjourn.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Member for Whitehorse West that the House do now adjourn.

Motion agreed to

Speaker: This House now stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. next Tuesday.

The House adjourned at 5:27 p.m.

The following Sessional Papers were tabled April 4, 1996:

96-2-128

Yukon Public Service Staff Relations Board 25th Annual Report, 1993-94 (Ostashek)

96-2-129

Yukon Teachers' Staff Relations Board 21st Annual Report, 1993-94 (Ostashek)