Whitehorse, Yukon
Thursday, November 13, 1997 - 1:30 p.m.
Speaker: I will now call the House to order.
We will proceed at this time with prayers.
Prayers
DAILY ROUTINE
Speaker: We will proceed at this time with the Order Paper.
Are there any tributes?
TRIBUTES
In remembrance of Ken White
Mr. Fentie: I rise today to pay tribute to the memory of Ken White, a constituent of mine from Watson Lake who passed away on October 17. Ken came to Watson Lake with his wife and family in 1975 from Cassiar, B.C. He worked with a local construction company before accepting a position as a public works supervisor for the Town of Watson Lake, a position he held for the last five years.
I have had the privilege of knowing Ken and family ever since they arrived in the Yukon. Ken was a very hard-working individual, but whenever he had any free time he spent it with his family.
He was well-known in Watson Lake as a devoted family man. Whenever he and his wife Linda went on vacation, all the kids went along. He loved camping and spent a lot of time with his children enjoying the outdoors.
Ken will be missed by his many friends from Watson Lake. I ask my colleagues to join me today in sending out our condolences to his wife Linda, his children Kathy, Ken, Ian, Leatha and Verda and to his many grandchildren.
Thank you.
Tribute to Patrick Michael, Clerk of the Legislature
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I rise to pay tribute to someone who is familiar to all of us and someone a few of us have known and worked with for many years. I am referring to the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, Patrick Michael. Tomorrow marks the 20th anniversary of his service to the House.
Applause
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Patrick was born in Edmonton and grew up in southern Saskatchewan. After earning a history degree from the University of Alberta, he became one of the first legislative interns at the Alberta Legislature.
In 1977, Patrick came to the territory with his wife Janet and spent one year as the Clerk's assistant before being appointed Clerk. He has been through seven difference legislatures and five different governments in his time here.
He has seen the Legislature go through many unique and fascinating times in the period before party politics in the Yukon through the advent of responsible government in 1979 right up to today, where he can witness what mature and responsible government is all about.
As the territory's Chief Electoral Officer, he has been part of some exciting events, including what once seemed like the complete disappearance of a certain northern community on election night.
He does not like to be referred to as the old, grizzled, long-time Clerk of the Legislature, as is often the case. He would like to be referred to, from time to time, as something else, such as the suave and debonair Clerk of this Legislature and perhaps, if it doesn't compromise reporting principles too much, the media might oblige him on occasion.
I would like to ask all members to join me in congratulating Pat for his 20 years of dedicated service to the Legislature.
Applause
Mr. Ostashek: We, too, would like to join with New Democrats in paying tribute to our Clerk. I understand that he plays old-timer hockey and he gets a lot of practice here stick handling among the different political parties and trying to remain neutral.
I will say that in the time that I've been in this Legislature, in dealing with Mr. Michael, he has proven that he is quite a stick handler and has been able to remain neutral in some very trying times. So, our caucus extends to you, Mr. Michael and your family, all the best wishes on your 20th anniversary as Clerk of the Legislature.
Mr. Cable: It's not often that we get to pay a tribute to one of our own, so I'm especially pleased on behalf of the Liberal caucus to rise and pay tribute to the Clerk of our Legislative Assembly.
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)
Mr. Cable: Well, he stick-handles.
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)
Mr. Cable: Oh, we're warming up early.
If you enjoy people-watching as I do, one will see in Pat a devoted and unflappable public servant. He has seen several dozen politicians come and go, and several governments come and go, and he has seen 20 years of fire and thunder generally signifying nothing, I suppose, but yet he has managed to retain his equilibrium.
Every once in a while you can see the faintest flicker of a smile cross his lips as he watches our antics. Pat, I have something for you, and I don't know how you handle this or whether you have to declare it, but you've probably read in the Globe and Mail recently about these contractors who were excavating Dr. Jeckell's basement in London, and they managed to recover one of the bottles of Dr. Jeckell's potions. Now this potion, when drunk, caused the evil, aggressive Mr. Hyde to convert back to the mild-mannered and well-mannered Dr. Jeckell. Now this bottle has come into my possession, and I'd like to give it to you as an expression of my thanks to you so that when you see one of us changing from a Dr. Jeckell - the mild-mannered and well-mannered Dr. Jeckell - and the facial hair comes on and the ears get pointed, you can suddenly give us the potion.
So, Mr. Clerk, I wonder if I can just hand this over here. I know it's a breach of protocol.
Applause
Clerk: I noticed that my light was on and I'm going to do a terrible breach of protocol and thank you all so much for this unexpected set of tributes. I must say that it is terribly unexpected and I think I know who to blame. Thank you so much to everyone.
Speaker: Introduction of visitors?
INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS
Mr. Fentie: It's indeed a pleasure to welcome and introduce to this Legislature a long-time resident of Watson Lake and newly elected councillor, Sharon Miller.
Applause
Speaker: Are there any returns or documents for tabling?
TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 3 of An Act Approving Yukon Land Claims Final Agreements and section 3 of the First Nations (Yukon) Yukon Self-Government Act, I am pleased to table today both the Little Salmon-Carmacks First Nation and Selkirk First Nation final and self-government agreements that were signed off on July 21, 1997, along with the Order-in-Council 1997-161 which brings these agreements into effect.
Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to table two intergovernmental accords negotiated and signed this year. One is entitled the Alaska-Yukon Intergovernmental Relations Accord between the Government of Yukon and the State of Alaska, and the other is entitled the B.C.-Yukon Intergovernmental Relations Accord.
Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: I have for tabling the 1996-97 assessment highlights.
Speaker: Report of committees.
Are there any petitions?
Are there any bills to be introduced?
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
Bill No. 24 : Introduction and First Reading
Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: I move that Bill No. 24, entitled Family Violence Prevention Act, be now introduced and read a first time.
Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Minister of Justice that Bill No. 24, entitled Family Violence Prevention Act, be now introduced and read a first time.
Motion for introduction and first reading of Bill No. 24 agreed to
Bill No. 37: Introduction and First Reading
Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: I move that Bill No. 37, entitled Access to Information and Protection of Privacy (Consequential Amendments) Act, 1997, be now introduced and read a first time.
Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Minister of Justice that Bill No. 37, entitled Access to Information and Protection of Privacy (Consequential Amendments) Act, 1997, be now introduced and read a first time.
Motion for introduction and first reading of Bill No. 37 agreed to
Bill No. 43: Introduction and First Reading
Hon. Mr. Sloan: I move that Bill No. 43, entitled An Act to Amend the Public Health Act, be now introduced and read a first time.
Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Minister of Health and Social Services that Bill No. 43, entitled An Act to Amend the Public Health Act, be now introduced and read a first time.
Motion for introduction and first reading of Bill No. 43 agreed to
Speaker: Are there any notices of motion?
Statements by ministers.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
Intergovernmental accords
Hon. Mr. McDonald: It's our government's policy to develop and maintain good relations with other governments within Canada, in northern regions and with other nations to advance the interests of the government and the people of the Yukon. I am pleased to report to the House on two intergovernmental relations accords we recently signed with our neighbours in the State of Alaska and the Province of British Columbia.
Two weeks ago, the Minister of Community and Transportation Services and I met with Governor Tony Knowles and other state officials of Alaska. We had a very productive discussion about a wide range of issues in which we share common interests.
We again lobbied for the continuation and completion of the Shakwak project and secured Alaska's assistance in seeking the necessary funding from the American Congress. Governor Knowles and his officials clearly appreciate the benefits of this project for both Alaskan and Yukon citizens and businesses, as well as its importance to tourism in both jurisdictions.
We also raised the need for continued protection of the Porcupine caribou herd's core calving grounds in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, emphasizing how important a healthy caribou population is to the Gwitchin people.
We agreed to continue our joint efforts to build on the tourism potential for the circle route between Dawson City and central Alaska by improving the Top of the World Highway and Taylor Highway. We also agreed to ensure that the Yukon has year-round tidewater access from the south Klondike Highway, which is a key component to our economic well-being.
This government clearly expressed a desire to see an early resolution to the Yukon River salmon negotiations that recognizes the legitimate interests of Yukon fishers in a larger share of the catch. The governor and I agreed that, with cooperation among the parties at the table, this goal can be met.
The genuine interest of both this government and Governor Knowles' administration in working together on common issues and concerns was captured in the intergovernmental relations accord signed at the conclusion of our meeting. This accord recognizes the long-standing, positive relationship between neighbours. It encourages ongoing cooperation at both the political and officials level to foster joint economic opportunities and to improve services to Yukon and Alaska residents. It also provides for specific cooperative arrangements on common interests, such as trade, transportation, tourism, mining and wildlife management.
Under this intergovernmental accord, Yukon and Alaska governments will continue projects of benefit to our jurisdiction and will pursue new initiatives. As the Minister of Economic Development recently informed the House, Alaska has offered assistance in the development of our export initiatives. Collaborative work on recovery of the Forty-mile caribou herd will continue as well as joint efforts to expand the herd into its former range. This issue is of particular importance to the Tr'ondek Hwech'in First Nation.
Alaska and the Yukon will continue our cooperative tourism marketing efforts to attract visitors to the beauty of the north. We will also explore new partnership opportunities in markets where we have a mutual interest. This is of particular importance in the years beyond the 1898 centennial celebrations.
In addition to these efforts to enhance cooperation with our western neighbour, this government also signed an intergovernmental accord earlier this fall with British Columbia.
Premier Clark and I agreed to meet each year to establish priorities for joint efforts to improve services, eliminate duplication on overlap between our jurisdictions and to pursue collaborative economic opportunities.
We've already identified key issues for further work, including trans-boundary land claims, highways, the Pacific salmon treaty, mining, trade, forestry, and fishing licences.
In July, I met with the British Columbia Cabinet to discuss the salmon treaty negotiations with respect to both the West Coast and Yukon River fisheries. Within the context of this intergovernmental accord, we will continue our efforts to support a resolution to both sets of negotiations.
This government has also launched a new initiative to encourage greater trade outside the Yukon. We've been working closely with both B.C. and Alberta to make use of their expertise and to promote greater trading activity among our jurisdictions.
Work on other priority areas will get underway this year. For example, we are hopeful that we can work toward a reciprocal fishing licence system that will benefit people on both sides of the B.C.-Yukon border.
Stronger relationships do pay dividends, Mr. Speaker. This summer we signed a memorandum of understanding with B.C. on highways designed to remove long-standing irritants by allowing Yukon's transportation legislation to apply to those sections of the road that dip into B.C. We expect this memorandum of understanding to lead to agreements that will make it easier for Yukon truckers to haul goods into B.C. and also make it easier for us to carry out road maintenance on these sections of highways.
Mr. Speaker, these intergovernmental agreements clearly demonstrate this government's commitment to strong, productive relationships with our neighbours.
At this time, I would like to table both documents just on that, Mr. Speaker. We will continue our efforts to build on these relationships by working cooperatively on mutual problems to the benefit of all citizens of the Yukon. Thank you.
Mr. Ostashek: I wish the Government Leader would have told us something new. Everything he has announced in here has been ongoing work by governments in the past. The accords that he mentions have already been announced several times over the summer. There is absolutely nothing new in here. But what is very obvious is that, several weeks ago when he and the Community and Transportation Services minister travelled to Alaska and put out a press release, the Shakwak project wasn't even mentioned in the press release. Now it receives top billing in his statement to the House today. I guess the fact that he was chastised by the opposition has had an impact on him and he now realizes how important the Shakwak is to Yukoners.
But what Yukoners are really waiting to hear, Mr. Speaker, is for the Government Leader to stand up in this House - and hopefully he can do it in his closing statement - and tell Yukoners if in fact there is going to be money for the Shakwak project next spring. That's what Yukoners want to know. They want to know if there's going to be jobs for them.
Mr. Speaker, we do have good relations with Alaska and I'm glad to see this government continuing to carry on those good relations. We have always had a very close working relationship - and with British Columbia as well. The minister highlights the fact of an accord with British Columbia and talks about the great benefits it's going to bring to Yukoners. Well, the only thing that I've seen that it has brought to Yukoners so far is a tearing up of the chipseal on Highway 37 in northern British Columbia, one of the main access routes to the Yukon, and having the highway downgraded and the speed limit lowered. I hoped that we would get more out of these agreements than something like that.
Another bone of contention with British Columbia has been the harassment of our truckers where the highway dips into British Columbia, and hopefully the Government Leader, when he stands up, can tell Yukon truckers whether they can expect to be harassed and face fines on the B.C. sections of these highways, where they dip back and forth across the border, next summer as they have been in the past.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, a string of Yukon governments have had an established, good working relationship with Alaska and with British Columbia - and in the past there used to be tripartite meetings among the Premier of British Columbia, the Government Leader in the Yukon and the Governor of Alaska.
So, I would ask the Government Leader if he would capitalize on his good relations with the B.C. premier and our good working relationship with the Alaska government and try to implement tripartite meetings again and resolve some of the outstanding issues, so that our tourism industry isn't faced with roadblocks again over a dispute that has absolutely nothing to do with us in the Yukon.
Ms. Duncan: I rise today to respond, on behalf of the Liberal Party caucus, to the ministerial statement on intergovernmental relations accords. At the outset, let me state that, in our caucus, we are entirely supportive of the government policy of developing and maintaining good relationships with other governments. That's not just good policy; it's good politics to be a good neighbour.
I note that the Government Leader has not mentioned, in the ministerial statement, any forthcoming meetings with the Northwest Territories government or Legislature. I understand they were originally scheduled for this summer. Perhaps in his response, he could indicate if these meetings have been rescheduled, particularly as we've been discussing roads and working with other governments in our transportation networks. Perhaps he could indicate whether or not the Dempster is on the schedule for discussion.
Specifically with regard to the B.C. accord, I understand that annual leaders' forums have been established as part of the accord. I think everyone understands how quickly legislative ministerial agenda fill up. When is the first of these meetings to take place? Has the date been set?
The minister mentioned a memo of understanding with B.C. relating to Yukon highways that dip into B.C. The goal was to ensure that Yukon regulations applied to these highways, even if they were inside B.C. Have the changes to regulations been carried out?
A longer term issue is the possible opening of the Tulsequah mine in Atlin, and the upgrades to the Atlin Road that would be necessary. A good portion of the haul route will fall within Yukon, and one of the items on the agenda for the first meetings is highways. Will these highway discussions include upgrades to the Atlin Road, in the event that the mine receives the go-ahead from the B.C. government?
With respect to the Alaska accord, others have mentioned the Shakwak project, as the Government Leader did. I note that, in our caucus, throughout our fall visits with constituents, this was also raised. Yukoners are genuinely interested in progress, particularly with respect to jobs on these discussions, so I'm looking forward to further information.
On a final note, the Southeast Alaska Tourism Council has had a long and very productive relationship with the Whitehorse Chamber of Commerce and the City of Whitehorse. Together they've done a great deal of work promoting tourism on both sides of the border, particularly the golden circle route - Whitehorse, Haines and Skagway and return. I wonder if this successful relationship was included in the discussions and, if not, I would just like to remind the Government Leader of its existence. This has been a particularly strong success story, and I would like to remind both the Government Leader and the Governor of Alaska of this success.
Thank you.
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I want to make the obvious point that the reason for tabling these agreements in the Legislature today, and the reason for making the statement, was not to inform the already informed that these agreements had been reached, but to show due respect to the Legislature to table these agreements and afford the members an opportunity to speak to them. This is a long-standing practice in the Legislature and, certainly given the importance of the documents, I would think that members would take the opportunity to be thankful for the opportunity to speak to the items contained in the ministerial statement and in the accords.
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the official opposition suggested that this government's support for the Shakwak project was a deathbed conversion, so to speak, and that it was only at the time that he raised the question in the House that he felt the Yukon government showed any interest whatsoever in pursuing a renegotiation of the Shakwak project.
Of course, the member's information was wrong at the time he made the assertion as, two days later, I tabled 11 letters from Cabinet members, mostly from me, to various leaders, including the Governor of Alaska, the Prime Minister of Canada, and many people who could influence the decision to renew funding for that project.
So, quite contrary to the member's assertion that, somehow, the government was not interested in funding the Shakwak project, the government has been very active, of course, in pursuing a renegotiated settlement, as the NDP government was instrumental in renegotiating the first major installment of the north Alaska Highway funding back in 1991-92.
With respect to the issues that he raised regarding highway maintenance on the Cassiar Highway and also the issue surrounding the harassment of truckers travelling the Alaska Highway, these are both worthy issues for further intergovernmental discussion. As I've already indicated, we have sought agreement in principle, and received agreement in principle, that these issues should be and can be addressed. I would expect that what the member refers to as the harassment of truckers should cease. At least, if they're going to be harassed, they'll be harassed by Yukon enforcement officers.
With respect to the issue of tripartite meetings, the first step, of course, is to develop good working relations - bilateral relations - between Yukon and B.C., and Yukon and Alaska, and those steps have been taken. As members might be aware, the relationship between British Columbia and Alaska is a little more complicated, and the opportunity for face-to-face meetings with the premier and with the governor are probably not likely in the very, very near future.
However, both leaders have indicated to me their interest in improving the relationship between the jurisdictions and have asked for our support and the offices of the Yukon government to assist in that effort.
With respect to the useful point about our relationships with the Northwest Territories from the Member for Porter Creek South, I can indicate to the member that I have had a number of meetings with the Government Leader of the Northwest Territories at various opportunities over the course of the last 10 months with a view to trying to improve relations.
We had also set up a joint Cabinet meeting, which was not realized at the request of the NWT Cabinet members, largely because they had other urgent pressing business to attend to, but we are interested in ensuring that there's a good dialogue between the governments. We have a great deal in common, as members can imagine, and the relationship, with or without accords, should be very good.
The first meeting associated with the Premier of British Columbia, in terms of updating the accord itself, is expected to take place next summer. I will, of course, have an opportunity to meet the premier on a number of occasions between now and then and will take full opportunity to continue to raise the issues that are of importance to Yukoners at every opportunity.
With respect to the issue of the upgrading of the Atlin Road, that very much may be on the Legislature's plate in the next year or two, depending entirely on what happens with the environmental review process in British Columbia surrounding the Tulsequah Chief mine approval process. We have been very careful to allow British Columbia business to be conducted in British Columbia. We've not interfered in their business.
However, we will obviously be affected ultimately if the decision is made to approve the mining application, at which time we will be addressing the issue of the road immediately. We have obviously had some discussions with the mining company already as to what their expectations would be. We do have some engineering analysis of what it would take to upgrade the road in the circumstances that an upgrade might be required. I can't remember all the points, but certainly we'll have an opportunity to...
Just to show the greatest possible respect, even for the Member for Klondike, I will mention that the Shakwak funding decision is expected to be made next spring. Because of the budget impasse in the U.S. Congress, which unfortunately not even I can influence, despite my best efforts, the budget impasse in the U.S. Senate and in the Congress has made it impossible to make a decision before then, so I'm afraid that the decision, which will be made in Washington, will not, in all likelihood, be made in time for us to put any new budget item in the main estimates for next year.
If the funding is approved, we will be in a position to carry out activity almost immediately.
Mr. Speaker, if members have other questions during the supplementaries, I will be more than happy to answer any other questions they may have respecting intergovernmental relations.
Speaker: This then bring us to Question Period.
QUESTION PERIOD
Question re: Budget deficit
Mr. Ostashek: My question is for the Minister of Finance. In the election platform in A Better Way, the NDP promised a pay-as-you-go budget, and what the Finance minister has delivered in his first budget in the supps is a pay-as-we-grow budget - grow government, that is. The projected deficit for 1997-98 of $9.9 million under the very close management and scrutiny of the Minister of Finance is now projected to be $22.6 million. The minister missed his target by almost 50 percent, and now he's going to be making financial projections three years in advance.
Can the minister tell me how he expects Yukoners to believe any of his financial projections when he can't provide accurate estimates for one year, let alone three?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: What is astounding, Mr. Speaker, is that that question was put by that member, who was notorious for poor financial projections. I would point out to the member that 70 percent of the net requested increase for this year is in fact revotes from last year. We made a commitment to the Legislature and to the people of the Yukon that projects that were initiatives by our predecessors - namely that member in his government - would be continued into this year. The member voted the money last year, initiated the projects, the projects were not completed in the year that was expected, and consequently the money was revoted into this year. That's what $10.9 million of this funding is all about.
Secondly, I would point out to the member that the deficit that we're projecting, even for all of that, is $10 million less than that which was projected at this time last year, so the situation is improving, I would argue, in a fairly healthy way.
I would also point out that we've also committed to ensuring that we will retain a $15-million surplus, and we are well within our targets to do so.
So quite contrary to the member's assertion that things are out of control, they are not any such thing.
Mr. Ostashek: Well, the fact remains that it's not the revotes that have made the budget grow; it's the amount of growth in government itself that has made the deficit grow.
While I may have been wrong on my projections, the difference was that it was in surpluses not in deficits.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the NDP governments are notorious for spending on big governments rather than spending money to create private sector jobs. The supplementary estimates that the Government Leader tabled yesterday clearly show that this NDP government is no exception. No exception whatsoever. Is it the intention of this minister to keep increasing the cost of government rather than trying to address the Yukon's serious economic downturn and to redirect some finances to put Yukoners to work?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, Mr. Speaker, the fact does remain that the majority of the funding being requested here, of course, is revotes and, quite contrary to what the member suggests, is a funding commitment that he made when he was in government but was unfortunately unable to carry out, and we are carrying it out in this budget. So, the member is quite wrong on that point.
With respect to his assertion that we should redirect funding to other areas, what is he saying? Clearly, the funding being requested here, the cost overruns in health particularly, are costs that we agreed we should bear because they are high priorities to our government. Presumably, the member does not want us not only to not provide funding to the health care system and to face those costs and to do damage to the health care system, but he would also like us to extract funding from other operations of government in order to direct even more money into the capital side of the program. Mr. Speaker, we have a healthy capital budget. We also have a commitment to maintain services to Yukon people and we will do both.
Mr. Ostashek: Mr. Speaker, I don't think this party has ever asked for him to not provide health services for Yukoners. What we've asked for them to be is a little more cognizant of the cost of government and not allow him to go about uncontrollably and to use that money where we can put Yukoners to work.
My final supplementary, Mr. Speaker: the Government Leader stated that jobs for Yukoners just wasn't in his cards, and I guess he was very serious about that when he said it. Is it the intention of this minister to continue his policy of robbing Peter to pay Paul? By that I mean taking money out of highways and the likes in order to pay increased social assistance costs - social assistance costs, Mr. Speaker, that I say have grown because this government has done nothing about creating jobs for Yukoners - and is he content to continue that rather than putting Yukoners to work?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Speaker, where do I begin? First of all, the O&M estimates for this year, the main estimates, are less than was projected for last year. So we actually brought in estimates on the operations side that were less than that member bequeathed to us. On top of that, if one looks at the O&M budget page - apart from the obvious cost increases in health care, which we are funding - most of the departments show O&M decreases.
In terms of the cost of government, the member must be saying that he is opposed to the growth in the health care budget, because the O&M in the other departments are all in decline. So clearly, Mr. Speaker, the member would do damage to the health care system, and he and his party are at extreme odds with me and the New Democratic government, because we do believe in protecting the health care system. We do believe in maintaining those basic services.
We can't spend money we don't have. The member keeps asking us to put more and more money into one thing or another. The Member for Klondike made it very clear that, in his first week in this Legislature, they had $60 million worth of spending priorities for one community alone. We cannot do that; we don't have the money; we will not spend our way to economic recovery, the way the member would like us to do it.
I did not say we do not care about jobs. We do care about jobs, and we're doing many things, including reactivating the Anvil Range mine - but other things as well, in terms of direct spending - to create jobs. What we're not able to do is spend the way the member opposite spent when he was in government, nor are we going to tax the way the member opposite taxed when he was in government.
Question re: Budget deficit
Mr. Ostashek: Well, it's nice to watch this Finance minister twist and turn in the wind, and try to put a different spin on things. The fact remains, Mr. Speaker, his estimates are not smaller than the Yukon Party's last estimates. They are some $16 million higher, Mr. Speaker. If the minister would just refer to the budget books, he would certainly see that. From a projected $354.8 million of ours to now, with his supplementary, a little over $370 million, I believe it is, tells me that that's a major increase, and far more than the one percent he stated in his press release yesterday.
I would like to ask the minister to explain to the Yukon public how a $15.2 million increase on his operation and maintenance budget equates to a one-percent increase.
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I want to make one point for the member. First of all, when one considers the estimates that we tabled in this Legislature last spring - and it discounts devolution - we brought in an O&M budget that was lower than the forecasts for the final quarter of last year. That's the reality.
On top of that, Mr. Speaker, we have also, in this particular budget, reduced the O&M for 10 departments and increased the O&M, admittedly, to a net increase of $3.6 million, in key areas such as health care and education, tourism, the Air Transat deal - which one member opposite doesn't like, or may like, I don't know yet - and the other one is the Anvil Range loan in Economic Development.
But the key areas are clearly health care and education. Now, because the other departments are all, in fact, in decline, in terms of the O&M budgets, the member must be targeting health care. One cannot believe his claims that he would provide the necessary support for the health care system, as we have, that he would do damage to the health care system. We will not do damage to the health care system.
Mr. Ostashek: What we're targeting, Mr. Speaker, is irresponsible spending by this Minister of Finance and this government. That's what we're targeting.
Now we've got the Finance minister saying, "Well, if we discount devolution, our main estimates are less than yours." Well, Mr. Speaker, I say to him, if we took out devolution of the first phase of the hospital or devolution of the airports, our actual costs would have been far less. Let's compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. The fact remains that the increase in the operation and maintenance of the government has gone up by 4.5 percent in this supplementary budget. Will the government minister now admit that the one-percent figure is wrong?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: No, I will not do any such thing. In the first case, for example, the Anvil Range loan is entirely recoverable, so there is no net increase at all. If the member wants to turn to page 3 of the budget book, he'll see what the net increased cost to the O&M budget is. It's one percent.
Secondly, if the member opposite thinks that spending for support for the hospital is irresponsible or spending to provide for health care for out-of-territory patients who've had to receive necessary medical treatment outside of the territory and that facing those increased costs is irresponsible, then this government takes serious issue with him and disagrees entirely with his notion of what the priorities are.
When people are in need, we will respond. That is what this budget is all about.
Mr. Ostashek: The Finance minister sounds like he's a graduate of the Glen Clark school of economics. That's what it sounds like to me. We need only to look at the four budgets that were brought in by the Yukon Party governments to see that the operation and maintenance of government did not increase dramatically in four budgets. If we compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges, this Finance minister has increased, in his supplementary budget, the operation and maintenance of government by 4.5 percent - not one percent like he would like Yukoners to believe.
I ask the Finance minister this: will he put out another press release correcting his inaccuracies?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: The member is living in a complete fantasy land. We are not raising taxes. We don't have a $500 million budget to throw around this territory. We have to spend - and we are going to spend - significantly less than the previous government, in terms of the spending of this government. The net increased expenditure is $4 million, which is, in fact, not even as much as the health care costs arising in this government. We have sought money from other departments. We have, in fact, extracted $2 million from other departments to contribute toward paying for the increased costs in health care.
Clearly, I think when everything is boiled right down, the difference between my government and the John Ostashek government is that we're prepared to provide funding for necessary services, particularly health care and particularly for poor people. We are prepared to ensure that those services are provided when they're needed, and we are not going to, out of some ideologically-driven mentality, target those people for suffering. We feel we can meet these needs -
Speaker: Will the leader please conclude his answer.
Hon. Mr. McDonald: We can meet these needs, Mr. Speaker. We will meet those needs, and we'll do it all in a balanced way.
Question re: Budget balancing
Mr. Cable: I have some questions for the Government Leader on the same topic, on government finances.
During the budget debate, the Government Leader had said during that debate a number of things. He said, firstly, that the budget was developed on the assumption that the Faro mine would not be open. He said also that he was being cautious in his estimates, and he finally confirmed that he thought the budget would be balanced by the end of the year after all the lapses were in. Now this is not the case, at least on the present projections. In his press release of yesterday, he talked about a "nominal accumulated surplus at year-end of approximately $23.9 million."
So just so all of us know where the minister is going, what is his best guess for the accumulated surplus or the accumulated deficit at the end of the present year, and his best guess as to the annual deficit and the annual surplus at the end of the present year after all the lapses are in? In the sense of the lapses that he now anticipates, what does he think will happen to the budget? Will in fact the budget be balanced?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for giving us notice of the question by putting it in a press release and drawing his conclusions before Question Period. I thank the member for that because it allows me to clarify my thoughts on the matter, too.
First of all, the reason why there is less funding we had predicted is probably three-fold. First of all, there are less lapses from last year than we had anticipated. The average would have been about $10 million, and I said so last spring, even in the quotes that the member kindly provided to the media. The lapses in fact were about $2.5 million on the operations side, so less money lapsed than was anticipated.
Secondly, as the budget will show the member, there is a drop in the federal grant by approximately $3 million. That was not anticipated, but that is something that we're dealing with.
And thirdly, there are overexpenditures in health that were not anticipated but for which we provided approximately $5.5 million.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the best estimate for final year-end would be the amount that is shown in the budget book minus what will be necessary to provide for the wage settlement with public servants.
Of course there will be some lapses and, historically, these lapses have been in the $10 million range.
Speaker: Would the Government Leader please conclude his comments.
Hon. Mr. McDonald: If members wanted, I was willing to debate this today. We didn't have to do it in Question Period. We could have done it and actually have had a reasonable debate. Perhaps if the member could ask the question again and I'll continue on with my answer.
Mr. Cable: It's a trick, Mr. Speaker.
The question will be pursued in greater length during the supplemental budgets. I do have some other questions and I thank the Government Leader for thanking me for putting out the press release.
There is going to be significant pressure on the Government Leader to prioritize and to cut and I think he has indicated to the media yesterday that he expects that there will be cuts and he just doesn't know where they're going to be at the present time.
Now, in A Better Way, he talked about providing ways for public input in the budget process. I know he's been beating down doors around the territory talking about finances. What does he anticipate will take place in the way of public consultation around the territory in relation to the issue of prioritizing government expenditures and the deciding, through public consultation, where the cuts will take place?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: In the first instance, yes, the member is quite right. I have been around the territory and I have been speaking to people about what they feel the priorities should be. I can tell the member there have only been a couple of occasions where anybody has suggested that efficiencies can be achieved or that cuts should be made. Clearly, the equation that I presented to people is that the resources that we expect to see in the medium future show that our revenues will probably be finite - they'll be fixed - and that any new initiatives, particularly on the operation side, will have to come at the expense of other things we're doing.
So, the people are aware of the basic equation. Nobody has been jumping on the bandwagon to suggest cuts, but if there are reasoned proposals for how to do things better, then I am there waiting, willing to receive them and to consider them.
Mr. Cable: A Better Way suggests that, in the usual of things, the Government Leader, on an annual basis, will be taking input on budget expenditures and budget revenue. Is he saying that there is no sort of organized plan for taking public consultation? Does he anticipate sending his people out into the meeting halls of the territory to discuss cuts or is it simply going to be a you-call-me-and-tell-me-what-you-think sort of approach?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I want to first of all make it clear that we have never rung alarm bells that things are out of hand. We do believe that with modest expectations, with a sense of restraint in terms of what people want to do that is new, we can manage our finances quite adequately; we can retain the $15-million surplus that we want to have always in the bank; we can meet emerging needs such as those that have arisen this year in health care - and, by the way, just to emphasize the point that this is not an emergency in the sense that it is not a crisis, the growth in health care spending this year is not even the largest on record in mid-year. In 1993, the growth in the Department of Health and Social Services was $15 million. So, clearly, this is not a situation where there's a crisis. This is a situation where, as long as we manage our expectations, we can meet our targets and do so with some comfort.
Question re: Budget balancing
Mr. Cable: Let's go back to the first question I asked the Government Leader. He has whetted my interest on the topic. I asked the Government Leader whether, at the end of the present fiscal year when all the lapses were in and all the adjustments were made, he thought the budget would be balanced or whether he thought it would be in a surplus position or a deficit position. And he started to explain. I wonder if he'd continue. Could he give us a definitive opinion? What is his best guess at the present time? Are we going to be in the red or are we going to be in the black at the end of the present fiscal year?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: What I answered, Mr. Speaker, was that we were going to have a surplus and that it's going to be greater than $15 million by the end of the fiscal year. That's what I indicated.
With respect to the annual deficit, there will probably be an annual deficit by the end of the year, as there was this year.
Nearer the end of the year, I'll be in a better position to provide that information because we'll have a better indication of what the lapses may be. And we'll also have a better indication of what the wage package will be. But, right now, we're projecting a $23-million to $24-million surplus, minus public sector wages, plus lapses from the current year. That's what we're projecting.
I wouldn't want to be accused of interfering in the collective bargaining process by setting any kind of limit, or being seen to set any kind of limit, on what those wages will be. We have a bargaining position and we're going to carry that through the collective bargaining process.
In terms of lapses, as I've indicated to the member, they've been as high as the notorious $20-million lapse and they've been as low, of course, as last year's $2.5 million. It will probably be someplace in between.
Mr. Cable: Another one of the bullet points that was in A Better Way was the preparation of a long-term financial plan. A Better Way spoke about a five-year financial plan, and the Government Leader, during the budget debate, got into that. He said he was thinking about it, I believe.
Could he tell the House when he intends to present to the Yukon public a long-term financial plan?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: In March.
Mr. Cable: Okay, well that's a fairly definitive response. I think the next question also will engender a fairly definitive response.
The minister, during the election and subsequently, indicated that he would not raise taxes. In view of the deteriorating financial position, will he reiterate to the House that he will not raise taxes?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: First of all, I will indicate to the House that we will not raise taxes, but I will take issue with the member that the financial situation is deteriorating. I don't believe it is. I believe that we can manage our resources wisely, we can meet good, modest expectations, we can retain a healthy bank account, and we can ensure that we don't go into debt. I mean, we can do the basic things, and we don't have to raise taxes, either.
So the gloom-and-doom interpretation is not coming from the government side at all. It's coming from opposition members. I don't believe that it's justified. I don't believe the numbers signify that it is justified, and feel that what we have here is a situation that is better than it was last year. At the same time last year, we were projecting a $32-million deficit. It's $22 million this year. There will be some lapses. There will probably be a deficit by year-end, but there'll also be a fairly healthy bank account, too.
Question re: Education, mathematics grades
Mr. Phillips: My question is for the Minister of Education. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister if she'd become aware of the problems with the low math marks in a large number of students in their first term. The minister dismissed my concerns, Mr. Speaker, to the shock of many parents, teachers and students who are very concerned about the trend. The minister told us yesterday, and I quote, Mr. Speaker, "The first term tests are teacher-based exams and they're used by the teacher to determine what information has to be reviewed before introducing new material."
Mr. Speaker, she brushed it off as just minor tests just to check the status of the students, and that's all it was, nothing to get alarmed about.
Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the minister if she would take some time out of her busy schedule and meet with one of the main partners of education, the math department of F.H. Collins, to hear firsthand from the teachers about the concerns that they have and to see if they share the same view as the minister that all is well.
Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: The member opposite is taking this issue and trying to inflate his concerns and create a lot of alarm in the public. I think he's being irresponsible in the way he's going about it.
We are dealing with term marks in one high school in the territory. I think the member needs to keep that in perspective. Today, I tabled the assessment highlights for the Yukon territorial exams in 1996-97, which show the annual results in English and math. They are not alarming.
Mr. Phillips: Well, I don't think this minister should take one ounce of credit for that. The credit should go to the math teachers, for their volunteer time and their dedicated efforts, to the parents, to the students and to the tutors, who have had to spend dozens and dozens of extra hours with our students over the past year or two to try and bring them up to speed at the end of the year.
There is a problem in our system. What I asked the minister in the first question, and I'll ask again: will she meet with the key partners of education - the math department of F.H. Collins - and ask them firsthand, without her officials present - just the minister, so that the math department can tell her how they feel - if there is a crisis or there isn't a crisis. If they say everything's fine, that's fine, but I don't think they're going to tell the minister that. Will the minister meet with those partners in education - the math teachers - who know what's best? Will she meet with them?
Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: The member opposite is contradicting himself. First he says that the results are terrible. Then he says that this government shouldn't take credit for the fact that the assessment highlights show that the territorial examinations for 1996-97 show that the math results are good and that the students are learning the subject.
Mr. Speaker, I'll be the first one to give credit to the teachers in the Yukon school system, not just in math, but for all subjects, and not just in F.H. Collins, but in all the schools.
Mr. Phillips: I was not contradicting myself. What I was telling the minister was that there is a problem there. The problem has been partially solved by year-end by the math teachers, by the parents who pay extra money for tutors, by the students who put in extra work. Mr. Speaker, the students are not prepared when they come into the high school levels.
I'm asking the minister this: will the minister take the time out and meet with the partners in education, meet with the math teachers, meet with the parents of the 110 students who failed the first term and meet with the principal and school council of F.H. Collins and see if they share the concerns of the minister, that all is well in our education system. I think the minister will get a rude awakening if she does what she says she will do, and that's consult with the partners in education. Will she meet with those individuals?
Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Speaker, I'd like that member opposite to know that I have been to F.H. Collins. I have met with the F.H. Collins school council as well as with other individual school councils and with the school council chairs. Mr. Speaker, I meet with the education partners and they are quite willing to have meetings, as am I.
Speaker: The time for Question Period has elapsed.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
GOVERNMENT BILLS
Bill No. 38: Second Reading
Clerk: Second reading, Bill No. 38, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Moorcroft.
Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: I move that Bill No. 38, entitled An Act to Amend the Consumer Protection Act, be now read a second time.
Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Minister of Justice that Bill No. 38, entitled An Act to Amend the Consumer Protection Act, be now read a second time.
Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Speaker, this bill contains a number of amendments that affect direct sales, including contract requirements and consumers' cancellation rights. These were developed and agreed upon pursuant to Canada's agreement on internal trade.
A direct seller is any person who solicits and makes an offer which is intended to result in a sale. Most often, this involves door-to-door sales or telephone solicitation.
In 1987, the first ministers formed the committee of ministers on internal trade. They recognized that internal trade barriers led to inefficient use of resources and limited the ability of industry to take advantage of economic opportunities that ultimately lead to added costs been passed on to consumers.
The first ministers identified that creating a more efficient trade market was critical to Canada's economic well-being. In 1994, a committee made up of representatives from each province and territory reviewed issues relating to direct sales, including contract requirements and consumer cancellation rights. Legislation in each jurisdiction was reviewed and consensus reached on amendments to harmonize these aspects and provide added protection for consumers.
With these amendments, consumers will now have extended cancellation rights, up to 10 days from the previous seven days. This will provide consumers with additional time to reconsider their purchase and, if they wish, cancel the sale. Cancellation of a sale for other reasons, such as non-delivery of a product or service, will increase to one year from the previous six months. The responsibilities of both parties are then clearly defined.
With these amendments, direct sellers across Canada will use a standardized contract, which will provide added protection to consumers. This will also reduce administration costs to business. Ultimately they can pass those savings on to consumers.
Ten provinces have already or are in the process of amending their legislation, so it's clear that all jurisdictions recognize the need for harmonized legislation.
There's a growing use of direct sales marketing, so these amendments will provide good consumer protection in the Yukon and Canada. This is in keeping with the government's commitment to provide a fair and equitable playing field for all Yukon residents.
Mr. Phillips: Mr. Speaker, we support the bill that has been presented by the minister. As the minister has said, this is basically a housekeeping bill or a bill which brings us into line with all other jurisdictions of the country. It is good for the Yukon consumer, and all consumers, I suppose, to know that there is conformity across this country, and we certainly support the bill in that context.
Mr. Cable: The Liberal caucus will also be supporting the bill. I think the increase in the cooling-off period is desirable. There are people that are taken advantage of by fast-talking salespersons, and we look forward to the bill being read for the final time.
Motion for second reading of Bill No. 38 agreed to
Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Speaker, I move that the Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve into Committee of the Whole.
Speaker: It has been moved by the acting government House leader that the Speaker do now leave the Chair and that the House resolve into Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to
Speaker leaves the Chair
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Chair: I will now call Committee of the Whole to order. Is it the members' wish to take a brief recess?
Some Hon. Members: Agreed.
Chair: We will take a 15-minute recess.
Recess
Chair: I will now call Committee of the Whole to order.
We are on Bill No. 29, An Act to Amend the Taxpayer Protection Act.
Bill No. 29 - An Act to Amend the Taxpayer Protection Act
Chair: Is there any general debate?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I believe that the remarks I made in second reading cover the purpose of the simple amendment that we are proposing to the act.
The bill before us will exempt any liability for employee termination benefits in excess of $30 million from the calculation of the surpluses or deficits for the purposes of measuring compliance with the Taxpayer Protection Act. This is necessary because we decided to cap the recorded liability for the termination benefits at $30 million. We're capping the recorded liability because we feel that $30 million is an adequate sum to carry as the provision for a liability that will never be paid out as a lump sum and which, in a normal course of events, is largely financed from ongoing annual appropriations.
The purpose of the cap is to free up, for other program purposes within the government, appropriations that would otherwise be required to increase the liability beyond $30 million.
If the operation of the Taxpayer Protection Act, which requires that we follow specified accounting procedures, is not suspended for the purposes of this particular liability account, there is no purpose in capping the leave account. The effect of the amendment is therefore to exclude from the calculation of unconsolidated surpluses or deficits any sum of which the actual liability exceeds $30 million.
The Taxpayer Protection Act, as I mentioned in second reading, already includes one exception to specified accounting rules, and this amendment simply adds one other.
As members have noted in the second reading speeches, the idea of capping the leave liability for accounting purposes has been previously discussed in the House and I believe the idea has been generally well-received. I believe that members have an interest in seeing that dollars that are appropriated by the Legislature are used to improve the lot of citizens, rather than going to an ever-increasing liability account, which, if allowed to grow more, will far exceed any reasonable sum required for its purpose.
As members will know, the capping of this liability is simply the capping of the recorded liability of the unconsolidated statements of account. The actual liability owing to our employees is, of course, unchanged by our policy of establishing a ceiling for accounting purposes. Since the Taxpayer Protection Act only applies to our unconsolidated accounts, the ceiling or the cap is only applicable there, and the unconsolidated accounts will continue to show the actual liability.
Our change in policy should not attract any particular attention from the Auditor General's office since, in theory, they only sign off on our consolidated statements. They may, however, comment on the difference in accounting policy between consolidated and unconsolidated statements that will result from the adoption of this new policy to limit the growth of the recorded liability.
For the information of the members, the leave liability account now stands at $29.7 million as of March 31, 1997.
If members have any questions, I can answer them now.
Mr. Ostashek: My comments will be fairly brief on this. The Government Leader is absolutely right. We've been looking at this, and it has been raised by the Government Leader when he was in opposition as a way to have more money. I guess it was one of those things that I know when I was Finance minister I just sort of kept it as an ace in the hole. If we had to get into a bind where we really needed the money, then I wouldn't have had any difficulty bringing this sort of an amendment in.
This will impact on the surplus-deficit position, and I would ask the Government Leader - I believe I have the figure, but for the benefit of the record - if he could just give us a rough ballpark figure on how much he believes this will increase the surplus by capping this at $30 million, because there's always a little more money every year. We were putting in more money than what was needed to cover the withdrawals from the fund and, as a result, that's why the fund has been growing. I believe that five years ago, when I came to power, the fund was only $13 million. It has grown quite substantially - $13 million or $15 million.
I have no difficulty with this amendment, but I would just like the Government Leader to state for the record what impact this will have on the surplus.
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Essentially what it will do, Mr. Speaker, if one considers, for example, this year and where we are right now at $29.7 million, if the payout to retiring employees was - as it's expected to be - $1.9 million, then the difference between the present system as it is and the system with the cap is that we would probably free up about $1.2 million in this year for other purposes. There would still, of course, be an appropriation made because we would pay out as we go what we know to be the actual payouts for retiring employees. We would have to add a bit, of course, to bring the cap up to $30 million in this particular year but, for the year coming, it would probably be up about $1.2 million for other purposes.
Mr. Ostashek: I just have one question before I let some of my colleagues go. The minister addressed in his opening statement the fact that this is only an accounting figure and that the actual cost will be recorded in the consolidated statements. There has been concern by Finance officials that the Auditor General may put a line in our budget that we're not following general accounting principles. I don't know whether he will or not, but I would just like to ask the Finance minister: have there been discussions with the Auditor General in regards to capping this fund and what his views were? Not that I'm saying it makes any difference to me if he does put a line in there, but it would be nice to see a clean report rather than having him make that comment every year.
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, Mr. Chair, I don't know whether or not Finance has discussed the matter with the Auditor General, but I'll check on that subject for the member.
As I indicated in second reading and in Committee, the thinking is that because the Auditor General reviews the consolidated accounts that they would only be making their notes or addressing the accounting procedures for those accounts. So consequently, there is a feeling that there's a good chance that the Auditor General will not say anything. Of course, if the Auditor General does say something, we'll know what it's all about, and I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.
As I recall, one member asked as well whether or not we want to be thinking about increasing the cap at some point in the future, and I would suspect there will probably be a desire by future governments to increase the cap to maintain the real value of the account over a long period of time. It's of course quite arbitrary whether or not you cap it at 25 or 20 or 30, and perhaps we're setting a bit of a standard now by capping it now, but it would be up to other governments to decide whether or not they want to maintain the real value or whether they want to do something else. Right now, we feel that this is a reasonable measure, as obviously does the leader of the opposition.
Chair: There not being further general debate, we will go to clause 1.
On Clause 1
Clause 1 agreed to
On Title
Title agreed to
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chair, I move you report Bill No. 29 out of Committee without amendment.
Motion agreed to
Chair: We will now proceed to Bill No. 35.
Bill No. 35 - An Act to Amend the Financial Administration Act
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chair, I've had some discussions with the leader of the official opposition about the measure before us, and we'll be proposing a couple of amendments to the bill in order to accommodate a degree of common thinking between us on the object of the size of the vehicle fleet revolving fund. While this is a change to the Financial Administration Act, it, of course, is administered by two other departments, namely Government Services and Community and Transportation Services. What I can do is simply identify briefly what is involved, once again, and then we can discuss the matter further.
I believe that the changes dealing with the road equipment reserve fund are fairly uncontroversial. They simply make it clear that the fund can also be used for airport equipment and that annual capital expenditures shall not exceed $5 million. This last clarification was made on the recommendation of the Auditor General and our own internal auditor, who thought that we should spell out explicitly what has always been the practice for the fund; that is, that the $5-million limit relates to capital, not operations or any combination of operations and capital expenditures.
I believe that the portions of the bill dealing with establishment of the Queen's Printer revolving fund are fairly well-accepted. The amendment simply permits the Queen's Printer special operating agency to operate in the same manner as our two other special operating agencies. Members will note that the last amendment to the Financial Administration Act in 1996 created revolving funds for the other agencies.
So, this amendment simply completes the process, as the two other funds for the two other operating agencies have previously been established. It is the remaining amendment, whereby we are increasing the total limit and the annual limit respectively of the vehicle fleet revolving fund from $6 million to $8 million and from $1 million to $1.2 million in maximum allowable expenditures, that has caused some concern from the members opposite, but I believe the amendments will serve the purpose in terms of satisfying members' concerns.
I would point out that the original reasons is for the increase in the vehicle fleet revolving fund to $12 million included the anticipated transfer of the Northern Affairs program vehicles as well as assumption of the natural growth in the asset value of government assets. We are more than prepared to wait until the Northern Affairs program actually happens. We can do an assessment on an annual basis or biannual basis on the value of the fund and consider simple changes to the Financial Administration Act such as this to update ourselves as we go and also to determine how well the revolving funds are working and to determine whether or not and how we want to continue.
I will be tabling two amendments, as I mentioned, to reduce the increase in limits being sought in legislation. What I can do, Mr. Chair, if the members have specific questions on the operations of the funds or how the funds in the special operating agencies report to both manager, board and the Legislature, is refer those questions to my colleagues who are responsible for the actual operations themselves.
Mr. Ostashek: I thank the member for that. I will reserve my questions on the operations of the funds until when we get into the supplementary budget debate and will not delve into them at this time. I thank the minister for listening to the concerns of the opposition on the amount of the fund. We don't want to see the fund crippled. We don't want to see the agency restricted by not having ample funds to operate the SOA in a manner that it needs. We just felt that $12 million was a little too high at this time, seeing how the rationale for it was the precedent that we would be devolving other services from the federal government. I have no difficulty with another amendment coming in at the time, if it's required. We can debate it at that time.
I do believe that, as the SOA gets a little more experience, and I would hope that, with a pool fleet, we would be getting higher utilization of that fleet and would not have to increase the whole value of the vehicles that we're taking over as we devolve these other responsibilities from the federal government.
That was my concern, and I again thank the member opposite for listening to it. I have no concerns about changing the name of the highway fund and we certainly have no concerns about setting up a revolving fund for the SOA, the Queen's Printer. In fact, if it's going to work, it needs to have that revolving fund and, as the Finance minister has said and as I said previously in this House, these funds have been established. We'll see how they work. And the government of the day in the future will make a decision about whether it's worthwhile to continue with the funds or whether we should go back to the old way or to some other new system. But let's give them a good try, as the Finance minister said the other night, but at the same time let's not give them too much money that we have to account for to the public.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I may have further questions in general debate.
Mr. Cable: We don't have any questions either. I would just indicate support for the bill, as amended, and I thank the Finance minister for making the changes on the suggestions put forward.
Chair: Not seeing any further general debate, we will go to clause 1.
On Clause 1
Clause 1 agreed to
On Clause 2
Amendment proposed
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I'm referring to clause 2(1) and propose to move my amendment now. I move
THAT Bill No. 35, entitled An Act to Amend the Financial Administration Act, be amended in clause 2.(1) by deleting the expression "$12,000,000" and substituting for it the expression "$8,000,000"; and
Chair: It has been moved by the hon. Mr. McDonald
THAT Bill No. 35, entitled An Act to Amend the Financial Administration Act, be amended in clause 2.(1) by deleting the expression "$12,000,000" and substituting for it the expression "$8,000,000"; and
Amendment agreed to
Second amendment proposed
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chair, I am now referring to the very next section in the Act to Amend the Financial Administration Act, 2(2), and I intend to move the following amendment:
THAT Bill No. 35, entitled An Act to Amend the Financial Administration Act, be amended in clause 2.(2) by deleting the expression "$2,000,000" and substituting for it the expression "$1,200,000".
Chair: It has been moved by the hon. Mr. McDonald
THAT Bill No. 35, entitled An Act to Amend the Financial Administration Act, be amended in clause 2.(2) by deleting the expression "$2,000,000" and substituting for it the expression "$1,200,000".
Second amendment agreed to
Clause 2 agreed to as amended
On Clause 3
Clause 3 agreed to
On Title
Title agreed to
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chair, I move that you report Bill No. 35, entitled An Act to Amend the Financial Administration Act, out of Committee with amendment.
Motion agreed to
Bill No. 30 - An Act to Amend the Constitutional Questions Act
Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: As I indicated in the second reading speech on the An Act To Amend the Constitutional Questions Act, this amendment allows the Yukon government to seek a declaration of the validity of a law of Canada, and it adds to the ability presently held by the Yukon government to challenge the validity of the Yukon laws.
Chair: Is there any general debate?
Not seeing any general debate, we will go to Clause 1.
On Clause 1
Clause 1 agreed to
On Clause 2
Clause 2 agreed to
On Title
Title agreed to
Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Chair, I move that Bill No. 30 be moved out of Committee without amendment.
Motion agreed to
Chair: We will now go to Bill No. 31, An Act to Amend the Cooperative Associations Act.
Bill No. 31 - An Act to Amend the Cooperative Associations Act
Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: This act makes the position of registrar for cooperative associations consistent with the position of the registrar of business corporations.
Chair: Is there any general debate?
We will go to line by line.
On Clause 1
Clause 1 agreed to
On Clause 2
Clause 2 agreed to
On Clause 3
Clause 3 agreed to
On Title
Title agreed to
Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Chair, I move that Bill No. 31, An Act to Amend the Cooperative Associations Act, be moved out of Committee without amendment.
Motion agreed to
Chair: We will now go to Bill No. 25, An Act to Amend the Notaries Act.
Bill No. 25 - An Act to Amend the Notaries Act
Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: This bill amends the Notaries Act and the changes include creating a registrar of notaries with the authority to set examinations and issue certificates under the act, and the taking of oath of office by all applicants.
Chair: Is there any general debate?
We will go to clause 1.
On Clause 1
Clause 1 agreed to
On Clause 2
Clause 2 agreed to
On Clause 3
Clause 3 agreed to
On Clause 4
Clause 4 agreed to
On Clause 5
Clause 5 agreed to
On Clause 6
Clause 6 agreed to
On Clause 7
Clause 7 agreed to
On Clause 8
Clause 8 agreed to
On Clause 9
Clause 9 agreed to
On Clause 10
Clause 10 agreed to
On Clause 11
Clause 11 agreed to
On Clause 12
Clause 12 agreed to
On Title
Title agreed to
Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Chair, I move that Bill No. 25, An Act to Amend the Notaries Act, be moved out of Committee without amendment.
Motion agreed to
Chair: We will now go to Bill No. 34, Continuing Consolidation of Statutes Act.
Bill No. 34 - Continuing Consolidation of Statutes Act
Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: This bill would authorize the chief legislative counsel to carry out a general revision of statutes and regulations on an ongoing revision and provision is made for depositing revised statutes and filing revised regulations and for bringing them into force.
By having a continuing consolidation, we would be improving the public awareness of the law. I think you only have to look at the statutes on the Clerk's table. The present system, where there's a compilation done every 10 years or so, and then adding annual updates, means that it can be both time consuming and confusing to find the statutes that you want.
So this amendment is in keeping with public legal education, which is an important principle.
Last night, in the debate on the Motor Vehicles Act, the Member for Riverside was asking some questions relating to the fact that the Motor Vehicles Act amendments refer to provisions of the Criminal Code. His question was, if the Criminal Code numbering changes, would we need to bring in consequential amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act. By bringing into effect a system of continuing consolidation, the chief legislative counsel could make those kinds of minor revisions to Yukon statutes on an ongoing basis. What we propose to do is have a continuing consolidation, which could be updated as often as twice a year.
Chair: Is there any general debate?
Mr. Phillips: I asked the minister in second reading the cost of the project. I can't recall if the minister gave us the cost of the project. Also, as well, when will the project be complete?
Now, the minister kind of answered my last question, and that was, how up to date will we actually be? It may cause some confusion, I suppose, in law, if one were dealing with a case and there were some changes to numbering, or some consequential amendments and someone was making an argument. How up to date is this system going to be? If it's only twice a year, I guess it could be as up to date as yesterday, but as up to date as six months ago, kind of thing, if there were some other changes.
So maybe the minister can explain that a little more.
Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: It certainly would be more up to date than the present system of having to look through the annual volume and know which year it was that a statute had been passed. I think that's the best answer that I can give to the member.
Mr. Phillips: I don't want anybody to be slighted but, in the unlikely event that someone in the Department of Justice makes an error in bringing something up to date, what happens in that case - if someone was dealing with a statute that was possibly outdated? Because there's going to be an enormous amount of research, I would imagine, in this particular exercise to bring everything up to date and make sure that it's accurate, but we all know that sometimes things don't go into the computers the way we want them to, or sometimes we don't put things into the computers that are supposed to be in there. Sometimes we put things in there that aren't supposed to be there.
So, I just want to know this from the minister: is there any liability responsibility on the government for errors in the system? I suppose it would be similar to what there is now, but would there be any liability on errors in the system if they hadn't brought things up to date?
Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: The consolidation is not intended to create new law, but to codify existing law. So, we could go back to the existing law. I can assure the member that the chief legislative counsel would not be doing their work in isolation, but would still be reporting to the director of legal services and to the deputy minister and we would certainly endeavour to find any errors and ensure they're corrected.
Mr. Phillips: I guess my concern is that we all know that cases are not always won and lost based on law. They are sometimes won and lost based on technicalities - somebody left something out or inadvertently didn't put something down or the numbering was wrong or they didn't read the rights the right way or said the wrong number when they read the rights or something. I mean, there's always an argument for these things. So, I just want to make sure that there are no loopholes here and that we won't see a major problem arising if there happens to be some errors in the input or the output of this new system.
Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Well, the possibility of human error exists in any system and I don't believe that the risk of error is any greater in a continuing consolidation basis than in the present system.
Mr. Cable: While we have the legislative counsel here, it might be useful to run that issue around that we talked about last night, which the minister responded to on the renumbering of sections as the consolidations go forward. Is there any legislative authority that would be required to permit the legislative counsel to do that on an ongoing basis?
Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: That legislative authority is established in the bill before us, the Continuing Consolidation of Statutes Act. I can give the member the details on section 3 of the bill. This section gives the chief legislative council the authority to revise all of the statutes or all of the regulations, a single statute or regulation, or a part of a statute or a regulation. It should be noted that this is a permissive section and that the wording is "may prepare revisions". So, the ability is clearly created for revisions to be made to deal with things like the renumbering of sections.
Mr. Cable: On the issue that I put to the Minister of Community and Transportation Services, is the authority there, then, to renumber other incorporated statutes, such as the Criminal Code, when they're referenced - not actually numbered, but referenced within the body of the statute?
Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: In section 4, which sets out the powers of the chief legislative counsel under the act, clause (b) refers to changing the numbering or arrangement of provisions. The Criminal Code sections, if they are itemized within the territorial statute - in this instance, the Motor Vehicles Act - are numbers of sections of the Yukon Territory Motor Vehicles Act; therefore, any renumbering of the Criminal Code could be corrected in the Motor Vehicles Act.
Mr. Cable: I think one would normally interpret that. It would be useful to hear the opinion of the legislative counsel. When you're talking about provisions, you're talking about provisions of this bill, not some other bill that's referenced.
Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: The Interpretation Act deals with this if reference is made to an act of another jurisdiction.
I can refer the member specifically to section 24(2) of the Interpretation Act, which is the clause that speaks to a statute of a province or of Canada being repealed or amended.
Chair: Seeing no further general debate, we will go to clause 1.
On Clause 1
Clause 1 agreed to
On Clause 2
Clause 2 agreed to
On Clause 3
Clause 3 agreed to
On Clause 4
Clause 4 agreed to
On Clause 5
Clause 5 agreed to
On Clause 6
Clause 6 agreed to
On Clause 7
Clause 7 agreed to
On Clause 8
Clause 8 agreed to
On Clause 9
Clause 9 agreed to
On Clause 10
Clause 10 agreed to
On Clause 11
Clause 11 agreed to
On Clause 12
Clause 12 agreed to
On Clause 13
Clause 13 agreed to
On Clause 14
Clause 14 agreed to
On Clause 15
Clause 15 agreed to
On Clause 16
Clause 16 agreed to
On Clause 17
Clause 17 agreed to
On Clause 18
Clause 18 agreed to
On Clause 19
Clause 19 agreed to
On Clause 20
Clause 20 agreed to
On Clause 21
Clause 21 agreed to
On Title
Title agreed to
Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Chair, I move that Bill No. 34 be moved out of Committee without amendment.
Motion agreed to
Bill No. 46 - An Act to Amend the Partnership Act
Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Chair, I would like to address some questions that were raised following second reading on An Act to Amend the Partnership Act. Mr. Phillips raised a question concerning the procedure that will be followed to initiate the changes. Initially, all partnership and trade names registered up to 1994 will be reviewed. A notification will be sent out to establish whether each registration is still active. This will be confirmed by completion of an accompanying renewal form. If there is no response within 120 days as stipulated in the proposed amendments, then the registration will be removed. New registrants will be advised of the requirement to register every three years. Our intent is to forward a renewal form and reminder within 120 days of expiration.
The problems relating to the Partnership Act and the maintenance of an up-to-date registry has been a long-standing issue. This issue was clearly identified in our consultations with a variety of sources, including municipal administrators, the Yukon legal community, and the Yukon chambers of commerce. The comments received relating to these registration renewal provisions were positive. I'm pleased to hear of the support from the members opposite as indicated previously.
Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chair, there was a letter written on September 10 from the Whitehorse Chamber of Commerce, I believe, and I have got the letter, but I never got the reply that the minister sent back to the Whitehorse Chamber. There were a few questions in there that they asked, and by the minister's opening remarks, I'm not sure if they are covered off in the bill where there were amendments or changes made in the bill.
There was a concern over the combination of the three-year reservation period and the fee increasing from $5 to $25. Maybe the minister could explain that.
They are also concerned and do not support the proposal that will remove any responsibility of the registrar for name approvals and to deliberately permit the registration and use of identical names. I know that has been a concern in the past. That's another one, as well.
They were concerned about the registrar's liability; it seems seriously overstated, and they feel that proposed amendments 1 and 3 will be contradictory in effect. The first requires renewals and allows the registrar to delete both measures designed to ensure more current registry and protect only those trade names of businesses that care to renew. The latter amendment would remove much of that protection by eliminating any restrictions on registration and allowing duplication. Their concern is that there is little or no incentive to register and remain current if the only protection offered is some cause of action for future and expensive legal action and there's no penalty on registration if continued use and duplication is allowed anyway.
I wonder if the minister could let us know what responses she gave to the chamber. Did she change the bill at all to conform to their concerns?
Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Yes, Mr. Chair. In response to the input from the Whitehorse Chamber of Commerce - and I'm looking to see if any of the others - and the legal community, the bill was changed and the registrar maintains the ability to review names and ensure that there is not duplicate name registration.
The chamber agreed that the name of the act should be changed to reflect its new role and liked the idea of requiring all businesses using a trade name to register. There was a concern about the fee increasing to $25 from the current $5. It will be increasing to $25. I believe that is a reasonable figure. It's quite a long time ago that the rate was set at $5.
Mr. Cable: This is a mechanical question. When one files an application for a company or a trade name or business name you get a name clearance? I assume that when the partnership registration set out in this bill expires it will be moved off the active list. Will it be retained anywhere, so that when one makes a name search they will pick up previous trade names?
Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: I guess that's one of those questions where you can give an answer where you thank the miracles of modern technology. The names will remain in the computer records so that they could be searched if someone wanted to do a historical search of names.
Chair: Not seeing any further general debate, we will go to clause 1.
On Clause 1
Clause 1 agreed to
On Clause 2
Clause 2 agreed to
On Clause 3
Clause 3 agreed to
On Clause 4
Clause 4 agreed to
On Clause 5
Clause 5 agreed to
On Clause 6
Clause 6 agreed to
On Clause 7
Clause 7 agreed to
On Clause 8
Clause 8 agreed to
On Clause 9
Clause 9 agreed to
On Clause 10
Clause 10 agreed to
On Clause 11
Clause 11 agreed to
On Clause 12
Clause 12 agreed to
On Title
Title agreed to
Mr. Phillips: Before we clear the whole thing, maybe I missed it, but I did ask the minister earlier how much it was going to cost and when it was all going to come into effect. Did the minister give me that? Maybe I wasn't listening. The minister did answer one of my other questions that I asked at the same time, but I don't know if she gave me the answer of the total cost of this project and when this will come into effect.
Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: The cost of implementing this bill is incorporated into the cost of the computerization of the corporate affairs branch, which was a three-year project of approximately $120,000. I believe the member might be inquiring, though, as to the cost of the continuing consolidation of statutes.
No? Okay.
Mr. Jenkins: Just one point, Mr. Chair, with respect to the continuance. The minister indicated there was going to be notification sent out from the office to the respective corporation or company as to the expiry and renewal and the renewal process. This is not in the act itself. Will that be in regulations agreed to, or part of this? Or am I missing something. Is it somewhere else? How are we going to ensure that this policy doesn't change, Mr. Chair?
Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Section 89(1) talks about the removal of registration, and it indicates in clause 2 that the registrar shall not remove the declaration until they have given 120 days' notice to the partnership or the individual who has registered the business.
Mr. Jenkins: I know in our area we have a lot of smaller firms that operate seasonally under a trade name, and that would not appear to be an adequate margin of time, the 120 days. In light of that, would the minister consider changing that and giving a longer period of time for renewal than what is being indicated here?
Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: When this bill is brought in, all businesses that presently are registered will be given notice of the contents of the bill. As well, whenever a business registers a name, they will be advised that there is an obligation to renew their business name every three years. If a seasonal business is coming in and registering their business name in April, at the beginning of their season in one year, presumably they would be wanting to renew in April three years hence. Notices will be sent to the last known address of the business and I think that most businesses do make an effort to receive their mail. Four months' notice, I think, is fairly adequate, particularly if the notice is sent out in advance of the 120-day period.
On Title
Title agreed to
Chair: Before proceeding to Bill No. 39, is it the wish of the members to take a brief recess? Before we do that, Ms. Moorcroft.
Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Before the brief recess, I move that Bill No. 46, An Act to Amend the Partnership Act be moved out of Committee without amendment.
Motion agreed to
Recess
Chair: I will now call Committee of the Whole to order. We are dealing with Bill No. 39, An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicles Act.
Bill No. 39 - An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicles Act
Hon. Mr. Keenan: Mr. Chair, last night we had a fairly substantial discussion on this bill and I certainly appreciate the members' support at the second reading of this bill. I elaborated a little last night and I was sent a note to say that we'd done a very good job and I was to sit down, so I won't continue to drag it out. I know that there will be some questions as we go through it and I certainly welcome the debate and comments of the members opposite on the individual clauses.
Mr. Chair, certain questions were asked yesterday and I did endeavour to get answers for these. If I could, I would like to read them into the record at this point in time.
A question was asked on the driver's examination proposal for requiring the examiner to have a licence for the class of licence they are examining. This issue is not related to the impaired, suspended or uninsured drivers initiatives included in this bill. The department is aware of the issue raised by the member opposite and has established a policy which does exactly what the member refers to. If the member is recommending that the policy be embodied in the Motor Vehicles Act, I would propose that this matter be considered for the next package of amendments for the Motor Vehicles Act.
The department currently believes that the use of departmental policy can be very effective, and before proceeding with any initiative of this nature I would like the department to examine the practices and examine the criteria in other Canadian jurisdictions.
There was a question on references to the Criminal Code. The references to section numbers are to be read and understood as references to those sections as amended by Parliament from time to time. That rule has been established and periodically reaffirmed by court decisions and the Interpretation Act for over a century. We're referring to section numbers because of the certainty it gives.
There was a question on the absolute and conditional discharges. Under the Criminal Code, a discharge is the legal term used to refer to one type of disposition of a charge after a trial. A discharge occurs only after a person has been found guilty of the offence. The result of a discharge is that the person is found guilty but does not have a criminal record for that offence and does have a Criminal Code punishment imposed on them for that offence. A discharge will be granted only in cases where there are extenuating circumstances. The fact that the person suffers consequences independently of punishment under the Criminal Code is one factor that might suggest a discharge would be appropriate.
A discharge does not carry any connotation that the person was not guilty. On the contrary, it explicitly affirms that the person is guilty of the offence. Discharge is merely relief from a criminal record and a Criminal Code punishment.
Again, how is the indefinite suspension system to work? Under the provisions of the existing act, the Driver Control Board and the registrar could issue indefinite disqualifications as long as the minimum length of the disqualification was consistent with section 231 of the act.
This bill changes the minimum periods for driver's licencesqualifications to one year for the first offence, three years for a second offence, and a minimum of five years for a third offence. For example, the Driver Control Board could recommend the removal of the disqualification for the second offence with whatever conditions they deem appropriate, but only after disqualification has been effective for at least one year.
There are no legislative provisions in the bill for the removal of a driver's licence disqualification for a third impaired driving charge before the disqualification has been effective for at least five years.
Why are there extensive impoundment types and conditions? We believe the authority for impoundment of vehicles must be clearly established in legislation. The actual provisions of the bill which deal specifically with the impoundment of vehicles are relatively few in number. The extensive provisions the member is referring to relate more to the measures this government is proposing to make vehicle impoundment right for the Yukon.
These include the discretion to order the vehicle delivered to an impoundment facility if the towing distance is unreasonable; the early release of vehicles to an owner, if the owner was not the offender; provisions to compensate vehicle owners for wrongful impoundment; and measures for the early compassionate release of vehicles of the people who are dependent on the vehicle. These extra provisions are required to ensure the vehicle impoundment program is fair and targets those who are the offenders.
Those are the answers that I have, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Jenkins: I'd like to respond just one by one to some of the issues that the minister has brought forth, and I'd like to thank him for his quick work and his quick response. Let's go back to the examiner's position. I understand this is not in this legislation, but it's one of the areas that is causing concern in the public domain, Mr. Chair. I believe it's one of those areas that can be dealt with, probably by regulation, as it is presently being dealt with. What I'm hoping to seek is the minister's concurrence to amend the regulations so that it can be brought into place.
If you look at section 13 of the act, that section reads that a peace officer, or a person employed by the Government of the Yukon as an officer, or an examiner of drivers is exempt from the provisions of this act while driving or operating a motor vehicle on official business in connection with (a) an accident or other emergencies, (b) the inspection of a motor vehicle, (c) the examination of a driver.
So, in reality, anyone that does the examining - a police officer doesn't even have to hold a valid driver's licence, number one. In fact, he doesn't even have to be sober when he's doing it, if you want to get technical. I believe it's contingent upon the government to look at that area and bring into place regulations that would make it mandatory for examining individuals to have the class of licence that they are examining for. That, Mr. Chair, is in place in most jurisdictions in Canada or it's being considered in the balance of them. We're out of step with the majority of Canada in this regard.
I believe it is contingent upon this government to bring that into place. I would ask the minister if he would consider that in regulations.
Hon. Mr. Keenan: Well, yes, as the member has stated, it is correct that there are two ways to do it - by regulation or within the next package of Motor Vehicles Act amendments. I will certainly take that into consideration when working through the system.
Mr. Phillips: Taking it into consideration and agreeing or disagreeing, I guess, are different things. Does the minister agree with the Member for Klondike that an individual who's testing someone should at least have, as a minimum, qualifications of a type at least of what the test is. If it's a class 5, he should have a class 5. If it's a class 1, they should have a class 1. Does the minister not agree that that should be the minimum requirement for someone to be the tester?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: Certainly the minister agrees. This will be. We've started the work and it looks like we will be establishing it through policy.
Mr. Phillips: So, policy can be done real quick. This is kind of a simple matter but an important one. Can the minister give us a time by which he expects to have this done? A couple of weeks? I know the department can go back tomorrow and draft a policy with respect to this and it could come to Cabinet in a couple or three weeks and be adopted and this could change immediately. I mean, by the end of this month we could have a change where the person that was testing someone to drive a transport truck actually had the licence, him or herself, to drive the transport truck, and I think that's what the industry is looking for.
Hon. Mr. Keenan: Certainly, Mr. Chair, I've just been informed that our chief driver examiner does have the qualifications and it had been started and completed last winter.
Mr. Jenkins: There is an existing policy that the driving examiner for class 1 must have a class 1 licence, but that can be easily expanded, Mr. Chair, to encompass the full gamut, and it can be done very, very quickly. I guess what we are seeking from the minister is that this policy will be enhanced and delivered within a certain time frame, and may I suggest the next 30 days? Is the minister able to agree to that kind of a time frame and that kind of a change?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: Certainly, Mr. Chair, the intent of this legislation is for the issuance of the three initiatives that we've said generated the highest level of interest from the public at large.
Certainly, as the members opposite wish, we will be focusing on the issues that they are raising, and it will be done forthwith over the winter. Right now we're looking to implement and to get the department working on the implementation of the three issues that are now contained within the act. So I certainly expect that somewhere over the winter things will all come together, but first priority is the three issues.
Mr. Phillips: My concern, Mr. Chair, and I'm sure the concern of the Member for Klondike is that this thing will disappear if we don't pursue it, and we won't hear about it for a year or two or more.
Mr. Chair, the minister said that he was looking at making changes, and he was going to make them by way of policy. The policy would be what directed the individual to have a licence. Now the law says differently. The existing law says that there is an exemption. Is the minister telling us that policy can override the law? I thought if we were going to now require the driver instructor to meet all the qualifications or meet or beat all of the qualifications of the individuals he was testing, we'd actually have to change the law that says he doesn't have to have the qualifications, and you couldn't do that by policy. You had to change the law, and by changing the law you would have to bring in an amendment to the act, like we're doing now, because I would think that the law is paramount to policy.
Hon. Mr. Keenan: As the member speaks, he is quite correct. Policy does not supersede law. I would like to state, though, that impaired drivers, suspended drivers and uninsured drivers are certainly the focus of this legislation. What I can assure the members opposite is that when we go through the amendments the people wish over the next couple to three years - all of the responses within the questionnaire - we will certainly be doing that. For now, in this legislative round, we will be focusing on the three issues.
Mr. Phillips: I accept that. I don't have a problem with that, but the Member for Klondike raised another issue. Can the minister, then, give us - and he's allowed to do this under the law, I believe - his word and a guarantee that none of our driving instructors would be carrying out tests on any driver of any class unless the ticket they held was at least equal to or above that class - that they were absolutely, totally qualified to test that class - so we're not going to put someone who isn't qualified testing transport truckers in a truck, just because the law says we can; that we really, firmly believe that, if you're going to do the testing, you should at least have the proper qualifications equal to the licence being examined for. Can the minister give us the assurances that that won't happen, that none of our driver testers will be testing someone when they don't have a qualified licence themselves?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: By way of correspondence, we can communicate with the members opposite. At this point in time, though, I would like to reiterate that impaired drivers, suspended drivers and uninsured drivers are the focus of this legislation and we will take into consideration and work with the direction that has been given, and attempt to incorporate it into next year's legislative changes.
Mr. Phillips: The minister's got to realize, when he brings a bill before the House, it opens up discussion on the bill and it's not necessarily limited to the main topics in the bill. When we're amending the Motor Vehicles Act, we, as members of the opposition, can bring forward all kinds of amendments with respect to the Motor Vehicles Act in areas we think should be changed. That's why we're raising this, and it's quite legitimate that we raise it at this time. There's no other time to do it. This is to talk about changes to this act that are in an act that's before us at the present time.
I want to limit my discussion to the items the minister talked about, but what I want from the minister is, until the bill gets changed and until we come back with other amendments to change the driver instructor requirements, I want possibly a letter in writing from the minister that says that there will be no driver instructor from the Government of the Yukon who will be in a vehicle with a student or with an individual who is being tested if they don't at least meet or beat the requirements of the licence that they're testing for. I think that's a simple answer.
Let me give an analogy to the minister. For example, I don't think somebody should be testing pilots if he doesn't have a qualified pilot's licence, or testing doctors if he isn't a qualified doctor, or admitting people to the bar and accepting to the bar if he isn't a qualified lawyer. That's my concern. Our law reads right now that someone from the street who has the lowest, maybe a motorcycle, licence, could in fact be our motor vehicles examiner and be testing somebody to drive transport trucks. Under this legislation, that's legal.
So what I want from the minister is his assurance in writing that until the minister changes the law - because he kind of agrees with me, and he was nodding his head earlier that he agrees with the principle - he will instruct his driver examiners to not go out with anyone unless they have the qualifications of that licence or greater.
Can the minister give us those assurances?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: Certainly, I can put into writing that our department did put into policy a requirement that the chief driver examiner have a class 1 licence. Would that work for the member opposite?
Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Chair, that is already there in regulations. Now, to confirm that is to confirm something we're already aware of.
We've had it confirmed in writing that the chief driver examiner has a class 1 licence for examining purposes of people applying for a class 1. What we're seeking - and I guess we could do it here - was an amendment. Why won't the minister entertain an amendment to the act, to section 13, to put this in place? We already received one amendment to the act here a few minutes ago, which will probably be tabled a little later on. I'm sure a second one will have a speedy response, Mr. Chair.
Can the minister consider that and bring forward one for later today? Or would he like this side to bring forth an amendment, Mr. Chair?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: I am attempting to work with the members opposite. I want the members opposite to understand that what we're talking about here is very, very important to all citizens of the Yukon Territory. It will take the department a certain amount of capacity to deal with all the changes that we have coming forth at once. I feel that the capacity is stretched to the limit at this point in time and will be, with the implementation of the legislation concerning impaired drivers, the suspended drivers and the uninsured drivers. I can certainly give my assurances to the members opposite that I will be taking into consideration their suggestion and will incorporate it into next year's amendments to the act. I hope that will suffice.
Mr. Phillips: That would partially satisfy me. I want the minister to go one step further, and that is to write a letter to us and tell us that the policy will be that the driver instructors have to at least meet or beat the qualifications of anyone they are giving a licence to. The minister agrees with that. That's a pretty simple thing to do. They say that their driver instructor has all that now, so all I'm asking is that, when someone jumps in a transport truck to receive a transport licence, they know that the individual sitting across from them has at least the qualifications and the licence to test for that. That's all I want from the minister. It's not a big deal and, if the minister would give us that letter, we could dispense with this fairly quickly and go on to the next item and deal with the major items in this bill. It would be solved really quickly.
Hon. Mr. Keenan: Certainly, Mr. Chair, I can put into writing that that policy will be coming about.
Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chair, all the licences, including the air brake endorsement and anything else that's needed with respect to licensing that particular class of vehicle is what we'd like to see.
Chair: Is there any further general debate?
Mrs. Edelman: I suppose that we look at the issues of whether or not people who are doing examinations have the qualifications to do them. That's an issue that we've been talking about over the last year and a number of correspondences have gone back and forth between the department and our caucus.
One of the issues that I am concerned about is, even if you have a class 1 and if you are out there trying to examine somebody on a class 1, if you don't have the experience, you may be giving people improper directions. If you are doing that, then this act, in one of the clauses in here, seems to protect that instructor. It gives them complete indemnity. They can do whatever they want to under this act, and so you are dealing with that issue. I'm concerned because it's not just having the licence, it's having the experience. In most place in Canada, you have to have at least 10 years of experience with, say, a class 1.
Hon. Mr. Keenan: I've had it explained to me by my resident expert that that might not be correct and certainly we can provide the member opposite with an explanation as to what is happening with the rest of Canada and certainly forward a copy of the letter that we are going to be giving to the official opposition critic and to the member opposite.
Mrs. Edelman: I suppose it's interesting because in conversations I've had with the department certainly in the regulations for the various provinces they say that you don't need to have 10 years' experience, but the practice is that people who are doing the examinations have at least 10 years' experience and that way they don't give people improper instructions. They don't ask them to do things that are illegal and they're aware of the safety issues that are out there. I think that's the very least we can do.
Trucking is a big part of the Yukon. That's how we get things here and that's how we get things out of here - or one of the ways we get things out of here. I think that it's important that we take a look at that again. Even to bring the standard up to an absolute minimum of at least five years' experience, I don't think is really difficult, especially if in this act we're saying that those people aren't liable for anything that they do and that we protect them as a government from whatever they might be doing, for which they may not have the knowledge; they may not have the ability because they lack the experience. I think that that's a real concern.
We want to look at the very best we can offer to Yukoners and if we want to look at Yukoners who are going to be well-prepared for the road, then we need to have instructors who have experience in that area. To do anything less is not serving the people of the Yukon well.
Mr. Jenkins: Just in general debate, to cover another area that we were dealing with, it's the seizure or impoundment of vehicles. I just would like the minister to explain what would transpire with respect to a number of classes of vehicles and how they would be treated: company vehicles, rental vehicles, Canadian-registered out-of-Yukon Territory vehicles, and out-of-country registered vehicles.
How would the impoundment proceed with respect to these vehicles, especially when you look at the number of rental vehicles coming in from Alaska or RVs from down south with some of our visitors, and the potential for the impaired driving of these units and the resulting impoundment of them? How would this whole system fall into place? I've gone through the proposals, and it seems to be geared to owned and operated vehicles, with consideration being given to a family vehicle.
Hon. Mr. Keenan: Certainly, Mr. Chair, the member opposite raises questions. The rental vehicles, the company vehicles, out-of-territory and out-of-country, would all be treated the same. As I said, though, there are requirements for compassionate release, which would also include a company vehicle setup with an employee driving impaired. The company would be able to make application, and it would work for them in extenuating circumstances, as would out-of-territory or out-of-country.
Mrs. Edelman: Because we are opening up the act, there are a couple of other issues to do with that.
One of them is the issue of doing away with the front licence plate. Front licence plates were gotten rid of quite a few years ago. I checked with some enforcement agencies, and in some areas they are bringing the front licence plate back. The concern that I have is this: have we done any sort of evaluation of this, and what does the RCMP think, what are they doing in other provinces?
I suppose my concern is when there is an accident, and if a person turns around and tries to get a licence plate, and there is only the one licence plate, there's a good chance they are going to miss it. There's a real good chance that they're going to mix things up because they are under stress. Having the two licence plates is quite useful, and it's a concern that I've heard from actually a couple of enforcement people, and I'd like to know whether we are doing anything about bringing back that front licence plate.
Chair: I would like to bring to members' attention that the Chair would like to keep members focused on this bill. It is the understanding of the Chair that the entire act is not being opened up here.
Hon. Mr. Keenan: I will certainly attempt to speak to the provisions. The front licence plate has certainly been gone for quite some time. Has an evaluation happened in the Yukon Territory? Not to my knowledge; no, it hasn't been. What about the RCMP in other provinces? Certainly, we can endeavour to get back to the member opposite on this, but it was certainly brought forward from a cost-efficient point of view. If the RCMP have concerns about it, we would certainly be willing to look into it again.
I will have to get back to the member opposite on that.
Mr. Jenkins: One of the other concerns about the seizure, or one of the other causes for seizures or impoundment is not having valid insurance in place. If I could take the minister to the Yukon Motor Transport Board that issues operating authorities here in Yukon, and the provisions they have that require the insurance company to confirm directly to the board or to the government the fact that there is valid insurance in place on the vehicles being licensed, and to notify the board or the government or the registrar of motor vehicles - I believe it's spelled out as - that the insurance has lapsed or is no longer in force at any time during the period that they have licence plates or operating authority plates.
Wouldn't it appear to be reasonable just to extend this requirement to all classes of vehicles - to everyone who operates a motor vehicle - to have valid insurance in place? It's confirmed to the registrar, and if it lapses or is cancelled for any reason whatsoever, the plates are no longer valid and have to be returned to the registrar of motor vehicles. This already exists in Yukon. It is working very well, from what I have been given to understand, and it appears to be just another extension of a process that, if utilized, would eliminate a lot of problems arising out of the operation of motor vehicles in the Yukon without proper insurance.
It won't have any effect on out-of-territory registered vehicles, but certainly, for those vehicles here in Yukon, it could be a shortcut to alleviating a lot of concerns.
Hon. Mr. Keenan: As the member opposite points out, it is working within the Yukon at this point in time. I'm certainly willing to look into it and see if we can make it work more efficiently or to include the greater number. I caution the member opposite that, without accurate figures at this point in time, we're talking maybe about 3,000 vehicles and opening it up to 30,000 vehicles, so there's cost efficiency involved in it.
But certainly we will endeavour to look into it and to study the feasibility of it and the dynamics of it, and I'll certainly get back to the member opposite on that.
Mr. Jenkins: I appreciate the minister's consideration of that move.
Further to that, Mr. Chair, I know that when I renew our operating authority plates or just our general plates - commercial plates - we, at that same time, have to provide proof of insurance, even though our insurance company confirms it directly to the registrar of motor vehicles. So there's a safeguard in the first step, and it safeguards all of us, in that you have to produce your pink slip at the time of renewal of your general plate.
I would really urge the minister to consider this approach, and again I'm sure it will be, once it's in place, an area that can be dealt with by regulations that would save us all a lot of concerns with improperly insured motor vehicles.
The point is, as soon as your insurance lapses or is not renewed for whatever reason, your plates are automatically cancelled. They're no longer valid, and they have to be returned to the registrar of motor vehicles.
Chair: Is there any further general debate?
Not seeing any, we will proceed to clause 1.
On Clause 1
Clause 1 agreed to
On Clause 2
Clause 2 agreed to
On Clause 3
Clause 3 agreed to
Amendment proposed
Hon. Mr. Keenan: I do have copies of a proposed amendment to the bill that I'd like to distribute at this point in time. That's the original - Mr. Clerk, would you like me to read it into the record?
I move
THAT Bill No. 39, entitled An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicles Act, be amended in section 3 on page 1 by deleting the expression "is driving a motor vehicle contrary to" and substituting for it the expression "is driving a motor vehicle on a highway when their operator's licence is suspended under this Act or is driving contrary to".
Chair: It has been moved by the hon. Dave Keenan
THAT Bill No. 39, entitled An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicles Act, be amended in section 3 on page 1 by deleting the expression "is driving a motor vehicle contrary to" and substituting for it the expression "is driving a motor vehicle on a highway when their operator's licence is suspended under this Act or is driving contrary to".
Amendment agreed to
Clause 3 agreed to as amended
Chair: It has been brought to the attention of the Chair that there are two clause 3s. We will take a brief recess - 10 minutes.
Recess
Chair: I will now call Committee of the Whole to order.
Amendment proposed
Hon. Mr. Keenan: I would like to propose an amendment to the bill. I move
THAT Bill No. 39, entitled An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicles Act, be amended by renumbering clause 3 where it appears on page 10 as clause 4; and renumbering clauses 4 through 9, as clauses 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.
Chair: It has been moved by the hon. Dave Keenan
THAT Bill No. 39, entitled An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicles Act, be amended by renumbering clause 3 where it appears on page 10 as clause 4; and renumbering clauses 4 through 9, as clauses 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.
Amendment agreed to
On Clause 4
Clause 4 agreed to
On Clause 5
Clause 5 agreed to
On Clause 6
Mrs. Edelman: I've had an inquiry about the interlock device. Now this refers to the interlock device on the driver's car that they own. Is there a requirement for interlock devices on, say, a vehicle the person would be driving for their business? Is there any provision for that?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: Mr. Chair, it's a requirement that the person operate only a motor vehicle that is equipped with a properly functioning interlock device. That would include any vehicle.
Mrs. Edelman: The question that I have is: how available are the interlock devices? Can we bring them up here, or are they available here in the Yukon already?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: No, Mr. Chair, they are not here now, but they will be made available in the Yukon through - I believe the company's name is Guardian.
Mr. Jenkins: I'm most interested in hearing from the minister how they are going to install these and maintain them in rural Yukon. Now I can understand how they'd work in Whitehorse, but how are they going to work in TROY?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: As TROY is represented on this side of the House, certainly they will be working. What it is, sir, is that it could be more expensive for folks outside of Whitehorse, but certainly that will be passed on and carried by the offender, perpetrator or however you would say it, but the person who is ordered to have one on their vehicle. The cost would be incurred by them.
It will certainly make things a little more difficult, but I think, getting back to the principle that people want to have impaired driving curbed, it only fits. We do expect that it will be working everywhere within the Yukon Territory.
Mr. Jenkins: What's the time frame for the implementation of this procedure after this act is assented to, Mr. Chair?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: Yes, we will be looking to implement these devices over the course of the next year.
Clause 6 agreed to
On Clause 7
Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Chair, I have concerns about (c). What I'm wondering about is if the person who is being assessed - and I need to be clear on this, as well. "Assessment", is that driver examination?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: Yes, the assessment, in this case, means the assessment of an alcohol type of program. If you have a problem, you are assessed for that problem.
Mrs. Edelman: So is it my understanding, then, that the person who is being assessed - I'm not too clear: "conduct assessments and remedial programs". I thought remedial programs refer to the people having the alcohol issue. Now, "assessments", is that just a general assessment? And if it is a general assessment, or even if it's for a remedial program, is the person who is being assessed given a copy of their assessment?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: Yes, it is an assessment of the person's problems, and certainly they will be given a copy. It will be done with full disclosure.
Mrs. Edelman: Similar to a medical sort of situation, these assessments are going to be fairly subjective, I would imagine, because a lot of this stuff is just judgment calls. What I'm wondering about is, will there be any opportunity for the person to be assessed by another examiner?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: Certainly. The instrument for assessment will lie within the hands of the Driver Control Board in this case.
Mrs. Edelman: So what the minister is referring to, then, is an appeal process?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: No. The assessment is not the appeal. It is to determine the problem, the specific nature of the problem of the individual.
Mrs. Edelman: So what you're saying, then, is that some body does this assessment?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: Yes.
Mrs. Edelman: Okay. And that person is probably going to be the driver examiner. Who would be the person physically doing the examination?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: Under the direction of the drivers examination board, it will be done by a medical doctor, a practitioner. It will be done with professional alcohol abuse counsellors - people that are professionals within the field.
Mrs. Edelman: Are those regulations already being drafted, so that we know there's going to be a certain medical professional of some sort doing that?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: Certainly the provisions that the member opposite is asking about will be incorporated into regulation, which has yet to be drafted.
Mrs. Edelman: We're moving along here under 7. In 7(2) it talks about indemnification - it's an indemnification clause, basically. It says that whoever does the assessment or develops the remedial program and submits the report on the participation, that no one can come back and sue the government for whatever is in that remedial program? What if one of the things that is prescribed here is not legal?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: The explanation for that is that no action or other proceedings for damages may be taken against a person authorized or required by the regulations to conduct an assessment or remedial program or to submit a report on a person's participation in one.
Mrs. Edelman: Thank you to the minister for reading that for me. I guess I need to be clearer. This is an indemnification clause. Now what sort of actions or proceedings are we indemnifying? Now is the department not going to be responsible? Is the government not going to be responsible? Is the person who's doing the remedial program not going to be responsible? How not responsible are they going to be?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: I'm having a bit of difficulty answering the question. I simply feel that it's hard to say that the person's going to be indemnified. If I am the perpetrator and I've been picked up two or three times for impaired driving, it's quite obvious that I've broken the law and have been convicted. I do not see that I could sue a counsellor for saying I'm a drunk or that I'm an alcoholic with a problem. That is more or less a given, but certainly if the member opposite asked that question, I would certainly have to seek advice upon it.
Mrs. Edelman: Well, I suppose then I would wonder why the clause is in there.
Hon. Mr. Keenan: Certainly, the indemnification has to be in there. Certainly, if the scenario that I painted before is correct, if I am the person responsible and I want to get my licence back, well then I think I would be working cooperatively with the process. But now in order to get a person to analyze the situation that I am in because I'm a chronic alcoholic or a drunk, this certainly indemnifies the person who gives the test, so to encourage, I guess, people to work within. But certainly I will take this under advisement with the legal profession and get back to the member opposite as to the exact nature of why.
Mrs. Edelman: There is no protection for a civil suit in this section, is there? I need to have that clarified.
Mr. Jenkins: The minister might want to consider indemnifying and save harmless driver examiner in that case. I think you've got more of an exposure there than you have with regard to someone in the medical professional or a counsellor doing an assessment on an individual and saying he is okay to drive and that backfires. I'd say you have a very, very limited exposure in that regard, but that driver examiner, I think the minister might want to dwell on including him in that package of indemnification and save harmless.
Clause 7 agreed to
On Clause 8
Clause 8 agreed to
On Clause 9
Clause 9 agreed to
On Clause 10
Mr. Jenkins: Just before we finish it, Mr. Chair, I guess I'm somewhat concerned with what this act does not contain versus what it does contain. I recognize there is an effort to address a number of issues dealing with impaired driving, and I laud the minister for bringing these forward. I think some of the other issues should be dealt with, and a lot of them can be dealt with in regulations with respect to the driver examiner and with respect to graduated licences. Those are areas that the department can act on in House and bring them forward, and I believe the public is prepared to accept them, and I believe these kinds of initiatives will make our highways safer for all of us.
So I'd just like to extend my congratulations to the department that has worked on this, but I'd like to see it go a little farther than they have gone, and it's not very often that I throw accolades out to your deputy minister, but he can go home with a smile on his face tonight, Mr. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Hon. Mr. Keenan: The smile has turned into more of a grin than anything, but I certainly accept the support of the member opposite on this very important act for all members of the Yukon for driving safely on our highways, and I thank the members opposite very much.
Clause 10 agreed to
On Title
Title agreed to
Hon. Mr. Keenan: Mr. Chair, I move that Bill No. 39 be moved out of Committee with amendment.
Motion agreed to
Bill No. 38 - An Act to Amend the Consumer Protection Act
Chair: We will now procede to Bill No. 38, An Act to Amend the Consumer Protection Act.
Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: The An Act to Amend the Consumer Protection Act adds the definition of direct sale to the Consumer Protection Act and puts in place some amendments extending the period of time to 10 days that someone can cancel a contract purchased through direct sale.
Chair: Is there any general debate?
We will proceed to clause 1.
On Clause 1
Clause 1 agreed to
On Clause 2
Clause 2 agreed to
On Clause 3
Clause 3 agreed to
On Clause 4
Clause 4 agreed to
On Clause 5
Clause 5 agreed to
On Clause 6
Clause 6 agreed to
On Clause 7
Clause 7 agreed to
On Clause 8
Clause 8 agreed to
On Title
Title agreed to
Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: I move that Bill No. 38, An Act to Amend the Consumer Protection Act, be moved out of Committee without amendment.
Motion agreed to
Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: I move that the Speaker do now resume the Chair.
Speaker resumes the Chair
Speaker: I will now call the House to order.
May the House have a report from the Chair of Committee of the Whole?
Mr. McRobb: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has considered Bill No. 29, An Act to Amend the Taxpayer Protection Act, Bill No. 30, An Act to Amend the Constitutional Questions Act, Bill No. 31, An Act to Amend the Cooperative Associations Act, Bill No. 25, An Act to Amend the Notaries Act, Bill No. 34, Continuing Consolidation of Statutes Act, Bill No. 46, An Act to Amend the Partnership Act, and Bill No. 38, An Act to Amend the Consumer Protection Act, and directed me to report them without amendment.
Further, Committee has considered Bill No. 35, An Act to Amend the Financial Administration Act and Bill No. 39, An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicles Act, and directed me to report them with amendment.
Speaker: You have heard the report from the Chair of Committee of the Whole. Are you agreed?
Some Hon. Members: Agreed.
Speaker: I declare the report carried.
Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: I move that the House do now adjourn.
Speaker: It has been moved by the acting government House leader that the House do now adjourn.
Motion agreed to
Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. next Monday.
The House adjourned at 5:16 p.m.
The following Sessional Papers were tabled November 12, 1997:
97-1-70
Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation self-government agreement and final agreement (McDonald)
97-1-71
Selkirk First Nation self-government agreement and final agreement (McDonald)
97-1-72
Order-in-Council 1997/161, An Act Approving Yukon Land Claims Final Agreement, and First Nations (Yukon) Self-Government Act, dated October 1, 1997, approving self-government agreements for the Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation and the Selkirk First Nation, made July 21, 1997, and amendments to the umbrella final agreement (dated May 29, 1997) set out in the attached schedule (McDonald)
97-1-73
Alaska-Yukon intergovernmental relations accord between the Government of Yukon and the State of Alaska (dated October 28, 1997) and signed by Piers McDonald, Government Leader, and Tony Knowles, Governor, State of Alaska (McDonald)
97-1-74
B.C.-Yukon intergovernmental relations accord (dated September 30, 1997) and signed by Glen Clark, Premier of British Columbia, and Piers McDonald, Government Leader (McDonald)
97-1-75
Assessment highlights, Yukon territorial examinations (math and sciences, grades 8 to 11), 1996-97 (Moorcroft)