Whitehorse, Yukon

Thursday, December 4, 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

National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence against Women

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I rise today as the acting minister responsible for the Women's Directorate to recognize the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence against Women.

On Saturday, we join with people across Canada to remember and mourn the 14 young women who were brutally gunned down at l'École Polytechnique in Montreal on December 6, 1989.

At three o'clock Saturday afternoon, a commemoration will take place at the Centre de l'Association Franco-Yukonnaise, 304 Strickland Street, and I encourage everyone to attend. This year, a Yukon woman who was working to reduce violence against women will be publicly acknowledged and awarded a plaque in recognition of her efforts.

Observing this national day of remembrance and action each year encourages people to speak up and to take action. Despite increased public awareness and services to both victims and offenders, violence against women is still a serious problem in our society. This government will continue to assign a high priority to the reduction of violence against women and children.

Gender-based violence is one of the obstacles to women's equality. Every day in Canada, women are humiliated, assaulted, beaten, raped and murdered. Many are violated by someone they loved, respected and trusted.

Each of us in this House knows women who have been victims and survivors of violence, and we've seen the harm that it's done. Often they have been relatives, friends, people we have loved and cared about.

I ask all members to join me in a solemn tribute to the young women who were slain in Montreal and to the women in the Yukon and elsewhere who have lost their lives to violence. Let us use this day of remembrance and mourning to remind ourselves of the need to take action against all forms of violence against women.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Phillips: On behalf of the Yukon Party caucus and the official opposition, I rise today to remember the 14 women who were murdered in Montreal some eight years ago.

December 6 has unfortunately become a historic day for Canada, and it is a day that Canadians will never forget and should not forget.

December 6 is also the day to remember the thousands of Canadian women who have been, and continue to be, victims of violence and abuse. It is a day to reflect upon the issue of violence against women and address the need for action.

Although it is necessary to remember those who died we must take a step further. We must act; we must educate to promote change and we in this Legislature and other legislatures around this country have to play a part, a very important part, in this battle. And, it's only by working together that we will be able to combat the threat of violence that restricts the actions of so many women.

In memory of women everywhere whose lives have been affected by violence, it is fitting that we play tribute to the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mrs. Edelman: I rise today on behalf of the Yukon Liberal caucus to pay tribute on the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women.

Eight years ago, a tragedy happened. We must not forget the impact of that event on those of us who are women in Canada today and tomorrow.

I read to you from Women, Violence and the Montreal Massacre by Lee Lakeman.

"All the dead are female, a CBC Newsworld reporter is saying from her post in front of the École Polytechnique, meaning that all 14 killed by the gunman before he turned the gun on himself were women. Anchor Whit Fraser is talking about the 12 injured students, who've been taken to hospital and it's some time before it becomes clear that of the 12, eight are women and four are men. And it's hours before we understand the killer, later identified as Marc Lepine took aim first at women and then only at men who interfered.

"One man was asked by reporters why the women were abandoned and he says he thought the men were going to be robbed outside the hall. Were all the men present so ignorant about violence against women not to recognize that a man ordering a group to divide themselves according to gender while hurling insults at feminists represents a greater danger to the women present than the men.

"Interview after interview on the scene confirm that there was no resistance to Lepine's gender separation and the men left without protest. A man appeared in a classroom brandishing a deadly weapon and though there were more than 50 other men there, not to mention the 2,000 others on the premises, not one refused.

"The reporters covering the event seemed loathe to pursue the point, implying that the only reasonable response was silent obedience.

"And this is three months later. We still don't have all the facts about the massacre. The media peremptorily closed the door on the debate, but not before making sure the feminists were trivialized. Feminists could express acceptance of the emotional consequences of the massacre, but we're not permitted to rail against it. Feminists were honoured as victims but not respected as politicized participants who could constructively shape the event's meaning.

"There was some exploration of the environment of violence against women that produced Lepine but no examination of the anti-feminist climate that created a political assassination.

"Fifty years ago this year, women won the vote in Quebec and, in that historic feminist struggle, no woman was murdered, and for feminists today there is a before and after the Montreal massacre."

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Speaker: Under introduction of visitors, I would ask members to join me in welcoming six Old Crow students to the gallery of this Legislature this afternoon. They are accompanied by their teacher, Dave Brown, and Neta Arnold.

Applause

Speaker: Are there any other visitors to be introduced?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Speaker: Under tabling of returns and documents, I have for tabling the Auditor General: Annual Report on Other Matters for the year ended March 31, 1996.

Are there any further returns or documents for tabling?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Today I have the annual report 1996-97 of Lotteries Yukon, and I also have a letter to the president of Northwestel, Mr. Jean Poirier.

Speaker: Are there any reports of committees?

Are there any petitions?

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motion?

Are there any statements by ministers?

This then brings us to Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Question re: Electrical energy generating capacity

Mr. Ostashek: My question is for the minister responsible for the Yukon Energy Corporation.

Yukoners have been extremely fortunate that this winter so far has been very mild, but we know that the weather can change quite dramatically and almost instantaneously in the Yukon, and we still face some very potentially cold months ahead, which raises the question of our overall generation capacity.

Can the minister advise the House concerning the present status of the turbines at the Whitehorse dam that were incapacitated by the fire, and could he also assure this House that there's enough power capacity available, with Anvil Range back on the grid, to meet Yukoners' energy needs?

Hon. Mr. Harding: I can report that the work with the electrical and control functions of the utility has been quite successful in terms of returning some control to the operation, electronically. With regard to the turbines, they were not too substantively damaged; however, the structure around the building did require some extensive work. There is a great hope and desire that, within the next weeks, they can have the hydro turbines in some functioning form.

With regard to overall, general capacity, I have been assured by experts whom I've asked that the generating capacity is sufficient, even to power the Faro mine and even if there was a downturn in the temperature.

Mr. Ostashek: I take it from what the minister said that the turbines aren't operational yet. I believe that Yukoners were extremely fortunate. The diesel plants were spared by the fire at the Whitehorse dam. It didn't incapacitate the turbines. However, I would like to know from the minister if there is a contingency plan in place, should something happen to the diesel plant while the turbines are inoperational. Are there other energy supply options that YEC would have at their disposal?

Hon. Mr. Harding: Well, I'd be interested in hearing from the member his thoughts on that matter, in regard to the contingency plans that he's asking about. My understanding is that YEC, no doubt, if something were to happen to the remaining diesel-generating capacity, would be forced to rely on some emergency measures - probably some mobile diesel units. Certainly it would be a difficult circumstance, but I believe they would be able to take some emergency measures that would be sufficient to give the Yukon the power that it requires. Ultimately, I would assume it's a hypothetical questions, but they would have to concentrate on the key, priority areas for Yukoners in such a situation. Such a situation is not anticipated, but I'm sure we would be able to handle that emergency as well as the Yukon Energy Corporation and YECL handled the emergency with the fire.

Mr. Ostashek: Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't think it's a hypothetical question at all. We have three turbines that are down. We are all fully aware in this Legislature, as are most Yukoners, that our diesels are very, very old plants, and there's always that possibility. That's the reason for my question - if there is a contingency plan in place, should something unforeseen happen - and I don't believe that's being hypothetical.

I would also like to know from the minister if there is any contingency plan in place - suppose we lost our whole power plant in Dawson City, where we don't have a grid - to provide power in the dead of winter if, heaven forbid, some unforeseen catastrophe such as happened at the Whitehorse dam were to happen? Is there a contingency plan?

Hon. Mr. Harding: Mr. Speaker, the situation in Dawson is the same as the situation in Dawson when the member opposite was the minister responsible for the Energy Corporation.

So, I would just say to him that I will try and get him some more information about precisely what's been done in regard to a contingency plan in the hypothetical event that there was another big problem, such as the fire we had at the Energy Corporation, and I will also say to him that, given my discussions about issues such as this for the Energy Corporation, they are usually quite diligent about ensuring that they have an array of options, albeit they are not always the best when you are faced with emergency situations, to deal with those particular problems as they arise. I think the evidence of that was in the response of Yukon Electrical and the Energy Corporation to the recent fire. I think they proved that they were up to the task.

Question re: Electrical energy generating capacity

Mr. Ostashek: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm not the minister responsible for the Energy Corporation any more. The member opposite is, and the situation has changed quite dramatically from when I was in government, because we have an Energy Corporation now that's going to take over the management of their own facility. We want to know if there are plans in place.

My second question to the minister, Mr. Speaker, is to the minister responsible for the Energy Corporation. We notice that the Energy Corporation has been advertising in the local papers for some very senior positions to run the utility. We saw one advertisement calling for the recruitment of seven fairly senior positions. Presumably, these jobs were previously undertaken by staff provided by the Yukon Electrical Company.

Can the minister advise this House whether or not these positions have been filled and is the Yukon Energy Corporation now, as of today, in a position to manage their own assets after December 31, as is planned?

Hon. Mr. Harding: Well, I have been having constant communication with the new chair of the board, Mr. Ray Wells. They had a board meeting, I believe, just last week. They've been in much more substantive discussions with the board than I think they have in over the last few years. They are prepping up for direct management. I think with regard to advertising locally, there was an attempt to hire as many people locally as possible for some senior positions, and I think that is an admirable goal. I also know that the chair of the board is trying to ensure that there is an appropriate complement of knowledge within the utility to handle direct management and they're conducting a review, somewhat apart from the administration, at this time to ensure that they have appropriate resources.

I must say to the member opposite that it is, at times, difficult, given the level of salary that many officials in private utility companies receive, which are substantially higher than the salaries in the public utility, for the most part.

Mr. Ostashek: Well, I would have thought that all of these issues would have been dealt with before the utility decided on self-management. They ought to have been aware of those issues that they would have been facing when they decided to take over the management themselves.

I guess I can take it from the minister that the takeover date for self-management remains unchanged; it will occur on December 31 of this year. Am I correct on that?

Hon. Mr. Harding: There has been no change to the date for takeover of direct management. There have been a tremendous number of complex issues that came to light through the negotiating process in the attempt that was made to try and reach a new operating agreement with YECL. There was a lot of work done in terms of supply options and systems options. Those numbers were all crunched; the board decided, on balance, after reviewing the offer that was on the table from YECL versus the information they had on direct management, to support and vote for taking over the utility themselves. The date for taking over is still January 1 of next year.

Mr. Ostashek: Mr. Speaker, we are aware that Yukon Electrical employees were going to be given the first opportunity to apply for jobs with the Energy Corporation and I would like to ask the minister at this time if he can tell this House today, of the seven positions that are advertised by YEC, how many of them have been filled and how many of them are filled by Yukoners?

Hon. Mr. Harding: Mr. Speaker, that would more appropriately be a question addressed to the chair of the board.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Harding: The member says I'm the minister. Absolutely. There's also a board there that's responsible for overseeing the administration of the utility and I intend to use that board and involve citizens in the decision-making process. Maybe the previous government didn't do that. I intend to do that.

So I've been working with the chair of the board and the board. They are bringing some accountability to the administration. The members opposite supported the move to direct management and to de-link from Yukon Electrical.

The position of Yukon Energy was that anybody who was displaced from Yukon Electrical as a result of the breaking down of that agreement - they would make every attempt and have first dibs on trying to come over to YEC, and I will get more detailed information on the numbers for the member opposite from the board of the Energy Corporation.

Question re: Klippert's Transfer Ltd., court settlement

Ms. Duncan: My question is for the government regarding payment of outstanding bills.

On Tuesday, my colleague from Riverside raised the issue of non-payment in the Har Randhawa case. It's my understanding that a cheque will be available for the Randhawas to pick up today from the government.

Would the Minister of Community and Transportation Services indicate whether he has given instructions to his department to pay Klippert's Transfer Ltd. or their lawyers?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Yes, Mr. Speaker, as I said in the House previously, I met with Mr. Klippert on the Thursday and told him that I would strive for a two-week turnaround to find information as to what was bogging it down, and certainly that has happened at this point in time and we are looking to pay Mr. Klippert not the interest dollars but certainly the principal, and the lawyers are still - So I expect a quick and satisfactory conclusion to this matter.

Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the holdup of the Klippert's payment has consisted of arguments between lawyers about costs and the minister is still saying it's between the lawyers. Well, Mr. Minister, lawyers get their instructions from somewhere and in this case, it's the minister's officials who don't want to pay. In fact, I've seen a letter from the government's lawyers that says, as it relates to one of the witnesses, "I'm being instructed by the department...". Would the minister overrule the instructions from his departmental officials and instruct the lawyer that Klippert and all the court costs will be paid immediately, if not sooner?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Immediately, if not sooner - I don't quite understand the logistics of that but, certainly, I can assure the member opposite, as I have assured Mr. Klippert in a meeting previous to this being raised in the House, that I would work this through to a successful conclusion and that is exactly what has happened. I am working this through to a successful conclusion for Klippert's Transfer.

Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I have tried to point out to the minister that it's not simply about this one contractor who had to take the government to court; it's also about the witness costs in this case. The minister has said that he will bring this to a satisfactory conclusion. Would he give this House a time date for the satisfactory conclusion, not just for Klippert's, but for the court costs as well, which includes the witness costs?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I will continue to give it best effort and to work it through quickly. As we proceed with the costs of the case, I'm not sure that I could give a time frame that would be to the member's satisfaction, but certainly I will get - when everything is available - all costs to the member opposite when it happens. I'm certainly looking to have this dilemma put to bed by Christmastime for Klippert's.

Question re: Bankruptcies, counselling for declarants

Mr. Cable: I have some questions for the Minister of Health and Social Services in relation to personal bankruptcies. The latest bankruptcy statistics show that bankruptcies in the Yukon have gone up nearly 50 percent in 1997 over 1996. To the end of September this year, there were 35 bankruptcies as opposed to 24 in 1996 and the large majority were personal bankruptcies. Now, the social assistance regulations refer to the provision of counselling services, including economic counselling, to persons in need. What is actually available to people in financial trouble from the department? Is there somebody on the payroll skilled in this type of counselling or is there some arrangement with the private sector to provide this type of counselling?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I would have to take that up with the department as to whether we actually contract with someone or whether we provide that service out of our own department. We do provide assistance for individuals who find themselves with various needs. I can provide the member with further information.

Mr. Cable: Now, many people who are in financial trouble can avoid bankruptcy if they receive some advice. Most, I have found, want in fact to avoid bankruptcy.

If the minister would check into the services available, as he has indicated, would he also check as to whether the counselling service referred to in the regulations has been used frequently or at all? Could he provide that information prior to the debate on his department in the supplemental estimates debate?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: By all means.

Mr. Cable: Now, there are some people who are dug in too deep financially to get out. They have this monkey on their back. Their personal relationships deteriorate and their family relationships deteriorate because they can't afford the services of a trustee in bankruptcy. Even a simple bankruptcy costs $1,000 for a trustee to come up from Prince George to process the application. So, we have a Catch-22 situation for some financially troubled people: they can't afford to have their situation sorted out.

I gather from what's taken place in the House here in the last couple of weeks, the minister is looking at the social assistance regulations. Could I get him to commit to have his staff review the cost of providing this type of service - the trustee-in-bankruptcy service?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Yes, I can provide that for the member and we can look into the entire issue.

Question re: Snowmobiling as tourism opportunity

Mr. Phillips: My question is for the Minister of Tourism - the Yukon Minister of Tourism.

Winter tourism is extremely important to the Yukon. One of the biggest recreational activities during the winter is that of snowmobiling. In fact, each year, snowmobilers spend over $2 billion in Canada, and it's estimated that in the Yukon alone they spent as much as $16 million in 1996-97.

Over recent years, a number of successful snowmobiling events have been held in Yukon and have generated many economic benefits. I would like to ask the minister if he supports snowmobiling as a means of expanding upon Yukon's tourism season, and does he believe that there are opportunities to capitalize on this sport?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: I support many recreational issues that would be of benefit to the winter tourism or tourism in general in Yukon - and, for that matter, anywhere.

Mr. Phillips: I thought I asked a rather simple question, Mr. Speaker, whether the minister supported snowmobiling, but he didn't really address that.

The Klondike Snowmobile Association has been invited to participate in an 8,000-kilometre snowmobile trek across Canada, called Rendezvous '98. This is going to be a significant event in Canadian history. In fact, it's launching the Trans-Canada snowmobile trail and signifying the longest snowmobile trek in history, and it's part of the unity work by provinces and territories.

Every medium in the snowmobiling world will be there to report on the exciting event, and I believe it's fitting that the Yukon be represented as an opportunity to showcase Yukon as a winter destination. The woman who's been chosen to participate in the trek has received support from the local business community but is in need of further assistance.

I'd like to ask the minister if he would consider giving some financial support to the Klondike Snowmobile Association so that they, along with the other 10 provinces and one other territory, can participate in this event.

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, there are sources of funding for winter tourism or different clubs to participate in. Certainly, the ton of gold and the historic Stanley Cup re-enactment are two such situations. So I would appreciate if the Klondike Snowmobile Association would get in touch with me or the department, and certainly we can provide advice and security.

Mr. Phillips: Well, my understanding is they have been in touch with the minister's office, and I think it was transferred over to Economic Development, and they turned them down.

The snowmobile trek will start on January 3, 1998, in St. Anthony, Newfoundland. The premiers of Ontario and Newfoundland have already confirmed they'll be participating, as well as the prime minister and Canadian figure-skating champion, Elvis Stojko.

Can the minister tell me if he's given any thought to attending as well, to raise the profile of the Yukon with the snowmobile fraternity and promote the Trans-Canada trail in the Yukon and, if not, will he give serious consideration to the suggestion and, as well, give serious consideration to the suggestion that the Klondike Snowmobile Association be given some financial support to attend this very important trek across the country. Media all across the country will be questioning the 14 to 16 riders from the provinces and territories about the opportunities in their jurisdictions, and it would be a great opportunity for us to showcase the Yukon.

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I find it somewhat ironic for members opposite to be encouraging me to travel to bring wealth to the Yukon Territory, because certainly, that is what this administration does when we travel. It's with the initiative and forethought to bring dollars home. So, certainly, I thank the member opposite for his endorsement of such, and I will certainly take it into consideration.

Question re: Food for learning program

Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health and Social Services. Earlier this year, the territorial government put some $38,000 toward the food for learning program. This money went toward providing meals for children at Yukon schools.

Mr. Speaker, the hot-lunch money has run out. Breakfast funding will run out this academic year. The funding for staff will run out shortly, and there hasn't been the type of corporate sponsorship that was hoped for.

Will these programs be in place for the next school year, and what are the long-term plans for these programs?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I can give the member assurances that we are looking at continuing this, and it is my hope that if circumstances permit and money flows from the national child benefit in the manner that we hope, I would even like to take a look to see in what way we can enhance that.

Mrs. Edelman: Well, I'm a little concerned, because it sounds like there won't be any funding for this project unless it comes from the national child benefit. You know, the minister has already indicated in the past that, if there is a need and an interest, then the program should continue.

Are you going to be funding this next year, and are you going to be funding it completely?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Well, I can tell the member that we are going to be funding it next year, and I can tell the member that we are going to be funding it at least at the same level. We began this program in anticipation of funds flowing from the national child benefit. We did it without any assurances that it would be a program that would be covered off by the NCB. We saw this as a necessary program. We saw this as a valuable program.

I've been out to a couple of schools to see the program in action. I've been very impressed, and certainly my discussions with school councils indicate that it's been well-received. So, we think this is a successful program. It's something we'd like to continue, and, as I said, if we have any ability to increase our funding in this regard, we certainly will.

Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, the minister has said in the past that tracking the number of students being fed would be part of the evaluation of the program. Can the minister provide those numbers to this Legislature so that we can determine for ourselves the demand for this valuable program?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I can see that this is a program which is very dear to the member's heart because she's overcome with emotion. However, at this point, some of our schools are in perhaps the first or second month of operation and we will be asking individual school councils for the number of children that have gone through this, the kinds of programs that they've instituted, and to give us a better sense of the demand, the needs.

As I said, I've been to visit a couple of the programs and the indication is that sometimes it varies and school councils and volunteers are trying to work around how to adjust some of these programs. Some choose to go with a cold breakfast - cereal and that kind of thing - and others choose hot breakfasts on, say, Mondays and Fridays. So, we're going to be asking school councils to give us some figures and what they see as being the needs in this area.

Question re: Intergovernmental accords, reciprocal fishing licences

Mr. Ostashek: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Government Leader, on intergovernmental accords.

On November 13 of this year, the Government Leader made a ministerial statement on an intergovernmental accord struck between the Yukon government and the Province of British Columbia. In highlighting one of the benefits of such an accord, the Government Leader said, "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."

I'm somewhat curious as to why the Government Leader used reciprocal fishing licences as one of the immediate benefits of such an accord, rather than a reciprocal agreement that would benefit Yukon truckers - truckers who have voiced numerous complaints, Mr. Speaker, on spot-checks by B.C. highway patrol officers on sections of the Alaska Highway and the south Klondike Highway that dip back and forth into British Columbia for short distances - spot-checks, Mr. Speaker, that seem to occur only in the summer months.

My question to the Government Leader is this: why did he highlight reciprocal fishing licences as one of the immediate benefits of this accord?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, I did so, Mr. Speaker, because it is one. And, it is an opportunity that the Yukon government should be pursuing with the Province of British Columbia. But, of course, the relationship between British Columbia and the Yukon don't end there. They don't even begin there.

Most of the work we've done in the last year, frankly, is about transportation issues between the two jurisdictions. In fact, we have highlighted the subject that the member has just raised respecting the regulation of the trucking industry both in B.C. and also the application of laws for Yukon highways that dip into British Columbia. So, that has been the subject of considerable discussion and considerable progress.

The Minister of Community and Transportation Services, as a matter of fact, signed an arrangement with the Minister of Highways in B.C. that addresses specifically that issue, and we are making more progress on that issue than virtually any other.

But that's not all that is addressed in the governmental accord, of course. The member has mentioned one such item, the inter-jurisdictional fishing licence issue. There are also others. There are trans-boundary claims, there are education issues, that are also addressed in the accord and should also be deserving of the two governments.

Mr. Ostashek: I appreciate what the Government Leader is saying, and I know that the accord goes much deeper than just a reciprocal fishing licence agreement, but there are numerous irritants that are caused to our citizens when we have highways that travel along territorial and provincial boundaries through very isolated areas. Yet, jurisdictional authority changes mile by mile or, in fact, Mr. Speaker, at times from one side of the road to the other.

I would suspect that fishing licences would be very low on the list of irritants to Yukoners. Can the Government Leader advise this House: was there a specific incident that caused the Government Leader to highlight reciprocal fishing licences?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: First of all, the issue of highways has been raised on a number of occasions. As I have mentioned before, the discussion that we focused on with British Columbia over the past year has been largely highways. I mentioned in the House last spring, quite extensively, that we had already started to make progress on that subject; however, there are complex legal issues that we are trying to address and we should be making some announcements shortly.

With respect to the other issues, there are a whole variety of other issues that have to be addressed, as I mentioned, that are very important, long-standing irritants between the two jurisdictions that are worthy of attention. The issue of the fishing licences is an obvious opportunity, because people have expressed their concern to me, including the Member for Riverdale North a couple of years back, that one of the projects that he was pursuing was the concept of a reciprocal licence with other jurisdictions. Having remembered that particular incident and thinking about some of the requests that have been made to me on this subject, I thought it might be a good opportunity, given the fact that we have reasonable relations with the Province of British Columbia, to address that issue, as well, however minor it may seem to the member opposite.

Mr. Ostashek: I thank the member for that, but the minister didn't answer my question. My question was quite straightforward. Was there a specific incident that caused the member to highlight reciprocal fishing licences? During the time I was in government, we knew it was an issue, but it was an issue that was very low on the priority list of Yukoners. There were many other issues in relation to trans-boundary issues that were much, much higher than fishing licences.

I would like the Government Leader to answer that question.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, Mr. Speaker, no, not in terms of an incident in terms of a Yukoner having to address the issue of fishing in B.C. The only incident that I recall was a discussion I had at a Public Accounts Committee conference that was being held, I believe, at the Assistant Clerk's house at Tagish. The Member for Riverdale North indicated - while the member opposite may not think it was important - that it would be a marvellous opportunity for Yukon fishers to be able to have a reciprocal licence arrangement. I thought that that was a good idea. I think I said so at the time, so I remembered that when exploring opportunities with the Premier of British Columbia to see whether or not there was an opportunity to make some headway there. The premier seemed very amenable to the idea, as did the MLA for Atlin. Why not seize the day? And I did.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GOVERNMENT BILLS

Bill No. 47: Second Reading

Clerk: Second reading, Bill No. 47, standing in the name of the hon. Mr. Harding.

Hon. Mr. Harding: It's with great pleasure that I rise today to introduce the ...

Speaker: Order. Do you want to move the motion?

Hon. Mr. Harding: Sorry. I move that Bill No. 47, entitled Public Service Group Insurance Benefit Plan Act, be now read a second time.

Speaker: It has been moved by the minister responsible for the Public Service Commission that Bill No. 47, entitled Public Service Group Insurance Benefit Plan Act, be now read a second time.

Hon. Mr. Harding: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You'll have to forgive me for my eagerness to get into my second reading speech here.

I am pleased today, though, to be able to table something that I think is going to be of benefit to Yukon government employees and that has been the result of a lot of work and a lot of discussion between the bargaining agent, the PSAC union, and the Public Service Commission - a lot of pretty cooperative work and dialogue.

Since 1972, this government has participated in the federal group insurance benefits plans and, as a small participant in the federal plans, this government has not been able to influence the design or the administration of these plans and had no input into their financial management. Decisions were made in the south to meet the needs of an employer in the south and, while these plans met the basic needs of our employees for several years, they've increasingly restricted our ability to respond to our employees.

Working collaboratively with representatives from employee groups, the Yukon government has developed a new group insurance benefit plan for employees which will provide the same type and level of benefits. This new group insurance benefit plan will transfer responsibility from the federal government to the Yukon for administering the plan. It'll be shared between representatives from the Yukon Teachers Association, Yukon Employees Union and the employer. I'm please that both the YTA and YEA memberships voted overwhelmingly to endorse this intent.

The joint committee will be responsible for supervising the financial operations of the plan, determining premium levels based on plan experience, interpreting plan policies, arbitrating appealed claims, conducting research, and developing recommendations for improvements and change to the plans.

This new group insurance benefit plan will be cost effective. It will be implemented, hopefully, March 1, 1998, and will not increase the cost of providing benefits to government employees.

The Public Service Group Insurance Benefit Plan Act and regulations enshrine the joint administration model and define the roles and responsibilities of the members of the joint committee. The act, through regulation, also provides an avenue to allow all employees a voice in the joint administration of the group insurance benefit plan, YEU and YTA, and through their internal processes will appoint representatives to the committee. Confidential and management employees are provided a mechanism through the regulation for electing their representatives to the committee.

Mr. Speaker, patriation of the group insurance benefits provided by the Yukon government to its employees is another step in the ongoing development of Yukon expertise and responsibility for program delivery. It reflects our government's concern for being responsive to our employees by sharing the administration of the group insurance benefit plan with the employees and their representatives.

Patriation of the group insurance benefit plan represents a new step in the relationship with our employees and I'm pleased to bring this legislation before the House and look forward to the opposition's support of this initiative.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Speaker, generally we are in support of this bill before the House. In fact, as the former minister responsible for the Public Service Commission, I know the department was working on these initiatives when we were in government. It's all part of the move toward more local decision making affecting Yukoners' benefits, so we'll be supporting the plan.

I would like to know from the minister, as we go along, what the cost of administration of this will be with respect to the change, whether it will be more costly for administration than it was in the past and where actually in the department will we administer this or where will the administration costs be spent?

Generally, we are in support of this initiative. I know that the previous government and this government have been working with the union in bringing this to fruition and so we will be supporting the bill that's before the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. Duncan: I rise on behalf of the Liberal caucus to indicate that our caucus will be in support of this particular piece of legislation. I was particularly pleased in the minister's second reading speech that he indicated that this legislation is coming forward with the assurances that affected parties are in support and that it has been drafted and reworked and presented to us in consultation with them and with their votes of approval.

I do have some questions that relate specifically to clauses, and they are rather technical, so I'll ask the minister at the appropriate time for those.

The minister did mention regulations in his second reading speech, and I just wonder if he could give us a time frame for those.

Hon. Mr. Harding: I now speak.

Speaker: Are you prepared for the question?

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

Hon. Mr. Harding: I'll just briefly respond by saying that I can provide answers to those questions in Committee with a time line for the regulations. I know that the regulations are going to be some time, as we are going to work through them with our partners in the administration of the act. There are still some outstanding concerns, and we've committed to involving them extensively. So, to give a definitive time line is going to be difficult, but I know we're all pushing to make it happen as soon as possible, and I can ask and respond in more detail in Committee if she wishes.

Motion for second reading of No. 47 agreed to

Bill No. 33: Third Reading

Clerk: Third reading, Bill No. 33, standing in the name of the hon. Mr. Sloan.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I move that the The Intercountry Adoption (Hague Convention) Act, be now read a third time.

Speaker: It has been moved that Bill No. 33, entitled The Intercountry Adoption (Hague Convention) Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Motion for third reading of Bill No. 33 agreed to

Speaker: I declare that Bill No. 33 has passed this House.

Bill No. 29: Third Reading

Clerk: Third reading, Bill No. 29, standing in the name of the hon. Mr. McDonald.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill No. 29, entitled An Act to Amend the Taxpayer Protection Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: It has been moved that Bill No. 29, entitled An Act to Amend the Taxpayer Protection Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Motion for third reading of Bill No. 29 agreed to

Speaker: I declare that Bill No. 29 has passed this House.

Bill No. 35: Third Reading

Clerk: Third reading, Bill No. 35, standing in the name of the hon. Mr. McDonald.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I move that Bill No. 35, entitled An Act to Amend the Financial Administration Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Government Leader that Bill No. 35, entitled An Act to Amend the Financial Administration Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Motion for third reading of Bill No. 35 agreed to

Speaker: I declare that Bill No. 35 has passed this House.

Bill No. 41: Third Reading

Clerk: Third reading, Bill No. 41, standing in the name of the hon. Mr. Harding.

Hon. Mr. Harding: I move that Bill No. 41, entitled An Act to Amend the Public Service Act and the Public Service Staff Relations Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. minister responsible for the Public Service Commission that Bill No. 41, entitled An Act to Amend the Public Service Act and the Public Service Staff Relations Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Some Hon. Member: Division.

Speaker: Division has been called.

Due to a power outage, the Speaker recessed the House until power could be restored.

Speaker: I will now call the House to order.

Division

Speaker:

Prior to the power outage, division had been called on third reading of Bill No. 41. The bells have now rung for five minutes. I will ask the Clerk to poll the House.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Harding: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Agree.

Mr. McRobb: Agree.

Mr. Hardy: Agree.

Mr. Livingston: Agree.

Mr. Ostashek: Agree.

Mr. Phillips: Agree.

Mr. Jenkins: Agree.

Ms. Duncan: Agree.

Mr. Cable: Agree.

Mrs. Edelman: Agree.

Clerk: Mr. Speaker, the results are 13 yea, nil nay.

Speaker: The ayes have it.

Motion for third reading of Bill No. 41 agreed to

Speaker: I declare that Bill No. 41 has passed this House.

Bill No. 39: Third Reading

Clerk: Third reading, Bill No. 39, standing in the name of the hon. Mr. Keenan.

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill No. 39, entitled An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicles Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Minister of Community and Transportation Services that Bill No. 39, entitled An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicles Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Some Hon. Members: Division.

Division

Speaker: Division has been called. Mr. Clerk, would you poll the House.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Harding: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Agree.

Mr. McRobb: Agree.

Mr. Hardy: Agree.

Mr. Livingston: Agree.

Mr. Ostashek: Agree.

Mr. Phillips: Agree.

Mr. Jenkins: Agree.

Ms. Duncan: Agree.

Mr. Cable: Agree.

Mrs. Edelman: Agree.

Clerk: Mr. Speaker, the results are 13 yea, nil nay.

Speaker: The ayes have it.

Motion for third reading of Bill No. 39 agreed to

Speaker: I declare that Bill No. 39 has passed this House.

Bill No. 7: Third Reading

Clerk: Third reading, Bill No. 7, standing in the name of the hon. Mr. McDonald.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill No. 7, entitled Third Appropriation Act, 1996-97, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Government Leader that Bill No. 7, entitled Third Appropriation Act, 1996-97, be now read a third time and do pass.

Motion for third reading of Bill No. 7 agreed to

Speaker: I declare that Bill No. 7 has passed this House.

Bill No. 22: Recommital

Clerk: Third reading, Bill No. 22, standing in the name of the hon. Mr. Harding.

Hon. Mr. Harding: I move that Bill No. 22, entitled Oil and Gas Act, be not now read a third time but be referred back to Committee of the Whole for the purpose of reconsidering the following: subsection 13(1), subsection 14(1), subparagraph 29(a)(iii), subparagraph 29(a)(iv), subparagraph 41(3)(a)(ii), subparagraph 41(3)(d)(i), subsection 75(1), subsection 75(4), and subsection 101(9).

Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister of Economic Development that Bill No. 22, entitled the Oil and Gas Act, be not now read a third time but be referred back to Committee of the Whole of reconsidering the following: subsection 13(1), subsection 14(1), subparagraph 29(a)(iii), subparagraph 29(a)(iv), subparagraph 41(3)(a)(ii), subparagraph 41(3)(d)(i), subsection 75(1), subsection 75(4), and subsection 101(9).

Mr. Ostashek: Mr.Speaker, I want to get on the record on this bill today because I am very disappointed in the manner that this bill came forward to this Legislature.

We had a fairly extensive bill in front of the Legislature that we believed the government had gone through it in detail. They had plenty of time to do it. The bill was introduced once in the House, in the spring if 1996. It went back for some changes that were made by this administration, changes that we didn't have any difficulties with.

But I say that I don't believe that this government is ready to bring this bill forward when we see in front of us two bundles of amendments that we have to take the bill back into Committee for, and most of them are either grammatical or just wording changes, stylistic changes, and this was a job that should have been done by the Cabinet Committee on Legislation. This bill should have been in better shape before it came forward to this Legislature.

I say to the sponsoring minister that this was a very poor job of drafting this bill, and I would hope that in the future there is more time and thought given to these bills, and that they are gone into in great detail before they are tabled in this Legislature for debate.

Mr. Speaker, I know that it is a tedious job in Cabinet committee going through the bills clause by clause, and sitting there and going over each clause in great detail to make sure they are right. But, it is a job that is the responsibility of the government to do.

It ought to be done before the bill is presented in the Legislature for debate. So, we're not going to oppose going back to Committee to deal with these amendments, but I want to say for the record, in my opinion, this is very sloppy drafting, and I would hope that the government will do a better job in the future.

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

Hon. Mr. Harding: I'll be sure and pass on to the drafters and the people who worked so hard how insulting the former - and I reiterate, former - Government Leader was. I think that it does a disservice to the long hours that were spent by the civil servants who put a lot of work into the French translation to try and get it ready as soon as possible for the members to have in their hands, and then to have him kick them like that, I think is quite inappropriate, but we're getting used to listening to that kind of an attack from the Yukon Party - civil servants, members of the public, lots of good rumour campaigns - they're all started by the Yukon Party caucus. People know what the three amigos are up to, Mr. Speaker, and I don't think anyone's too, too worried about it. They're just used to it by now.

With regard to this bill, the Yukon Party -

Some Hon. Member: Point of order.

Speaker: Point of order has been called.

Point of order

Mr. Phillips: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Three amigos is unparliamentary. The minister should withdraw it.

Hon. Mr. Harding: Point of order.

Point of order

Speaker: On a point of order.

Hon. Mr. Harding: Mr. Speaker, three friends, I would argue, is not an unparliamentary term. It's just a comradely way of talking to my colleagues opposite. It is the Christmas season.

Speaker's ruling

Speaker: I think that from here on be careful how you talk to each other across the House and refrain from using other names for members. Continue with your questions on the bill.

Hon. Mr. Harding: I will certainly respect your ruling. I was trying to be kind to the members opposite, but I can see how they could interpret that negatively; they are quite defensive.

I would also like to say that it was quite pathetic how the Yukon Party had four years in office to bring this bill forward. They actually tabled the bill that died on the Order Paper. They couldn't bring a bill through to successful conclusion in this House on oil and gas. They are obviously, as a result of some of the good reviews we've gotten on it, somewhat smitten by that and bitter. It was quite sloppy on their behalf to table the bill at first reading and not be able to carry it through.

I would just say to the members opposite to try and find it within themselves in this holiday season to be a little bit more amicable and to recognize the drafters work very hard and the French translation was given to them as early as possible, so that they could spend their research dollars to have it examined. I would be surprised, Mr. Speaker, if they vote against this bill. I would be surprised if they raise any substantive concerns about the French translation, with or without the proposed amendments.

Thank you.

Speaker: Are you prepared for the question?

Motion for second reading of Bill No. 47 agreed to

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

Speaker: It has been moved by the government House leader that the Speaker do now leave the Chair and that the House resolve into Committee of the Whole.

Motion agreed to

Speaker leaves the Chair

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Chair: I will now call Committee of the Whole to order. Is it the wish of the members to take a brief recess?

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.

Chair: We will take a 10-minute recess.

Recess

Chair: I now call Committee of the Whole to order.

Committee will be dealing with Bill No. 22, Oil and Gas Act.

Bill No. 22 - Oil and Gas Act

Hon. Mr. Harding: Mr. Chair, I have for filing with the Clerk each of the French amendments which are incorporated in the revised French text of Bill No. 22, which was tabled as a sessional paper No. 97-183 on November 26, 1997.

Chair: We will go clause by clause, beginning with -

Mr. Ostashek: Mr. Chair, just before we go clause by clause, the minister, in his rebuttal on third reading, insinuated that I was attacking the civil service for a poor job of drafting. I just want to be clear on the record. I was not attacking the civil service at all. I said that there is a committee that deals with bills and I believe three ministers sit on that committee, plus some MLAs, and it is their role to go through the bill and see that the bill is in an order to be presented in the Legislature.

For the record, I was not attacking the civil service. Mistakes are made in drafting. It is up to that committee on legislation to pick up those errors and have them corrected before the bill is introduced in the House.

Hon. Mr. Harding: Well, Mr. Chair, I don't speak French and I don't think any of the ministers on the Cabinet committee on legislation speak French. Whether the member likes it or not, his comments, I believe, were an attack. We can leave it at that.

I have to rely on my drafters. I know that they work very, very hard. I know that Justice was burning the midnight oil on this and the French translators tried to have this in as soon as possible for the member. And I tried to get it in their hands as soon as possible, because I knew there were some changes. So, I don't know what more to say other than I think we exercised due diligence in terms of this approach. That's what this process is for.

The number of amendments that I'm bringing forward with regard to the English versions are minor changes arising out of some consultations. I think there are eight. I don't think that's excessive for a bill of this size - this magnitude. I think it would be comparative with other changes that have been made in this House before by the member opposite, even when he was Government Leader.

Mr. Ostashek: I'm not going to belabour the point. I just want to say that I was not attacking the drafters. I was attacking the ministers for not doing their job.

A lot of these are grammatical errors that should have been corrected. In English, there were errors here. If they had been in their offices doing their jobs, they would've picked them up, instead of rushing this bill in when they weren't prepared for the session. As a result, we have a bill that has a lot of grammatical errors that need to be corrected.

Hon. Mr. Harding: Well, the member will have to forgive me because I was disappointed to see him leave this bill languish for four years and do nothing on it while he was Government Leader, so I was anxious to get it in and get it passed by this House.

Mr. Ostashek: If it hadn't been my administration that had signed the Northern Accord, this bill would not have been in this House today, because the previous NDP administration refused to sign it and move forward with a very important piece of legislation.

Hon. Mr. Harding: Well, the signing of the Northern Accord meant nothing without an agreement with the Yukon First Nation governments and that's the reason that we didn't sign it. After having negotiated it, we were going to enter consultations with Yukon First Nation governments. I believe our more comprehensive and thoughtful approach has yielded the results better seen in this bill.

Chair: The Chair would like Committee to proceed with the amendments.

Amendment proposed

Hon. Mr. Harding: I move that Bill No. 22, entitled Oil and Gas Act, be amended in subsection 13(1) on page 28, in the English version by adding the expression "Subject to section 41" before the word "Prior" ; in the French version, by adding the expression "Sous réserve de l'article 41" before the word "Avant".

Chair: It has been moved by the hon. Mr. Harding, Minister of Economic Development, that Bill No. 22, entitled Oil and Gas Act, be amended in subsection 13(1) on page 28 in the English version, by adding the expression "Subject to section 41" before the word "Prior"; in the French version by adding the expression "Sous réserve de l'article 41" before the word "Avant".

Amendment agreed to

Amendment proposed

Hon. Mr. Harding: I move that Bill No. 22, entitled Oil and Gas Act, be amended in subsection 14(1) on page 28, in the English version, by deleting the expression "pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of (c)" and substituting for it the expression "pursuant to paragraph 15(b) or (c)."

Chair: It has been moved by the hon. Mr. Harding, Minister of Economic Development, that Bill No. 22, entitled Oil and Gas Act, be amended in subsection 14(1) on page 28, in the English version, by deleting the expression "pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of (c)" and substituting for it the expression "pursuant to paragraph 15(b) or (c)."

Amendment agreed to

Amendment proposed

Hon. Mr. Harding: I move that Bill No. 22, entitled Oil and Gas Act, be amended in subparagraph 29(a)(iii) on page 40, in the English version, by deleting the word "requiring".

Chair: It has been moved by the hon. Mr. Harding, Minister of Economic Development, that Bill No. 22, entitled Oil and Gas Act, be amended in subparagraph 29(a)(iii) on page 40, in the English version, by deleting the word "requiring".

Amendment agreed to

Amendment proposed

Hon. Mr. Harding: I move that Bill No. 22, entitled Oil and Gas Act, be amended in subparagraph 29(a)(iv) on page 40, in the English version, by deleting the word "requiring" and substituting for it the expression "the specification of".

Chair: It has been moved by the hon. Mr. Harding, Minister of Economic Development, that Bill No. 22, entitled Oil and Gas Act, be amended in subparagraph 29(a)(iv) on page 40, in the English version, by deleting the word "requiring" and substituting for it the expression "the specification of".

Amendment agreed to

Amendment proposed

Hon. Mr. Harding: I move that Bill No. 22, entitled Oil and Gas Act, be amended in subparagraph 41(3)(a)(ii) at page 49, in the English version, by deleting the word "productive" and substituting for it the word "production".

Chair: It has been moved by the Hon. Mr. Harding, Minister of Economic Development, t

hat Bill No. 22, entitled Oil and Gas Act, be amended in subparagraph 41(3)(a)(ii) at page 49, in the English version, by deleting the word "productive" and substituting for it the word "production".

Amendment agreed to

Amendment proposed

Hon. Mr. Harding: I move that

Bill No. 22, entitled Oil and Gas Act, be amended in subparagraph 41(3)(d)(i) at page 50, in the English version, by deleting the expression "section 30" and substituting for it the expression "section 58".

Chair: It has been moved by the hon. Mr. Harding, Minister of Economic Development, that

Bill No. 22, entitled Oil and Gas Act, be amended in subparagraph 41(3)(d)(i) at page 50, in the English version, by deleting the expression "section 30" and substituting for it the expression "section 58".

Amendment agreed to

Mr. Jenkins: Is that section 41(3)(d)(1) or 41(3)(d)(i)?

Chair: It is section 41(3)(d)(i).

Amendment proposed

Hon. Mr. Harding: I move that

Bill No. 22, entitled Oil and Gas Act, be amended in subsection 75(1) at page 83, in the English version, by deleting the expression "on the making of the declaration order" and substituting for it the expression "as of that date".

Chair: It has been moved by the hon. Mr. Harding, Minister of Economic Development, that Bill No. 22, entitled Oil and Gas Act, be amended in subsection 75(1) at page 83, in the English version, by deleting the expression "on the making of the declaration order" and substituting for it the expression "as of that date".

Amendment agreed to

Amendment proposed

Hon. Mr. Harding: I move that

Bill No. 22, entitled Oil and Gas Act, be amended in subsection 75(4) at pages 83 and 84, in the English version, by adding the words "of different" immediately before the word "composition".

Chair: It has been moved by the hon. Mr. Harding, Minister of Economic Development, that Bill No. 22, entitled Oil and Gas Act, be amended in subsection 75(4) at pages 83 and 84, in the English version, by adding the words "of different" immediately before the word "composition".

Amendment agreed to

Amendment proposed

Hon. Mr. Harding: I move that

Bill No. 22, entitled Oil and Gas Act, be amended in subsection 101(9) at page 107, in the English version, by deleting the expression "An order may be made under subsection (8)" and substituting for it the expression "An order under subsection (8)".

Chair: It has been moved by the hon. Mr. Harding, Minister of Economic Development, that Bill No. 22, entitled Oil and Gas Act, be amended in subsection 101(9) at page 107, in the English version, by deleting the expression "An order may be made under subsection (8)" and substituting for it the expression "An order under subsection (8)".

Amendment agreed to

Hon. Mr. Harding: I move Bill No. 22 out of Committee, with amendment.

Motion agreed to

Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, could I make a request, in light of the unexpected short absence of one of our members, that we might do Workers' Compensation Act amendments next. Is that acceptable to other members?

Chair: Committee will proceed to Bill No. 40, An Act to Amend the Workers' Compensation Act.

Bill No. 40 - An Act to Amend the Workers' Compensation Act

Chair: Is there any general debate?

Mr. Cable: I had a question put to me by somebody that occasionally works in the community work service area. The volunteer provision that the minister is introducing appears to catch the people that are serving sentences, but it doesn't seem to catch the volunteers who are associated with the programs, like people who are providing opportunities for work service. Is that the intention?

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Cable: Let me refer the minister to section 2, which deals with the new section 4.1(1)(f): "persons who are engaged in a work program or who are performing community service activities while serving a term of imprisonment ..." The next subsection talks about probation.

This question was put to me, and I put it to the minister: are we attempting to catch volunteers who work in the community work service programs - who provide the work for people to do, if, in fact, they are working with the prisoners or working with the people under sentence?

Hon. Mr. Harding: I'll have to be a little bit cautious in my answer and get the more definitive response back to the member opposite. My understanding, though, is that people who are designated by the Government of the Yukon to work as a volunteer in a community service program, imprisoned or not, would be covered by this legislation, but, in order to give a definitive answer to the member opposite, I will have to get back to him with a formal response from the Public Service Commission. If it is not, I would be willing to deem them under another section if it was warranted, and they should fit in that category as being covered.

Mr. Jenkins: Can I just ask the minister for a point of clarification on subsection 4.1(1) - persons or classes of persons designated as workers employed by the Government of Yukon? I refer specifically to members of all new fire brigades or ambulance brigades.

In a lot of rural Yukon, these are volunteers employed in other occupations, Mr. Chair, and the coverage received currently is half of the maximum category for payout for wages for Yukon - some $50,000 to $60,000 today. I believe the last amount was in that order. They are covered in the event of death to one half of the maximum value.

Has the minister given consideration by regulations to covering these categories of volunteers to the maximum permitted by the regulations, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Mr. Harding: I'm not sure if I understand the member's suggestion all too well. What this act does is to give some coverage to members of a volunteer fire brigade. It depends on the activity. If a person works in another activity on the job in their workplace, they'd be covered under the normal Workers' Compensation Act. If a person was performing volunteer fire brigade duties in a rural community, they would be covered under the auspices of this volunteer legislation.

With regard to the members' benefits, I'm not entirely clear what he's asking me for.

Mr. Jenkins: I refer the minister to 4.1(3) - "if a person who is designated as a worker employed by the Government of the Yukon under subsections 1 or 2 suffers a work-related disability while acting in that capacity, the worker's average weekly earnings shall be the greater of either their average weekly earnings or one half of the maximum wage rate in effect in the year the disability arose unless otherwise prescribed by regulation." So, there's flexibility in the amount of coverage that volunteers can receive under these regulations that are not attached or not indexed, and I was asking the minister if he would consider- specifically members of volunteer fire brigades and ambulance brigades - covering them to the maximum permitted in the event that they are disabled or in the event that a death occurs while in the course of volunteering in either the fire brigade or the ambulance brigade, Mr. Chair.

Hon. Mr. Harding: Well, it's an interesting concept, and I think as we work through this there may have to be some consideration given for different categories. It's a bit of a tough game to play, determining which volunteer in a particular community is considered to be elevated in terms of their benefits, for example, people who work as volunteers in the hospital as Candy Stripers, people who assist as volunteers formally known, I guess, as Candy Stripers, but there are other programs, where people participate in working in the hospital and are helping perform very valuable work as are our volunteer firefighters. So, it's a difficult to juggle precisely which class should receive increased benefits but I hear what the member is saying. We would certainly be willing to give it some consideration.

Mr. Jenkins: I'm looking for something more definitive than "some consideration", Mr. Chair. When you look at all these categories of volunteers, I'm not trying to elevate one above the other; I'm just trying to look at it from a workers' compensation standpoint. And, there is a greater degree of risk associated with being a member of a fire department and being a member of an ambulance brigade than there is in most of these other categories.

One only has to look at the categories under workers' compensation acts from other jurisdictions and it clearly identifies firefighters as being in a very high-risk category. I would suggest to the minister that there is more chance of an injury or a death arising from being fireman than any other category that is being covered by this part of the act, which I do support. I'm just seeking the minister's concurrence that those people in those high-risk categories will be covered to the maximum, as permitted. As this is in the regulations which are not attached - which are going to be brought in after - I am looking to the minister for some direction on that issue, not just, "We're going to consider it, Mr. Chair."

Hon. Mr. Harding: I'm not discounting the member's argument. What in fact he's saying, though, is that if you extrapolate it from this argument to the Workers' Compensation Act, on the basis of who suffers the most risk, he's arguing that someone hurt in the construction industry - which has a greater risk and much more chance of being hurt - should receive higher benefits than someone hurt in the tourism industry, preparing food, or having a serious accident in that regard, because their chances of having an accident are less.

That's an interesting concept, and it's one that I'm telling him could be fleshed out, but it would require some further examination.

Mr. Jenkins: I think the minister's somewhat going around the circumference of the issue, rather than dealing with the issue. The concern, Mr. Chair, is, presently these workers are covered in a lot of cases, through municipal coverage in their respective communities, and when they volunteer for Government of Yukon ambulance and for fire brigades operated by the Government of Yukon in unorganized communities, they're covered by the government presently.

What I'm seeking is that the category that these individuals work in, which is a high-risk category, be identified accordingly and that the rate be paid to the maximum permitted by law, or we could use that individual's gross earnings for the period, or the maximum that's permitted by law, as we could indeed do in regulations for all of the categories covered.

Hon. Mr. Harding: Well, I'm not skirting the issue. I think the point I raised was a legitimate one. I told the member I'm not discounting his argument. I'm just saying that, if you extrapolate his argument to the entire WCB system, therefore determining wage benefits and benefits of the workers' compensation system on the basis of risk, that is a new concept. I have just been handed a note from my department, which might give the member some comfort.

It says that if a volunteer has another job which pays wages - and that alludes to the situation he talked about earlier - the WCB coverage applies to all the wages earned by the individual, and it includes the wages from another position. So that may give the member the comfort he desires.

Mr. Jenkins: That doesn't hold water in all cases, Mr. Chair. There are going to be situations where that individual will be self-employed or unemployed for a period of time and act in a volunteer fire brigade or ambulance brigade and he will not realize that maximum amount unless perhaps the board went back and reviewed it going back two or three or four or five years.

So, it is set out in regulations, and what I'm asking the minister to address are those regulations in his determination of how much they're going to pay out. Can he make, perhaps not a proper concession - but can he recognize the risk associated with those categories, because when one looks through all the categories that are presently being covered, those two categories, the fire department and ambulance attendants, are in a higher risk than all of the others, in my opinion, and I'm sure that when you single out the various categories in WCB and other jurisdictions, one can clearly identify the fire department as being a very high-risk occupation. So, I'm asking the minister, under the regulations, to put them in and ensure that they receive the maximum benefits under WCB regulations here in the Yukon.

Hon. Mr. Harding: I hear the member's argument; I don't discount it. I'm not going to make a commitment to do it on the floor of the Legislature until I consider what he's saying. I won't discount what he's saying and when the regulations are developed, I will consider what he's said and, Mr. Speaker, that's the best I can do today and I appreciate his comments.

Mr. Jenkins: If the minister could elaborate with respect to the RCMP auxiliary as to how we categorize these individuals - are they in the same situation as people covered in others areas or is that going to be treated separately in other areas or is that going to be treated separately and distinctly?

Hon. Mr. Harding: With regard to the auxiliaries, I thought I had, in my response to the member in an earlier reading, stated that the RCMP auxiliary, if they're not covered by provisions under the - The member talked about, I believe - or perhaps it was the Liberal caucus - about First Nations auxiliary police officers. I believe they're covered under a different regime. However, my understanding is that the RCMP, non-First Nations auxiliary officers, are covered under this regime and in that same class.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, again, police officers are a high-risk category. There is no coverage for them in most jurisdictions in Canada because, in the western provinces, except for municipal police forces, the RCMP is the governing policing body. Is the minister prepared to consider fees at the upper end of the category with respect to the regulations on maximum insurable earnings, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Mr. Harding: I'd be happy to take a look at it. Perhaps the member could tell me all the categories he wants the maximum earnings to be calculated for and I'll consider them.

Mr. Jenkins: Those are the three: the ambulance, fire - fire at the top of the list, Mr. Chair; it's the highest risk, following down, number 2, to the police auxiliary, and, number 3, the ambulance brigade. I believe they're the highest risk to the lowest risk among those three, Mr. Chair.

Hon. Mr. Harding: I'd be happy to consider that and I'll ask the department to do a full analysis of that and hopefully incorporate it in the regulations. I thank him.

Chair: Is there further general debate? Not seeing any, we'll 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

Mr. Cable: During second reading of the bill, I raised a point, I believe, on whether the liability exposure had been calculated at all. Have there been any attempts to calculate the overall exposure?

I hadn't realized at the time that the government was actually going to fund this, perhaps through lack of appreciation of just exactly what section 4 said. Has the minister or his staff sat down and figured out what kind of exposure we have under these various sections? Like, are we talking about $10,000 a year or $1 million, or what?

Hon. Mr. Harding: Well, I don't want to give him the pat answer that it's very difficult to calculate, but I have to in this case, Mr. Chair. The reason for that is - well, first of all, I will start with the exposure now. The exposure now, without the insurance provided by Government Services, which was a stopgap to this act, was completely capless.

When we came into government, we were made aware that this problem existed and we needed something to tide us over until we could bring this bill in. There was no limit to what a volunteer could have gone to the courts to sue the government for in a liability claim that they could directly relate to volunteer activities. So, there was no ceiling. The insurance that was purchased on an interim measure gave us some comfort.

The number of claims of volunteers is virtually nil, though. I hear the member saying that we haven't had one. If we have one, you could have 100-percent increase in your liability for your claim, so it is difficult. You could just as easily estimate zero for your expected liability, based on historical evidence, as you could pick a number. However, with this act, the liability is contained to compensation payments, meaning we will flow through to the WCB with an administration charge what the costs of the benefits are.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, but this should be a known number. If you look at how "The Government of the Yukon shall pay to the board (a) the cost of compensation for all work-related disabilities of its workers that were caused prior to 1993." So, that figure must be a known figure. What is the unfunded liability that is not budgeted for that the Government of the Yukon is going to have to send over to the WCB? What is that amount?

Hon. Mr. Harding: I would remind the member opposite that when the Yukon Party had no coverage for volunteers, there was no unfunded liability in their budgets. There's a reason for that. It's the same reason I just alluded to to the Member for Riverside.

In the past, historically, I understand - this is anecdotal; I can provide the member with more facts, as I'm sure that the commission is listening and can dig some stuff up for the member in terms of whether we had a claim in the past. I have knowledge of one claim before this change was made in the legislation that gave us unlimited liability. There was a claim of a volunteer, but I will try and get that information for the member.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, that should be a known amount of money. It is very, very specific - the cost of compensation for all work-related disabilities of its workers that were caused prior to 1993. That was several years ago that they were caused. There should be an amount that is known, that has been established, that has been incurred, that has been paid out, that should be recognized. What is that?

Now, there's a potential liability also. So, we've got two components to the equation, Mr. Chair. One is, what has been paid out, and what is the potential on funded liability in this area? There must be some sort of an estimate somewhere.

Hon. Mr. Harding: To pacify the member, I'll ask for any costs associated prior to 1993 in terms of volunteer liability. I'll also try and find out why, in the Yukon Party's budgeting process, when there was no coverage, they did not incorporate a potential unfunded liability figure in their estimates. How about that?

Mr. Cable: Just a technical question - it appears from reading the amendments that the Workers' Compensation Board will handle the claims, and there's actually no input from the government. The government's role simply is to flow through on the money together with an administration fee. So, we're completely in the hands of the Workers' Compensation Board on the processing of claims. Is that what the minister's understanding is?

Hon. Mr. Harding: The member knows full well that I would not interfere in the adjudication of an individual claim, and I think that's an important principle.

Mr. Jenkins: Other than the unfunded liability, there is an amount of assessment that is going to be flowing to the WCB - based on what? It's annual assessment, after 1992, for all workers other than workers designated as workers under subsections 1(1) or 4(1)(2) of this act. Just what is that amount, what category are they going to be slotted into, at what rate, and how many dollars are we looking at there, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Mr. Harding: Well, this doesn't require the government to pay any additional assessments to cover volunteers, and you can look at section 91(1)(b) to clear that up.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, the minister is saying there is no money due the WCB from this government under this section.

Hon. Mr. Harding: Correct.

Mr. Jenkins: So, further to that, there is just a 15percent fee on top of everything prior to that. So, what kind of total dollars does the minister envision being paid out for all of these categories combined?

Hon. Mr. Harding: I don't know where the member is coming from. I told him that we may have somebody who had a claim before. I'm going to check into that. We haven't had a claim when we had no coverage under the Yukon Party - they had a huge liability. We didn't have a claim when we had insurance that was purchased by the now-Minister of Government Services' department.

I've just been told we're not paying any additional assessments to cover volunteers, so I don't know what he wants me to tell him. I'm going to get him the information on if we had somebody who made a claim before 1993, and I'll get that to him as soon as possible.

The administration fee is historically consistent with what it was before under his colleagues in the Yukon Party when they formed government - that wonderful regime that I supported through and through.

Mr. Jenkins: It is interesting to note that, on top of the cost of all claims, the administration fee of 15 percent is meant to cover the administration costs. It is interesting to note the amount of claim costs in the last fiscal period in WCB and what 15 percent of those total claims would amount to and what the employers are paying out in this area for administration costs. They equate, Mr. Chair.

Hon. Mr. Harding: I'll pass that information on to the employer reps on the board who made this decision, and, Mr. Chair, I'll tell the member opposite that when I negotiated with the board about the provisions of this act, they insisted on 15 percent. I thought that was a bit high so I asked one of the employer reps what their business administration fees were. They said it is a heck of lot more than 15 percent, so that's all I can tell him about that, and I'll pass his comments on.

Mr. Jenkins: What I am suggesting to the minister is, it's a heck of a good deal, 15 percent for administration costs, and I was hoping he could afford industry in general that same administration cost on our WCB charges.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Jenkins: It's not a public spirit organization. It's a funded program, it's an insurance program, and it's paid for by employers on behalf of employees. I'm just looking for the same charges for the industry that is paying these premiums of 15 percent for the administration of the cost of claims. That would be fantastic, Mr. Chair.

Hon. Mr. Harding: Well, thanks for the compliments on my negotiating skills; however, I sadly must tell him that the government, who was one of the biggest contributors to the compensation fund, has to pay a rate that's consistent with all others in the private sector, in terms of paying their WCB dues.

Mr. Jenkins: Perhaps it's time for the minister to look at having his employees here in government covered under the Alberta plan, like the federal employees here in Yukon. It's 25 cents per hundred of assessable payroll versus $1.68 per hundred of assessable payroll.

Hon. Mr. Harding: Well, I'll pass his suggestion on to the board. I'll get an analysis done, and I'll put out a press release and send the member down the results.

Clause 4 agreed to

On Title

Title agreed to

Hon. Mr. Harding: I move Bill No. 40, An Act to Amend the Workers' Compensation Act, out of Committee without amendment.

Motion agreed to

Chair: We'll proceed to Bill No. 43.

Bill No. 43 - An Act to Amend the Public Health Act - continued

Hon. Mr. Sloan: As we are limping along with this, I do have some responses to some issues that were raised by the Member for Klondike and the Member for Riverdale South on, I believe, November 26. It seems we have large gaps in the clauses here.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Yeah, that's how it seems.

In the debate, there was some discussion around a medical health officer and a health officer. A medical health officer is a physician, and I think I indicated this before. In the proposed legislation, the authority for municipalities to appoint their own medical health officers has been revoked. This provides a consistent, coherent approach to the control of public health and safety promised throughout the territory.

A health officer is any other health professional specializing in the control of food and water-borne disease and other environmental issues. In the legislation proposed, there is no change in the role of the authority as to who may appoint a health officer. The authority for municipalities to appoint their own health officers has always been in the act.

A larger municipality, such as Whitehorse or Dawson, may wish to appoint their own health officers to enforce bylaws they pass as well as territorial legislation.

With regard to the chain of command, in most jurisdictions in Canada the two levels of health officers work cooperatively. If a public health issue should arise and the municipal health officer chooses not to act, the medical health officer of the territory may act through the territorial health officer.

The premise is that in matters of public health and safety - if there's evidence of a violation - the government is under a legal obligation to act. Also, if a municipality chooses not to act on problems they know about or ought to know about, they are at a legal risk for failing to enforce public health legislation.

As for the question of federal health officers in the territory, as I mentioned previously, the provision to have locally appointed health officers has always been the legislation. Furthermore, prior to the transfer, the administration of the Public Health Act and regulations was not a federal responsibility. It was only a perception because the health officers were federal employees in most cases. The legislation that they enforced was territorial under appointment by the Commissioner.

There are only a few pieces of federal legislation that they enforced. Now, under transfer, the territorial health officers are enforcing federal legislation as well.

Since 1954, there has been a contractual agreement with Health Canada to provide a variety of health services to the territory but the Yukon always paid Health Canada for that service.

Ms. Edelman raised the issue of the possibility of a vacancy for the medical health officer. The department has a medical health officer on contract. It is presently Dr. Timmermans, but there is also a backup so that the territory is not left without service. So, say there should be the departure of a medical health officer, as happened previously, a local physician has been appointed as the backup, so they are retained on contract for that.

We now have a medical health officer who has public health training and this has been the case with the previous medical health officer, for the last few years at least, and certainly Dr. Hilary Robinson, who was the medical health officer, made a very, very strong recommendation that medical health officers, as physicians, should also have very specialized or additional public health training. That was a very strong recommendation from her.

So, I think I can provide the member with assurances that, while our primary medical health officer position might be vacant, there is always a medical officer on contract as a backup, so really, there wouldn't be a vacancy in this role.

I hope this answers the questions of the members.

Chair: The Chair would like to remind members we have cleared clauses 1 to 4 and we're proceeding with clause 5.

On Clause 5

Mr. Jenkins: Just exploring with the minister this area dealing with the medical health officer in response. Can I just put a "for instance" in front of the minister that has arisen in my community that has given rise to some concern.

We have a federal health officer who comes to town on a regular basis and, on her rounds, she takes water samples and whatnot. We also have the Yukon River in front of Dawson and we have the federal authorities who come up and check the water sampling along the river. Now the environmental people say the river is polluted: "We need you to post signs saying it is polluted; don't go into it." Then the health officer comes up and says that's not their area of responsibility; take those signs down. Now just what is the pecking order?

If you threw into that scenario, Mr. Chair, that the city could also appoint a health officer for the same reasons, just who has authority over what? Some of these are federal responsibilities that haven't been transferred to the Government of Yukon. Some of them are overall health issues and others are more centralized and more specific, like the health inspections in restaurants and eating facilities. Just how would this work under this new bill that is being proposed, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: My assumption would be that, while the federal authorities may note that the river, to use the member's example, is contaminated, it would be the medical officer of health who, in the case of a possible water-borne contaminants or bacteria, such as elevated coliform counts or something of that nature where there was a threat to public health, could, for example, direct the residents of that area or the municipality not to draw water from that source.

Whereas the role of the federal authorities, in that case, would be to alert people to the level of contaminants in the river for a whole variety of purposes, primarily environmental.

Our medical health officer, in the case of infectious disease - their authority, in this case, I believe, would supersede.

Mr. Jenkins: I don't want to belabour the issue with the minister, but I would just ask that the minister review what has transpired in the past in our community and discuss it with his officials. It has given rise to some concern, especially when we have ongoing water sampling in the Yukon River, right in front of Dawson City, and downstream the fecal coliform count is lower than upstream.

It's backwards to what one would believe it to be, and yet one set of regulators and enforcement people say one thing. Another federal body says something else, and they are at odds with each other. You have a poor little community in the middle, having to react one way and then say, "Hey, what's happening?" Another is saying to take the sign down and go the other way, because that's not their area of responsibility.

I just want to ensure that this new act - An Act to Amend the Public Health Act - dovetails to not allow this kind of a situation to occur again, that there's a clear set of responsibilities spelled out that would address this issue or another similar issue coming to light again. Can the minister give that undertaking?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I certainly can, and I thank the Member for Klondike for bringing that point forward and giving us a specific example.

I'll raise this with the department. I'll give the member an undertaking that we will seek to get clarity between ourselves and the federal authorities for an instance such as he has described. We will aspire, in all development of regulations, to make sure that all the roles are clear and delineated.

Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Chair, we were speaking earlier about the vacancy in the position. You were talking about there being a standby. There's always a standby medical officer. Is that enshrined in regulation?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I don't know if it's been enshrined in regulation, but it is in practice. We've always had a backup medical health officer so that if the medical health officer, for example, is out of the territory or attending a conference or something of that nature, there's a second physician who fills that role on a contract basis.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe that Dr. Beaton served in that role in sort of the interim between Dr. Robinson's departure and Dr. Timmermans coming along.

Mrs. Edelman: I wonder if the minister could get back to me with that information about whether it is in the regulation, and if it's not in the regulation, then perhaps it should be. There are other instances where, for example, if there is an emergency, we may need to have two medical officers, and that's an issue as well.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: That's a valid issue, and I'll bring it forward to the department.

Mr. Jenkins: One of the other areas that the minister was going to get back to us on, Mr. Chair, was section 4(2), the change from "unsanitary" to "insanitary." The minister didn't know. I didn't know. I looked it up in several dictionaries, and he was going to explore that and find out why we needed this great big massive change.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Mr. Chair, the legal profession takes a lot of beating in this House, and once again I'll be forced to beat them up just a little bit.

No, apparently the accepted term now in law for issues of this kind is "insanitary," and this request was made on behalf of the folks over in Justice who draft these bills, that this is now, apparently, the accepted term in public health legislation.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, I have the Oxford and I have Webster's dictionary. Now I need a legal dictionary. Could the minister please advise where this legal dictionary is that spells out these kinds of terms, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I imagine that some place in the law library. There must be a rationale for it, but we did explore it with the department, and I asked, "Where did this change come about?" Apparently this was a recommendation of the drafters who reside over in the hallowed halls of the Justice building, and this is apparently now the accepted term or the preferred term. I know it sounds like a small matter, but we do aspire to keep our lawyers happy. I can, if the member would like, get kind of a rationale for why this term is - I will get back, but I'm just going on what we have from our lawyers.

Mr. Jenkins: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, because it does seem to be very unusual - go out on the street, and tell somebody something is insanitary, versus unsanitary. They'd look at you probably like you're sitting in some legislature somewhere and didn't know what you were talking about. So, I appreciate the minister's undertaking.

Mrs. Edelman: In section 5.4.(4) - it's just a small point - there's a spelling error. I'm wondering, was that covered in the amendments?

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mrs. Edelman: No, the "heath" officer.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mrs. Edelman: Okay, section 5.4.(4), fourth line from the bottom, "one or more heath officers".

Mr. Chair, I wonder, has this been covered by amendment?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I'll endeavour to see what we can do in terms of an amendment, but perhaps it does refer to officers out wandering the moors and heaths, if we had any - something perhaps akin to Wuthering Heights, someone in a Byronic collar and cape, wandering around, searching for health problems out on the moors.

Chair: The Chair's been advised that an amendment is unnecessary. The Clerk will note it in the working papers.

Mr. Jenkins: I certainly have to admire the minister's ability to handle any question, and the justification for that is certainly appreciated. I'd like to thank the minister. I'm sure his government of the day could explain anything over there.

Clause 5 agreed to

On Clause 6

Clause 6 agreed to

On Clause 7

Clause 7 agreed to

On Clause 8

Mrs. Edelman: I still am not clear on what is an immediate threat to public health or safety. Now, are we talking about storms here? Are we talking about power outages? I need to be clearer on that.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: It's sort of like debating with Don Corleone, but I will continue. He's made me an offer I can't refuse.

In response to the request for information about an immediate threat to health and safety, with respect to health issues, public health officials are often called upon to take immediate action, whether it's a condition that could affect the health of a group of people - for example, contaminated food or water in a restaurant may lead to the shutting down of the restaurant until the source of the contamination is found.

With respect to safety issues, public health officials are called upon to deal with conditions that do not fall under the authority of some other agencies. So for example in the case of a chemical spill, a fire, even though it comes under a different authority, perhaps something like an earthquake, or something like that, where the principal role might be that of EMO or, say, even building inspection to determine the safety of the building, the public health officers may be called in to determine if there's some kind of immediate threat to the well-being of a group of people.

Mrs. Edelman: The reason I'm wondering about this is because of day cares. Day cares are quite famous for spreading disease, quite frankly.

Are we talking about closing down day cares? Is this one of the areas that this act covers?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: No, but I suppose in the case of, perhaps, contaminated Kool-Aid, the medical health officer - if there was, say, for example, an outbreak that could be attributed to, say, an airborne disease that might be attributed to the ventilation system, for example - the medical health officer may order an immediate action, such as closing down that particular day care until the source of the contamination, the source of the problem, was identified.

I don't think, just in the case of, as we often have in schools or day cares, you get a run of everything ...

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Sloan: The member says, everything. That really wouldn't come into the picture. But, take for example in the case of a primary school where you had a fairly serious outbreak of measles, the medical officer of health may say, "Let's close down this school until we've got through a quarantine period", I think there would be some latitude for the medical officer of health in a case such as that.

Mrs. Edelman: Am I to understand, then, that - For example, at the pediatric ward at the hospital or the maternity ward at the hospital, quite often both wards are closed so people can't go in and out, particularly in maternity? Children are not allowed on the ward. So, is that going to continue as a practice with the medical health officer?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I would suggest that probably an institution such as the hospital would work very closely with the medical health officer to determine if there was a danger for particular groups. I suppose that if the medical health officer felt, for example, that there was a real threat to a group of individuals, they might choose to close down a particular section.

Mrs. Edelman: One of the concerns that I have, Mr. Chair, is that in some businesses day care is offered as an extra service and what has happened in the past is that those day cares have been closed down by the health officer, but there has never been any clear understanding of his right to be there and the right to close down those day cares. That's what my concern is - the fitness facility, for example, Mr. Chair.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I understand where the member is going with this. She's given an example for a sort of child care facility, or at least having someone there to watch children at a gym or something of that nature, or perhaps even, as we sometimes do, a shopping plaza might offer child care while parents shop at Christmas, or things of that nature.

I would imagine that the medical health officer would have the ability that, if there was any particular condition that existed there which could endanger public health, they could step in in that case. It's a little hard to see how perhaps one outbreak might be confined to, say, a specific kind of facility, but I would venture that the medical health officer would have the ability to step in and order, perhaps, that section closed if there was some kind of immediate threat to health - if there was a ventilation problem or perhaps an outbreak of food poisoning, or something in that nature, from the snacks.

Mrs. Edelman: I actually was working at a fitness facility where the day care service was closed down by the public health officer because there wasn't enough room for the children, or something. I'm wondering, because of the closure of that service, is there any recourse for the business owner in that case?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Well, I suppose the most obvious answer would be that if there were deficiencies in that regard, the owner could take steps to ameliorate the situation, quite obviously, and then call in the medical officer of health and then say, does this comply with what your needs are. There are, of course, sometimes temporary situations where perhaps the conditions might not be as desirable as required, but we're willing to endure them for a short period of time if it's just to fill in for a stop gap. I would imagine, in this case, the owner could seek to have the medical officer of health change their decision if they were able to ameliorate the conditions that existed in the first place.

Mrs. Edelman: There is no opportunity for compensation then?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Well, of course, if a person feels that their business was damaged by an action that was taken by the Department of Health where it was not warranted or perhaps it was undertaken without due thought or whatever, the person, of course, always does have that right to challenge the actions and to seek compensation in the court system. That's always there, and I believe there are some cases. There's at least one case that's pending right now on just such an action.

Mrs. Edelman: Am I to understand from the minister then that there's no recourse under the act that that would be in a civil matter?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I can certainly look into that, but individuals who feel that they've been wronged have a variety of opportunities. They can appeal to the department itself. If they don't receive satisfaction, there are always avenues such as the ombudsman. I suppose if they don't feel that action is satisfactory, they can always pursue legal channels, as people are wont to do.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I don't know. There are some people who do get paid that easily.

Incidentally, I did receive a definition for "insanitary." This one is taken from Webster's, and it indicates that "insanitary" is "unclean enough to endanger health, filthy, contaminated." So, the same thing for "unsanitary," but we always have to keep our lawyers happy.

Mr. Jenkins: With respect to section 8, referring to 13.(1), if one goes through the various parts of the act and looks at it, section 13(1) is quite specific - "If a health officer believes". Now, if you look at some other sections, and I'll refer the minister to section 9, which refers to 16(1), it says, "Where a medical health officer suspects...." Now, why would there be that much flexibility in what the medical health officer undertakes to do?

I would suggest to the minister it would be much more prudent if the medical health officer has to believe before they take action - they can't just suspect something. They can suspect something, they can conduct an investigation, and then they believe it. Why would one want to allow that much flexibility?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I believe, if one takes a look at the nature of it, section 13(1) indicates that the health officer believes, on reasonable grounds, that a person is in breach of the act or the regulations. Then the officer may, by order in writing served upon the person, require the person to remedy that breach within a period of time, et cetera - require the person to remedy the breach and to stop the activity of business.

In other words, this gives them very direct authority. Section 9, referring to 16(1), is more of an advisory capacity, where a medical health officer suspects that there exists a hazard. For example, section 8, referring to 13(1), would probably indicate that a health threat exists; therefore, the health officer can take those necessary steps.

Section 9, referring to 16.1, would probably be along the lines of if there was an issue of, perhaps, mining contaminants in an area. Say an area had been mined for a period of time, and perhaps something like chemicals, such as arsenic, had been present, and the medical officer had some suspicion that that may have caused a hazard. What they can do is notify the prescribed officer of the Department of Health or the mayor or the municipality and advise them of this and direct some kind of an investigation.

So, section 9, referring to 16.1, is more of an investigatory power, whereas section 8, referring to 13.1, would be more of an action-oriented step.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, if I follow the minister, 16.1 is a fishing trip, and with 13.1 is you've caught something, and you have to process it. Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Well, basically what this would do is that section 8 would clarify enforcement procedures - the authority of the health officer to issue these authorities. To issue these orders is not clearly stated enough in our current act. Where a person has failed to obey the order, the amendment authorizes an application to the court for a further order, to enter the premises and take necessary action.

I guess this 16.1 is more or less designed to ensure that there is some communication between the medical health officers, the public health officers and the government authorities, where there may be a threat. For example, as I gave the example before, if perhaps for mining contaminants the medical health officer may have some suspicion that substance use could pose threats, they can notify the Department of Health and Social Services or the administrative officer of that municipality and say, "Here is some condition, and let's undertake an investigation to see if there is indeed some kind of threat."

So, I believe that what this does is to essentially try to ensure that there is ongoing communication among various authorities.

Mr. Jenkins: In 8.13(1), when one reads the previous act as to the power of the health officer, it's right specific, and that power is being extended to allow them to go to the Supreme Court and get an actual court order, above and beyond the order that they issue.

Could the minister give me an example of where that would be necessary, because I can't recall any instances where the powers of the medical health officer, as they presently are stated in the existing act, were not all-encompassing or were not as broad as necessary to enforce the act and to stop any offence?

Why was this section needed to be added? There must be some explanation for it, Mr. Chair.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Well, when drafting this, it was felt that the regulations were not clear enough in the current act, and the role and the powers of the health officer to issue orders in this regard needed to be tightened and needed to be clarified.

Chair: Is it the members' wish to take a brief recess?

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.

Chair: Ten minutes.

Recess

Chair: I will now call Committee of the Whole to order.

We're continuing with clause 8.

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Chair, I just want to compare. Going back to the original point I was trying to make as to who had power over whom. When one looks at section 8 and one looks at section 9, what you have in section 9 is a situation where a medical health officer "suspects." They can suspect virtually anything. Then they make a phone call to some official in the community and say, "I want you to do this, this and this." That happens and it happens on a regular basis, Mr. Chair. But, there's no clear, spelled-out line of authority as to who can do what in what area. It's all-empowering, and this act broadens that power. It doesn't specifically spell out the chain of command. And therein lies a problem.

Having worked for quite a period of time under the old act and being somewhat familiar with it, all this is going to do is give rise to more problems in more areas. I don't believe that the government has traced this back and brought up specific instances of trying to enforce various areas and how you go about enforcing them.

So, what you do under section nine, is download responsibility to a municipal government and you tell them one thing, then the medical health officer can come on board - or some other department of the government - and tell them something completely opposite to what they have been told under this section nine.

Now, has the minister's department ever explored the problems under the previous act, or have they just gone into this with a view of transferring responsibility from the federal government to the government of the Yukon?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I think we need to distinguish between a medical health officer and a health officer. The health officer is an individual who may be a health professional who has certain training. A medical health officer is a physician who has, hopefully, specific training in a public health field. So, for example, let's take an example of a contaminated water system. The medical health officer may suspect that there is a danger, or perhaps there has been an outbreak and the medical health officer may say, "We suspect that this is related to a particular contamination."

The medical health officer, in that case, would notify a prescribed officer of the Department of Health and Social Services - perhaps the deputy minister, perhaps the ADM of health, the mayor or chief administration officer of that particular community - and perhaps there would be an investigation about what the hazard is and what should be done, and then the prescribed officer, I think, for the succession there - it would not be the medical health officer in this case, but the prescribed officer of the Department of Health - would direct the medical health officer or the health officer in that community.

It could be, for example, the community health nurse, or perhaps it could be a physician in that community who has been appointed to take any steps. That may be to close down a facility where there is contamination. It may be to close down a particular water source or to issue an order that people need to boil their water or add some kind of treatment to it.

Clearly, in section 9, referring to 16.3, they can authorize other persons to exercise their powers and perform duties on their behalf. So, for example, it may be that there are individuals such as conservation officers who might be available to post signs in the area, to restrict access to a particular water supply.

I think what section 9 does is try to lay out what the steps will be in the case of a suspected outbreak of disease and try to delineate how it goes from there.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, I don't know if the minister has had an opportunity to attend the emergency measures course in Arnprior, Ontario. There's one course for elected officials. There's another course for people who carry out the programs through EMO Canada and there's a clear line of command and responsibility spelled out during this course and that is what is needed in this act.

You know, if we look to the incidents in the Yukon that have made the paper in the last little while, we had the incident out at Beaver Creek, where it was alleged that there was contaminated water supply at an eating establishment caused food poisoning for a lot of people. That gave rise to a reaction by various departments within this government and within the federal government.

Now that could have been done in a much more appropriate manner than it was done, clearly spelling out how it should have been handled and what steps should have been taken, but hindsight is always 20-20.

I would have thought that the government, in its wisdom, would've addressed issues that have occurred in the past and dovetailed the new act so that it would address these kinds of situations, because this section 9, referring to 16.1, certainly does not. All it does is download.

What I can see happening under this section of the act is that the medical health officer will get on the telephone and say, I want you to do this, this and this because of this, this and this, not knowing full well all the circumstances, because chances are they'd be sitting in Whitehorse and the incident would occur in Timbuktu or some other corner of the Yukon.

Now, it should be the responsibility of the medical health officer to actually have someone attend there, to download it to some of these other individuals who, by and large, are not familiar. Some of them are trained to react in a situation and the mayor has the same powers as a peace officer. You know, you have your conservation officers, you have your fishery officers, you have all of these people who have the same powers as a police officer, and all of those individuals could act for the medical health officer but not all of them are trained in that area, or understand that area, so they're going to act with the full force of that individual.

Where is it spelled out that the chief medical health officer or the one right under that individual, the medical health officer, would attend there and specifically address the issue? That's not there, Mr. Chair, and therein lies a major problem.

It would be investigated how? Are we going to spell this out in regulations somewhere down the road or are we just going to leave that firm or that company or that suspected problem to fester, and we're not going to attend right at the site and do something about it?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Well, I believe that 16.2 does lay out that there will be a procedure undertaken. For example, if the prescribed officer of the Department of Health and Social Services has determined that this threat does exist, then they can direct the medical health officer or a health officer on site.

So, for example, if we take a look at something like a remote community, by the time the medical health officer got there, quite obviously there would be a time lag and the local health officer, who might be the community nurse, could take the necessary steps to alert people as to the hazard, to try to mitigate the effects. Say, for example, there was an outbreak of a water-borne contaminant, the local health officer could issue warnings to people not to drink the water from that source or to take steps with chemical treatment or boiling or some other method to decrease or mitigate the effects. Then, I think, the medical health officer or the health officers on site may delegate other people to assist them in that regard, and that could be, for example, the RCMP; it could be, as the member has indicated, other police officers.

I think what the attempt in section 9 is is to lay out how this procedure should flow. It may be that there needs to be something in terms of regulations developed to clarify those roles, and I'll certainly take this back to the department and bring forward the perceived need on the part of the member for clarity in that role, but I think that what this section is doing is trying to lay out a basic procedure as to how these things would happen. As the member's indicated, in one case there was a measure of confusion as to the different roles.

Mr. Jenkins: Yes, there is confusion as to the various roles and to the ultimate cost being borne by the recipient.

Let me give the minister another example of a situation that arose in the community I live in. It goes back a few years when there were a number of people who came down with giardia. It was initially suspected that if there is an outbreak of giardia it's the municipal water supply that's at fault; test for it, test for it immediately.

I don't know what the minister understands about this test for giardia, but it's a very expensive test, and it's only done outside of the Yukon. It perhaps can be done inside Yukon now, but I believe at that time all of the testing equipment had to be flown up from Edmonton.

We went through a series of tests for quite a prolonged period of time, at considerable cost. All of them came back negative, yet repeatedly, test again, test again, test again.

Now, at what juncture does one say, "Hey, hold the phone. W e're not coming up positive on these tests initially, and yet you have the power to order us to continue with these tests." Giardia is not killed by chlorination, yet we were told to increase the level of chlorination. You just go around in a circle with some of these officials, Mr. Chair.

What I'm looking for is a smooth flow of responsibility and the level of responsibility, because, ultimately, if there were giardia in that water, and it were contaminated, the city would be liable and, despite all of the testing steps taken and the order to boil water, it just doesn't wash as to what is being requested on a lot of occasions.

When I read this outline as to how it's supposed to flow, there are tremendous powers and tremendous responsibilities vested with these officials - and rightly so. Don't get me wrong, Mr. Minister. You know, I'm not suggesting that they not have these powers. I'm just suggesting that there has to be a better way of enforcement and the smooth flow of responsibility, and it has to be clearly defined and clearly laid out. These amendments to this act, in my opinion, do not do that.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but if I could ask the minister to relate how he envisions this section to work, because I can't see it working. I've been experiencing it, not from a lay person's point of view, sitting there having to work with interpreting legislation, but on the downloaded side of it, having been the recipient of such orders.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I can understand, particularly from the point of the municipality, the need for some clarity here. Perhaps section 16.4 might give the member some comfort, because this parallels section 272 of the Municipal Act, and that indicates that the minister may make, on behalf of the Government of the Yukon, agreements with the municipalities for the Government of the Yukon to provide public health and safety services to the municipality and pay for some or all of those services.

Certainly we would not be interested in imposing, particularly in the case of municipalities, extra costs or extra expenses. I think what section 9 does here is try to lay out a framework. Certainly, if it's a question of clarity in regulation, we can direct the department to make sure that the regulations are fairly specific in terms of a flow of information and flow of authority.

Just take a look at 16.1. I think there's an attempt here in 16.1 to make it a less authoritative kind of relationship, because it does indicate that the prescribed officer from Health and Social Services may, in consultation with the representatives of a municipality, direct an investigation. I think what there is in this and what the intent is - and I think we do have to take a look at the intent - is that we're not trying to undermine the independence of municipalities, but try to work with them and ensure that there is communication between levels of government and levels of authority.

I think the intent of this is to lay out a framework that we can build on. I would suggest that if clarity of regulations is something that the member feels strongly about, I can certainly direct the department in that case.

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Chair, the minister suggested that 16.4 provides a measure of comfort. I was going to speak to that. It certainly does for the Government of Yukon. It is interesting to note, if one reads that very, very carefully, that the Government of Yukon can require a municipal government to have a health officer. In the event that they do not, they will say, "We have the responsibility for it, but we're only going to pay part of this cost. You're going to pay all of the other costs associated with the inspections in your community." That provision is made there, Mr. Chair.

That concerns me greatly and alarms me. That's a further downloading of responsibilities, and I would ask the minister to consider an amendment to section 16.4, so that the cost of that responsibility cannot be downloaded to communities.

Would the minister consider that amendment, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Section 16.4, Mr. Chair, was designed to parallel section 272 of the Municipal Act, and I think, in practice, the Government of the Yukon does provide public health services in municipalities, but this isn't clearly indicated in the present Public Health Act. What I can do is take this back, if the member wishes, and discuss it with my department to see if there's anything that can assist the member there in having a level of comfort with regard to this, but it was designed to parallel section 272 of the Municipal Act.

Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Chair, I think that I certainly echo some of the concerns of the Member for Klondike. I know that in consultation with the Association of Yukon Communities, one of the reasons that they were so supportive of this bill was that the costs were going to be borne by the Yukon government.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mrs. Edelman: Exactly. The Member for Klondike is pointing out that it doesn't say that, and that's where I think language like "may" instead of "shall" is an area of concern.

The other area of concern that I've heard from three municipalities is that the language is so broad. It's not specific enough, and we used the example in Dawson City earlier about a number of people having jurisdiction in an area. What about where nobody will take responsibility? It says, "... where a medical health officer suspects there exists a hazard to public health or safety, and where the prescribed officer of the Department of Health and Social Services determined there exists anywhere in the Yukon a hazard to public health and safety."

What about in Carcross, for example? Half way up a mountain, there's a tailings pond, and there's arsenic in it. Now, how do you get someone to go in there and take responsibility for that and to start an investigation and to do whatever has to be done? That's not clear either.

There's no starting point for the delegation of responsibility or the delegation of authority, and that's a real area of concern. It's the opposite end of the problem of having too many cooks. Now, you could have a problem where there aren't any.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I would suggest that in that case, if there was, for example, a local authority, particularly on Crown lands, if there wasn't an administrative officer in that particular region, the prescribed officer of the Department of Health and Social Services would take authority in that area.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: With regard to this, perhaps I should point out that in the consultation that did go on, there was a consultation with both Yukon federal government health officials, City of Whitehorse, CYFN, health officers, medical health officer - and that was the initial consultation. In the second phase, proposed amendments were distributed to public and key interest groups including municipalities and First Nations and those were distributed for comment in 1995, and then a summary of all the key changes in this were sent to all of the First Nations in municipalities for final comment in February 1997, with the final followup letter to municipalities in October 1997. So, municipalities and First Nations in this regard were consulted on at least three and, in some cases, four occasions.

Mrs. Edelman: I appreciate that there has been a consultation process. What I am saying to the minister is that it was the understanding of the municipalities that these changes would make the government of Yukon foot the bill. And, that is not at all the case here. If anything, it seems what you are doing is setting it up so that municipalities end up footing the bill, and I don't see anything in here that talks about taking financial responsibility for this particular officer.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: So, if I take it from both members, the principal concern with section 16.4 is that it is not specific enough and the Government of Yukon would undertake to pick up the cost of a public health emergency. So essentially that is what the indication is.

I would suggest, what would be the response there if the health emergency were directly attributable to the actions, or perhaps inactions, of a municipality?

Mr. Jenkins: Again, that's a hypothetical case. Could the minister be specific and cite a specific instance where such an occasion has arisen that had to be dealt with in that manner? I've cited specific occasions that have given rise to my concerns. Now could the minister be specific and point to areas where this situation has arisen and where there was a cost that the government felt should've been borne by the municipal government and they had no way to charge them accordingly? Could the minister be specific, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Well, I suppose in terms of specifics, suppose we had a municipality which had, say, something such an air-handling system in an arena, and due to contamination, which sometimes can happen with molds and things of that nature, an airborne disease, perhaps something like Legionnaires', was spread around. The medical health officer might direct that that air-handling unit be removed, perhaps even cleaned. Now, would that not indicate that there should be at least a share of responsibility between the municipality and the territorial government in dealing with an emergency of that kind?

Mr. Jenkins: The situations that I've cited here in the House have been specific and they have occurred. What the minister is advancing is a very hypothetical case. It could occur; chances are it will not occur and it hasn't occurred. Can the minister cite an occasion that has occurred in the Yukon where this would be applicable. I'm not aware of any, Mr. Chair. Perhaps the minister could enlighten the House.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I know that municipalities are spotless and without sin, but I'm sure that there are occasions and I'm sure that there are situations where perhaps a municipality might not maintain their facilities in an orderly way.

I'm just suggesting that if we structure 16.4 in such a way as to be so restrictive that the territorial government will end up holding the bag on any health-initiated emergency that could arise and would find itself - Even if the responsibility were to be held by a particular business or by a particular municipality, I would find that 16.4, if it is too restrictive, would largely absolve the municipality of any financial responsibility in that part.

Mr. Jenkins: I'm sure this evening or tomorrow the minister could work on an amendment to the effect that the Government of Yukon provide public health and safety services to the municipality and pay all of the costs associated with those services, unless it can be substantiated that the municipality has erred and, in such case, that cost would be borne by the respective municipal government. Something to that effect would be very comfortable.

Why, Mr. Chair, there is very little opposition to this act coming forward is because everyone that I've spoken to says that, "Well, if the government's going to bear all of the costs, like they have been doing in the past, it's not going to give them any more powers and it's going to help us." But the biggest reason they said, "fine", is "there are going to be no additional costs."

Now, that's the understanding out there from the municipal governments and the people in municipal governments that I've spoken with, Mr. Chair. That doesn't say that in 16(4). It is quite specific that the Government of Yukon is to provide public health and safety services to the municipality and to pay some or all of the costs of those services. Who determines who pays "some or all"? Under what formula? Or are we just going to have a similar thing like Tony Penikett did a few years ago - he abolished the school taxes and said, "I'm going to remove ourselves from this taxing room. If you municipalities want to take it over, that's fine, but we're removing it from your block funding." Bingo.

Now, that's happened, and that same thing can happen again, Mr. Chair. There could be a further downloading of this responsibility to municipal governments very, very simply.

Now, what I'm looking for is for the minister to bring forward an amendment to the act, which I'm sure he can have some measure of comfort on, and I'm sure he's just been advised by the Member for Faro not to agree to anything, but I would hope that common sense would prevail and we could speedily move forward on this act - just in a simple amendment, Mr. Chair, to clear up any misunderstandings that there might be in the future on that section of the act.

Can the minister give his undertaking on that, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: What I'll do is I will review with my officials tomorrow what some of the principal concerns raised by municipalities were on this. If that indeed is the case; that municipalities felt that they were being absolved from all financial responsibilities, then certainly that wasn't the intent. What we can do is we can take a look at this in terms of providing clarity as to how this can work out, but I would be surprised, I suppose, because we have gone through a fairly exhaustive kind of consultation on this, if the municipalities were not content with this.

I suppose the most recent letter, in October, 1997, should have alerted them. What I will do is I will go back and take a look at this and see if there is any necessity to amend this for clarity.

Mr. Jenkins: In the consultation process, I'm sure this clause was just briefed over by the department, and it's very hard to pick up, unless one has the time to sit down and analyze this act, dovetail these changes back to the act, and go through them and see how they work. One also has to be familiar with the Municipal Act to see how they all dovetail together. It's not a process that a lot of the elected officials in the Yukon are familiar with. It's not a process that a lot of the municipal officials, on the office side, have the time to spend on.

So, if the minister is going to go back and consult with the municipalities, I guess we can stand this line aside, but I think there's a more expedient way to deal with it than standing it aside, and that's just bringing forward a quick amendment. We could have that and deal with it next week, Mr. Chair, or when he consults with the municipalities, if the minister would be kind enough to point out that specific section and the potential costs the municipal governments could incur in the future.

Is the minister prepared to take that course of action, Mr. Chair? Which one would he prefer?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: What I will do - and I don't believe I agreed to go back and consult with each municipality, because I think that would be somewhat redundant in this case - is go back and review some of the concerns that were raised by municipalities. I'm sure we have these on record. I will review with my department if this was indeed their understanding.

As I said earlier, the intent was to make this section parallel to section 272 of the Municipal Act, and basically that suggests that council may, by bylaw, authorize an agreement between the municipality and the Government of the Yukon under which the Government of the Yukon provides public health services to the municipality and the municipality pays for some or all of these services.

In practice, we've been providing public health services to the municipalities.

There's no attempt in this act, as the member is characterizing it, to download or pull a fast one on any of the municipalities. That's not our intention, nor is it our intention, quite frankly, to put an undue burden on the municipalities. In fact, what this attempted to do was try and parallel an existing section.

What I will do is see if there is any attempt or any ability within this, by form of an amendment, to clarify it. However, I think we have to make it very clear that any amendment will not absolve a municipality from those costs which are, I suppose, incurred by them.

I certainly don't want to put the territorial government in the position of picking up all of the costs. I think we have to understand that this is a shared responsibility.

Mrs. Edelman: I think that what you're talking about is the difference between the municipality may absorb the cost or the government may pay the cost. That noise is not the same thing.

I think that we need to go back and take a look. If you go back and you look at all the issues that were brought up by municipalities - and there weren't many - you're probably not going to find this concern. You're not going to find this concern because, in the briefings to the municipalities, they were told that this was not an area to be concerned about and, if anything, the Yukon government was going to be taking over all of the expense.

So, I think that you need to, at least, go back to the representative of the Association of Yukon Communities and speak with that representative, at the very, very least.

I have a very grave concern, having been on the municipal level for a number of years - and having had responsibilities downloaded without any raise in municipal funding, I might point out - that this is going to be a real problem. If the minister could go and talk to somebody from the Association of Yukon Communities or one of the representatives, I think that that would be not a difficult thing for the minister to do, and we can certainly address the bill on Monday.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Well, that's true.

I can tell the member that, as I indicated earlier, we're not interested in imposing undue hardships on the municipalities. As a matter of fact, I would say that the municipalities in this territory are fairly successful at uploading responsibilities - witness some of the issues surrounding costs incurred by government in such things as new schools or, for example, in terms of provision of services to -

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I beg to differ. I think we all have a duty to citizens, be they municipal or be they territorial or be they federal, and I would suggest also in regard to such things as services to the disabled.

So, I don't think there's any attempt here to offload any responsibilities. If the member wishes I will, in reviewing this with my department, consult with the AYC and see what their interpretation was of it. We will try for some clarity, if that's what the members seek. If we feel that an amendment in this regard is necessary for clarity, we can certainly do that.

Mr. Jenkins: My understanding of this act and how it was presented to the municipal level was that there is a transfer of responsibility from the federal government to the territorial government. All of the federal health officers that were hired by the federal government that went around the Yukon would now be territorial government employees. It was a change in responsibility from the federal government to the Government of the Yukon.

There was to be very little change in the way programs and inspections were carried out under the new regime; it was just a transfer, and in order to make this transfer and transition smooth and flow, there were a couple of areas that had to be tidied up and looked at and addressed in this amendment to the act.

The act is indeed a territorial government act. This amendment amends that act. Very few municipal leaders that I spoke with were concerned with any part of it other than there be a smooth transition, there be no additional costs born by their government.

Fine, fair ball. I don't think any of them spent the time to go into the detail or conduct the analysis of these amendments that my colleague and I have conducted. And I have seen those small little clauses come back to haunt you. So, what we are looking for, Mr. Chair, is clarity - clarity in determining who has responsibility for what and under what terms and conditions and at what cost.

I think it's a very straightforward request of the minister to bring back an amendment to that section of this act, 9, referring to 16.4. I do not have any trouble with what the minister suggested - that, in the event that blame can be clearly allocated to a municipal government, they pay the cost. If there's something that they have done incorrectly and they have incurred the wrath of whatever inspection department, then that municipal government should be held accountable. It's spelled out there very vaguely, other than that that clause can be used by this government to download a lot of those costs to municipal governments.

And it can be done just by regulations, Mr. Chair, very simply. All one would have to do is say, "Well, you're a municipal government. You have the responsibility under this act to have a health officer. You haven't appointed one. We have the responsibility for it, and this is the cost we are so incurring, and we believe it's necessary to have this many inspections annually; this is the cost for that individual travelling to your domain and looking after these areas." And that could likely come to pass, under this section.

Mr. Chair, we suspect - we don't believe - that there's an issue that exists as a hazard to public health or safety.

We just have to suspect, and you have the inspector show up on your door and, rightly or wrongly, that cost could be downloaded to that municipal government. So what I'm seeking, Mr. Chair, is the minister's assurances that, on Monday, he will bring an amendment to 16.(4) to clearly clarify that section of this proposed amendment to the act. Is the minister prepared to give that assurance to the House?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Mr. Chair, I thought I had given that assurance that I would go back and review with my officials and, as the Member for Riverdale South has asked if I would review with AYC, it would be a simple phone call, and we will do that.

I suppose what I am more concerned about is the somewhat pejorative tone that I sense from the Member for Klondike. I didn't know that the territorial government was perceived in such a negative way, and the government ...

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Sloan: The Leader of the official opposition says, "Where have you been, where have you been?" Well, I would indicate that I believe that most public servants try to do a good job, and I would believe that public servants here have a responsibility, and they have a sense that they have to guard the public good.

I would suggest that in drafting this the Department of Health and Social Services has no nefarious motives in mind and that they were drafting this legislation with the sense to address the public good.

I'm somewhat disturbed at the tone that I sense from the members opposite that we're somehow at loggerheads here. I thought the object was that we were to cooperate with different levels of government, and now what we're getting here is the sense, from certainly the Member for Klondike and the leader of the official opposition, that somehow we're all enemies here, and that any steps that the Department of Health and Social Services take to sort of safeguard the public are somehow unnecessary and redolent of big government.

I would suggest that there's nothing underhanded or anything nefarious in this regard, and I'm very disturbed by that tone.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, I'm sure on Monday or tomorrow, when the minister reads Hansard, he can grasp the message that I'm trying to get across to the minister, Mr. Chair.

I'm not after any of the public sector employees. I'm just after clarity in this act, to clearly outline who is responsible for what, under what terms and conditions, and the flow of responsibility.

Also, the fiscal responsibility associated with this act - who bears what? This is a very broad act, and a very, very powerful act also, Mr. Chair, and as such it should clearly define the lines of authority of the individuals responsible for enforcing this act, and should clearly define who bears what costs associated with this act.

So I'm very, very pleased that the minister's going to go back and review it. I was very hopeful that he could table an amendment to this act on Monday, and we might likely get a preview of this amendment tomorrow. Is that the minister's intention?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I move you report progress.

Motion agreed to

Hon. Mr. Harding: I move the Speaker resume the Chair.

Motion agreed to

Speaker resumes the Chair

Speaker: I will now call the House to order.

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

Mr. McRobb: Mr. Speaker, Committee of the Whole has reconsidered Bill No. 22, Oil and Gas Act, and directed me to report it with amendment.

Further, Committee has considered Bill No. 40, An Act to Amend the Workers' Compensation Act, and directed me to report it without amendment.

Further, Committee has considered Bill No. 43, An Act to Amend the Public Health Act, and directed me to report progress on it.

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

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.

Speaker: I declare the report carried.

Hon. Mr. Harding: I move the House do now adjourn.

Speaker: It has been moved by the 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 5:28 p.m.

The following Sessional Papers were tabled December 4, 1997:

97-1-88

Auditor General: Annual Report on Other Matters, for the year ended March 31, 1996 (Speaker Bruce)

97-1-89

Yukon Lottery Commission 1996-97 Annual Report (Keenan)

97-1-90

Telephone service to unserved and underserved areas: letter dated December 1, 1997, from Hon. Dave Keenan, Minister of Community and Transportation Services, to Jean Poirer, president, Northwestel Inc. (Keenan)