Thursday, April 26, 2001 - 1:00 p.m.

In recognition of Workers' Day of Mourning

Question re: Deputy Minister of Tourism, racist remarks

Mr. Fairclough:      Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Premier issued a general apology to all Yukon people for the comments made by one of her deputy ministers at the TIA convention last week, and we thank the Premier for that. But we don't understand why the Premier cannot bring herself to apologize directly to the Yukoners who were most directly hurt by those comments.

Now here is an opportunity for the Premier again. Will the Premier now please take that tiny step that would mean so much to the Sikh community - will she please apologize directly to them for the insult to their religion and customs?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      I want to thank the leader of the official opposition for that particular question.

Yesterday I apologized to all Yukoners for the remarks that were made by the Deputy Minister of Tourism. As I rise in the House today I want to offer my apology specifically to the members of the Sikh community. I do so on behalf of myself, on behalf of this government and on behalf of the Minister of Tourism.

Mr. Fairclough:      I thank the Premier for that. It means a lot to the Sikh community, and we are trying to help bring closure to this matter.

Now, the Minister of Tourism had an opportunity to take immediate action but she did not. She had an opportunity to express how seriously she considered it, but she has not.

Now will the Premier please ask the Minister of Tourism to apologize to the Sikh community for not taking action, for trivializing this very serious issue in her media comments?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, I speak on behalf of all members of the government and government caucus, and I believe that I also speak on behalf of all members of the Legislature who want to bring closure to this matter and who find this entirely regrettable.

As I rose in the House a moment ago, I offered my apology specifically to the members of the Sikh community, and I did this on behalf of not only me, as the Premier, but also on behalf of the Minister of Tourism for whom, as Premier, I also speak, and all members of this caucus. I speak on their behalf.

As the member has requested and as I most wholeheartedly want to offer, I have offered a sincere apology to the members of the Sikh community and to all Yukoners as well. A tremendous number of Yukoners were offended. Both of those have been done. I trust that the member does indeed wish to bring closure to this matter in order that, Mr. Speaker, we all may learn from this unfortunate incident, move forward, and put it behind us.

Mr. Fairclough:      Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are firmly committed to the principle of restorative justice and we hope that this government is, as well.

Restorative justice requires the offender to admit and accept responsibility for their action. It requires facing the victims and the community to hear how the offence has affected them, and it requires working with the victim and the community to find a way to restore balance and harmony in the community.

In the spirit of that, and aiming toward restoration rather than retribution, will the Premier please direct her deputy minister to take those steps?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, I have attempted to explain to the member opposite previously that specific actions with respect to a personnel matter I cannot discuss on the floor of the House. I cannot do that, Mr. Speaker. It is against our very code of conduct; it is against the Public Service Staff Relations Act. I can't do that. It is not respectful of the laws that we also have.

The member opposite has spoken of the need for regard for individuals and for the rule of law. I have, by our government's actions, said that we do not condone this kind of activity. The deputy minister has publicly apologized and issued a statement. I have done so to all Yukoners and to the Sikh community.

We hold the principles, and uphold the principles, of fairness and the equal treatment before the law that the member's colleague spoke so eloquently of a few moments ago in her tribute. We hold these principles very dear. We cannot speak on the floor of this House on specific personnel matters; I cannot do that, Mr. Speaker.

Question re:  Children and youth in care

Mr. Keenan:      Today I have another question for the Minister of Health and Social Services. It's the same issue, Mr. Speaker, that has been on the floor for a number of weeks now, and I've been asking the minister for a public inquiry into the issue of children in government care.

Now, I've raised a number of concerns that have been brought to my attention, and that's including the harassment of a young lady after this young lady had gone to the media and spoken with me. I repeatedly asked the minister to ensure that this type of harassment stops, but the minister has refused to do so. So just by that inaction, Mr. Speaker, I must assume that the minister does condone this type of behaviour by the department.

So I'd like to ask now of the minister, respectfully, what does the minister plan to do to ensure that staff and children in care are not being harassed?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      I guess the member opposite for some reason believes that there is an issue out there of harassment. I would hope not. I strongly oppose any kind of harassment of anyone. Obviously that is another form of abuse and I would not support any type of harassment of anyone.

My directions are very clear to the department. They already know these issues anyway, Mr. Speaker, so all I am doing is reinforcing what they already know - that harassment is something that, once it begins, never stops. So, the member opposite has my support in the process of ensuring that this doesn't happen.

But, again, if there are some specific issues that the member wants to bring forward, I am quite willing to look at them and investigate for the member opposite and come back with some kind of an observation or a statement of what really is the concern here. So, I am open to that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Keenan:      I thank the minister for the offer, but I have got to say, categorically, where has the minister been for the last month?

These issues of harassment have been brought to the attention of the minister every day on the floor of this Legislature - that's four days a week. It has been in the media. Now the minister has gone out and said that the department will review residential services. I am pointing out that this is much bigger than residential services; it's about all aspects of children in care.

The minister said that this issue needs to be removed from the public forum. Now, given the potential consequences to those who do speak out - and it is happening now - it's essential that any examination of the issues be, one, independent and, two, truly transparent - that's to provide protection for those folks who are involved and will be bringing forth their issues.

So now, having admitted that a review is needed, will the minister take the next step and ensure that any process is independent of the department?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Mr. Speaker, we have always been on record as endorsing or supporting the review. In fact, in the 1998 report on a particular group home here in Whitehorse, it was recommended in the recommendations that there would be a review two years down the road. We are following that recommendation. The review has to be independent. It has to involve all the players, Mr. Speaker. It has to be related to the issues of children. That's the whole idea of doing a review, Mr. Speaker. To do anything short of that would be shortchanging our very important resource in the community - that of children, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Keenan:      Mr. Speaker, the minister is certainly going part of the way. I would like to again point out that this is not singularly about the group home. It's about children in care and every aspect of children in care under the government. We have to do what's right for the children.

Some of those children have potential leadership abilities, in every aspect, so they surely are our future.

Now, research does show how important stability is for children. By the time a child reaches his or her 16^th birthday, if that person has had up to 42 placements by that age, that is not healthy for the person. They are not experiencing any stability and not experiencing any of the unconditional love that a parent could and would show. So we must re-evaluate the system. It has to be re-evaluated.

So will the minister do the right thing for the children and will the minister commission a truly independent inquiry, under the Public Inquiries Act, into the issue of children in government care?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      As I told the member opposite on many occasions over the past two weeks, we are going to be doing a review, and we will, Mr. Speaker.

The public's concern for the proper care of children is being heard loud and clear by this government, and it is our concern as well. It is now time to take this out of the public forum, Mr. Speaker. Professionals are telling us that discussing this issue in a public forum is adversely affecting the youth in care. The youth in care read about it in the papers, they hear it on the radio, and they're disturbed. I welcome the Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes and the members on the side opposite to meet with me if they require more information. Mr. Speaker, we will be doing a review.

Question re:  Children and youth in care

Mr. Jenkins:      I have a question for the Minister of Health and Social Services. There are now more youth in government care than there are students in Robert Service School, or in any other rural school for that matter. The total number of youth in care is now 309, to be exact: 21 are a year old or less; 62 are between the ages of two and five; and 99 are between the ages of six and 11. Statistics show that 59 percent of these children are in care for more than nine months, almost double the numbers that occurred in 1998-99. These statistics show an alarming trend, and I would like to know what the minister is going to do about them, because an internal government cover-up review isn't going to do anything to improve the situation. What is the minister going to do?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure what the member means by "cover-up." When you do a public review, Mr. Speaker, it is not a cover-up; it's open and transparent. What the member is talking about is a reflection of our society; it's a reflection of our communities; it's a reflection of our families. Mr. Speaker, there is no one answer to solve all these problems.

Mr. Speaker, we must work in unison to bring about solutions, and even when we come up with those solutions, we're going to need more solutions because times change.

If the member opposite is indicating that we are to blame because we take so many children into care, I think the member should rethink that. The government does not. We do not take children into care without due reason.

Mr. Jenkins:      Yukon youth in care are now speaking out and the news media has now been advised by YTG not to air or print what these children in care are saying. The government's position is that they are the guardian of these children and nothing that they say or do can be printed or aired until such a time as the government has given permission. Why is the minister muzzling these children, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      I'm a bit surprised by the member opposite's comments. What we have to look at is again focusing on children who are very troubled. I think that, Mr. Speaker, the member opposite would have some serious problems if the media went to his family and talked to his children without his knowledge. I think the member opposite would have some very serious problems with that.

Since the government is the guardian of these children, obviously, it's due process. Again, to use children for political ends, I think, to me, is something I just cannot tolerate. I believe that this is what is really driving this issue. It's not children; it's for political motivation. I believe that this is completely wrong.

Mr. Jenkins:      Once again, the minister is wrong. What we want is what is best for the children in care under the guardianship of the Yukon. Not to muzzle them, but to listen to them. And listen to Yukoners.

Now, if we look at the children's residential resource review, which was supposed to be an independent review, it was completed in 1998. If you look at that, the situation since then has become much worse, part of it under the minister's watch.

What is required now is for the minister to establish an independent inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act before a preventable tragedy occurs that forces the minister to establish an inquiry. Will the minister undertake such an inquiry?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      I told the members opposite time after time that there will be a review. This will be an independent review, Mr. Speaker, and it will look at the whole issue of children in care. That is our objective. The objective is to be very open and transparent about how we can help improve the situation of the many children we have in care and hopefully prevent more children from coming into care in the future. There are a lot of preventive programs out there right now. But we know that we do have a lot of children in care who need very specific help. This is an issue that has been around for a long time and I would hope the members opposite would take the lead in trying to be positive instead of constantly trying to highlight the issues of the most disadvantaged. I am really aghast at that kind of approach in using children. I believe that that is not the route that we should be going. We should be working on looking for solutions.

Question re:  Arts branch, relocation to Tourism

Mr. McRobb:      Well, what is clear is that this government is not open and accountable and it's flying by the seat of its pants.

Now, at a hastily called public meeting on Tuesday night, held at the Beringia Centre, the Minister of Tourism met with members of the art and heritage communities to explain some of the changes she is making to that department. I would like to congratulate the minister for making herself available to the people in the community having concerns.

I was also present at the meeting, and I am pleased to say that I thought the minister did reasonably well explaining her case. I also note that she agreed to have further meetings with both groups to get their input on making the new system work.

For the record, will the minister reaffirm the commitment she made at the public meeting that the arts branch will remain the same throughout the remainder of her mandate?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      I made the commitment that there will be a separate arts branch and heritage branch until the end of this mandate.

Mr. McRobb:      Well, Mr. Speaker, one interesting anecdote from that meeting concerned the minister's comments that she could have undertaken another sham consultation. Now, Mr. Speaker, "sham" is a very interesting word. Yukon people are starting to realize that this government's whole approach to consultation has been a sham. There were the big sham consultations around the alcohol and drug secretariat, the sham budget consultations. Mr. Speaker, the list is too long to repeat here in the time I have today.

Some Hon. Member:      Point of order.

Point of order

Speaker:      The government House leader, on the point of order.

Ms. Tucker:      Mr. Speaker, under 19(h) and 19(i), the member opposite seems to be imputing false motives or uttering falsehoods in the form of "sham consultations".

Speaker:      The Member for Watson Lake, on the point of order.

Mr. Fentie:      I think what the Member for Kluane is pointing out is that the consultations are merely window dressing under this Liberal government. He's not imputing falsehoods whatsoever. He's merely pointing out the method of consultation that this Liberal government undertakes.

Speaker:      The Member for Kluane, on the point of order.

Mr. McRobb:      Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I'd just like to add that my use of the word "sham" was a direct quote attributed to the minister herself.

Speaker's ruling

Speaker:      I'm not aware of that direct quote. I don't know the context that it was used in.

While the member was asking his questions, I found the word "sham" used so many times that I considered it insulting, but I didn't feel it was up to the Chair to jump in at that time.

The Chair does not believe that it imputes false or unavowed motives, but the Chair does believe that, used in the manner in which it was used, it is insulting language or of a nature likely to create disorder, and I can go back to several pages that I have researched in Beauchesne. In there, it's not the words so much that can be insulting; it's how the words are used - not necessarily the word "sham", but words.

And I find that the way that this word was used today in this House is of an insulting nature, likely to create disorder. I would ask if the member would withdraw it, please, and continue.

Please continue.

Mr. McRobb:      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, I was also insulted by the minister's use of that word at the meeting, as were -

Speaker:      Order please. I asked the member to withdraw the word and then continue.

Withdrawal of remark

Mr. McRobb:      I apologize for that, Mr. Speaker. I will certainly withdraw that word.

Speaker:      Thank you.

Mr. McRobb:      Mr. Speaker, many people felt insulted at the meeting. This government is clearly saying one thing and doing another when it comes to cutting the community development fund for instance. That was a very popular fund with Yukon people and all Yukon communities. What did this government do? It did not consult. Instead, the Liberals gave us an audit.

I would like to ask the minister a direct question. Will she tell us what lessons she has learned from this experience about public consultation?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      What I've learned is that if you make an operational decision that is in response to a public need - and this was information given to us by the public, by the arts sector and by cultural industries - for separate recognition of the cultural industries, beyond community arts and beyond professional artists, they are a separate entity that need to be recognized. Resources need to be allocated in that area. Therefore, we made the announcement that we would have a cultural industries facilitator and a cultural industries secretariat that will grow over time.

To pretend, at any point, that we were going to change our minds about that decision would have been less than a good service to the Yukon public. The decision had been made.

The member opposite asks if I learned anything. I learn something every day. What I learned from that is that perhaps what I should have done was spoken to the arts community first before I made the announcement, but the decision had been made. To say that I was consulting and give people the impression that the decision was going to change would not have been fair. It wouldn't have been right. That's what I learned, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McRobb:      Well, this government was elected on an undertaking to Yukon voters to be open and accountable and to consult them in a meaningful way on issues that affect them. When the government restructures a department, that is such a case. When it doesn't consult, then it's a contradiction between what it does and what it said it would do. This minister has also heard representations of how it should recognize the importance of the arts community. But what did it do? It lumped the arts branch in with another branch. It could have left it separate. Now, we suspect that in the minister's private moments away from the camera, she has indeed learned some very important lessons about consultation. Will she, in her private moments with her Cabinet and caucus colleagues, agree to share those lessons with them?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      One of the other messages that we heard from the public was not to grow government. We were told to use our resources wisely; therefore, what we did was an internal reorganization. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, we moved one position. That's what we did. There have been a number of moves of government positions since this government took office and in the four years that that side of the House was here in government. And at no point did anybody do a consultation on an internal, operational move. It was one position. We moved one position. We told the Yukon public that we would not grow government, we would use our resources wisely. That's what we did. We did that to meet a need and the need was to recognize cultural industries as a separate entity.

Question re: Occupational health and safety for miners

Mr. Fairclough:      I have a question for the Premier. It is interesting to hear the answers from the Minister of Tourism. I look at information that is given to me by the Premier on how government is spending money on things like computer equipment at the end of the fiscal year.

We just heard a tribute to National Day of Mourning, which will be observed across Canada tomorrow. This is an appropriate time to ask a question directly to the Premier and not to the minister responsible for the Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board, because after this, questions may follow the main question. Can the Premier tell us what her government's actual commitment is to occupational health and safety, particularly the safety of mine workers?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Mr. Speaker, we haven't at all changed the policy from historical times. We are still committed.

Mr. Fairclough:      During the general debate of April 17, the Minister of Justice said that her department was no longer making financial contributions to mine safety. She said that the Workers' Compensation Board was now responsible for budgeting mine safety. I think that if the Premier or minister looked at it more closely, they might find that the board has not, in fact, picked up that responsibility.

Can the Premier or minister explain that discrepancy?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      I guess, Mr. Speaker, where there's a need, we will always have that kind of backup. That's what the Workers' Compensation Board does. It supports and builds those kinds of programming. I'm not aware that there is a hue and cry out there that we're not doing it, other than from the member opposite.

Mr. Fairclough:      Well, it's quite obvious that the minister does not know what his responsibilities are through the department. We have a problem. I hoped that the minister and the Premier might help us sort out this one.

In the 2000-01 estimates for consumer and commercial services, there was a $329,000 line item for occupational health and safety. This was part of a transfer agreement from the federal government and was specifically for mine safety. Now, in this year's estimate, this line item is designated as prior years' activities. There is no money set aside for mine safety. But at the same time, the Justice department added $329,000 of new monies to pay outside lawyers to do work for the department.

In the minister's capacity of being responsible for the department or the Minister of Finance - I ask the Finance minister this: can she tell us if her government has the authority from the federal government to unilaterally reassign the mine safety money, if that is what has happened?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is asking a question with respect to a specific line item in the Justice department budget. We have cleared that. I don't know why the member opposite didn't ask this question then. I'm not acting for the Minister of Justice; however, I am the Minister of Finance, and I will ensure that the member opposite receives a response in detail.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Clerk:  Third reading, Bill No. 44, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Buckway.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill No. 44, An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act (No. 3), be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker:      It has been moved by the hon. Premier that Bill No. 44, An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act (No. 3), be now read a third time and do pass.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, this act will serve to implement two changes in Yukon's tax regime. Our government has, in less than a year's time in the Legislature and less than a year after actually having been sworn into office, reduced the personal income tax or PIT twice - not once, Mr. Speaker, but twice. The first of these was a reduction of the rate from 50 percent to 49 percent of basic federal tax for the 2000 tax year. So Yukon workers - Yukon individuals - are seeing this reduction now, and it will be even further emphasized to them next year, as we're again filling out our income tax.

The second initiative was to further reduce the tax rate to 46 percent for this taxation year. And we did this in a timely manner. Now, by means of this legislation and as earlier promised by us, effective January 1, 2002, the personal income tax rate will drop a further two basis points to 44 percent of basic federal tax. This means that within less than one year from being sworn into office, we have introduced legislation that brings Yukon's personal income tax rate down six basis points - that is from 50 percent to 44 percent of the basic federal tax.

This is a 12-percent reduction in our rate of personal taxation and is significant by anyone's standards. These monies have been welcomed by our citizens, and we are pleased to see and note in the retail sales figures that I spoke about yesterday that the consumer confidence and the effect of these personal income tax cuts are being reflected. Lower personal taxes serve many purposes. First and foremost, they put more money into the hands of our citizens, citizens who work very hard to earn their wages and deserve to keep as much as possible of these earnings and to spend them in the ways that they wish for their family enjoyment as they contemplate a longer camping season in the territory. Lower taxes also stimulate economic growth and initiative, both of which all members in this House have actively encouraged me to further encourage. This measure is not without some cost to the Yukon treasury.

Beginning in 2002, our revenues will be some $1.3 million less per year as a result of the tax rate reduction. We know, however, that what we have done is made a good investment in citizens, and this cost is very worthwhile.

The other tax change incorporated into this bill extends the Yukon research and development tax credit. Mr. Speaker, this was previously only available to corporate entities, individuals and partnerships. We enacted this 15-percent refundable credit last year, and an additional five percent is available if the research is done in conjunction with Yukon College.

It's an incentive to carry out research and development activities in the Yukon. We have learned of one case of eligible research and development activity in the territory, which is being done by unincorporated individuals. They have brought this issue forward and they have acted upon it. Just this morning, I received strong kudos from the business community, via the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, on this particular initiative.

We have been asked why the credit could not be extended beyond corporations, especially since the federal tax credit is available to corporate and non-corporate taxpayers.

Research and development is good for the economy and it's good for the Yukon, regardless of the orgnizational structure that it is conducted under. We are therefore very pleased to be able to extend this credit as it is embodied in this particular act before the Legislature. The extension is effective, beginning in the 2001 taxation year.

Our original estimate for the cost of this for corporations was $50,000 per annum. We still feel that this assessment is accurate in total, despite the extension of this credit.

Overall, these changes and improvements to Yukon's tax regime that the House is being asked to vote on today are a reflection of our commitment to economic development, the betterment of our citizens' lives and our promise to listen to the people and act upon what we hear.

I look forward to the support of all members of the Yukon Legislative Assembly for this legislation - this tremendous tax initiative in the territory.

Mr. Fentie:      Well, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the Premier chose to stand up and make a political speech on a bill that the official opposition and, indeed, the third party deemed as housekeeping and have given full support not only in first reading but in Committee and in second reading. So I must set the record straight, Mr. Speaker.

First, I want to openly thank the former Government Leader Piers McDonald for taking the initiative on tax reform in this territory. It was through his initiative that this whole process began. It was through the hard work of the tax round table that the NDP government set up and put to work and charged with tax reform that the Premier was able to stand on the floor of this Legislature and try to lay claim to something that the members opposite had nothing to do with.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, when the initial budget that the members opposite, during the election campaign, suddenly realized they had to support, which contained the very first phase of tax reform in this territory, this Premier and her members in caucus while in opposition voted against that budget. They were critical of that budget and everything in it.

Mr. Speaker, what the Premier has just done, quite frankly, is a complete contradiction to her argument that these types of bills were housekeeping. In standing on the floor and making a political speech in this manner, it's obvious that there was much more to these bills than the Premier claimed.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier, in doing the right thing, should have acknowledged the people whose hard work resulted in true tax reform for the Yukon Territory. Instead, the Liberal government and this Premier, in their total lack of ability to produce anything while in charge, are trying to lay claim to other people's initiatives and hard work.

Having said that, the official opposition will support this bill and we do believe it to be truly a housekeeping piece of legislation, as it merely continues on with the work begun under the Piers McDonald NDP government.

Mr. Jenkins:      I rise in support of this housekeeping bill. It must be pointed out that there are two components to this bill: the research and development component, and the personal income tax component. The Premier alluded to and went on at great length about the reduced personal income tax and that it has occurred twice during her watch. Well, it must be pointed out that it's not the number of times that personal income tax is reduced but the amount by which personal income tax is reduced. When we look all across Canada and look at where Yukoners used to sit on the scale compared to the rest of Canada, we were about in the middle. We have moved up on the scale as paying more personal income tax than most Canadians, in that the Government of the Yukon has not kept pace with the rest of Canada and lowered personal income tax rates, as the major jurisdictions of Ontario and Alberta have. I am sure that we are going to see a change in British Columbia as soon as their government changes, and a further reduction and a further movement on the scale of where Yukoners are. I am sure that we will be moving upward as to the amount of our total taxable income that we pay in comparison to the rest of Canada. We just have to look at a chart and we can establish that.

The research and development initiative was started under the previous government, and the Liberal government just took ownership of this initiative and moved it forward. This is a housekeeping bill. Our party supports it. We just see that the Yukon government of the day could have gone a lot further in providing further tax reduction than what they have. I am disappointed to see that they haven't. But we are in support of the bill as it stands.

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

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      I am pleased to rise to close debate on this act that will amend the Income Tax Act and will implement the changes in Yukon's tax regime.

Mr. Speaker, this is yet another example of not talk, talk, talk, but action, action, action by this government. We have done what we said we would do.

Mr. Speaker, we are proud of these initiatives. We are very pleased that we have worked on behalf of all people of the Yukon to give consideration to these.

The Member for Watson Lake has pointed out that there are individuals who have been involved with the Yukon's round table on taxation initiatives - the private sector and investment community - and they have been supportive of this in the past and have made recommendations to the previous Government Leader.

Some of these changes were originally tabled. At the time they were tabled, our party indicated that we would look at finances, continue with it and implement it - to actually do it - were we to enjoy the support of the people of the Yukon and become the government, which we did.

We did this, and we are proud of our work. We are pleased to enact this initiative on behalf of all people of the Yukon.

Speaker:      Are you prepared for the question?

Some Hon. Member:      Division.

Speaker:      I only heard one division call.

Some Hon. Members:      Division.

Division

Speaker:      Division has been called.

Speaker:      Mr. Clerk, please poll the House.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Agree.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Agree.

Hon. Mr. Jim: Agree.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      Agree.

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Agree.

Ms. Tucker:      Agree.

Mr. McLarnon:      Agree.

Mr. Kent:      Agree.

Mr. McLachlan: Agree.

Mr. Fairclough:      Agree.

Mr. Fentie:      Agree.

Mr. Keenan:      Agree.

Mr. McRobb:      Agree.

Ms. Netro:      Agree.

Mr. Jenkins:      Agree.

Clerk:  Mr. Speaker, the results are 15 yea, nil nay.

Motion for third reading of Bill No. 44 agreed to

Speaker:      The ayes have it. I declare the motion carried and that Bill No. 44 has passed this House.

Speaker's statement

Speaker:      Order please. Just before we continue here, the Chair would like to make a statement. Two days in a row we've had issues where division has been called, and it's not clear whether the second member has been up or not. I don't think it's fair that the members put the Chair in the position to decide whether division has been called or not. It should be very clear: either two people are up and we call division or division won't be upheld. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation, and we'll proceed.

Thank you.

Bill No. 36: Third Reading

Clerk:  Third reading, Bill No. 36, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Buckway.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      I move that Bill No. 35, entitled An Act to Amend the Territorial Court Judiciary Pension Plan Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker:      It has been moved by the hon. Minister of Education that Bill No. 36, entitled Territorial Court Judiciary Pension Plan Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      This act has been developed in response to direction from the Supreme Court with respect to judicial independence. In 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada made judgement on what is known as the P.E.I. Reference Case. As a result of this judgement, it is now a constitutional requirement that the independence of judges be assured by setting them apart from the public service in terms of their benefits and salaries, Mr. Speaker.

Should we not proceed with this act, we would be open to constitutional challenge. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge this House to support this act.

Mr. Fentie:      As we indicated in second reading in Committee debate, we deem this bill to be a truly housekeeping bill, and we will be supporting this bill in third reading.

Mr. Jenkins:      As we indicated previously, we are in support of this bill.

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

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      I very much appreciate the full support of this House on this act.

Speaker:      Are you prepared for the question?

Some Hon. Members:      Division.

Division

Speaker:      Division has been called.

Bells

Speaker:      Mr. Clerk, please poll the House.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Agree.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Agree.

Hon. Mr. Jim: Agree.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      Agree.

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Agree.

Ms. Tucker:      Agree.

Mr. McLarnon:      Agree.

Mr. Kent:      Agee.

Mr. McLachlan: Agree.

Mr. Fairclough:      Agree.

Mr. Fentie:      Agree.

Mr. Keenan:      Agree.

Mr. McRobb:      Agree.

Ms. Netro:      Agree.

Mr. Jenkins:      Agree.

Clerk:  Mr. Speaker, the results are 15 yea, nil nay.

Speaker:      The yeas have it. I declare the motion carried.

Motion for third reading of Bill No. 36 agreed to

Speaker:      I declare that Bill No. 36, Territorial Court Judiciary Pension Plan Act, has passed this House.

Bill No. 40: Third Reading

Clerk:  Third reading, Bill No. 40, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Buckway.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      I move that Bill No. 40, entitled An Act to Amend the Maintenance Enforcement Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker:      It has been moved by the hon. Minister of Education that Bill No. 40, entitled An Act to Amend the Maintenance Enforcement Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      The Maintenance Enforcement Act provides custodial parents with the means of collecting child support payments by encouraging voluntary compliance with respect to payment. The Maintenance Enforcement Act is in place to ensure that children receive adequate financial support. Currently, the Maintenance Enforcement Act requires the director of maintenance enforcement to give debtors 60 days of notice before suspending motor vehicle privileges.

The current 60-day notification period causes further hardship for parents and children who have already waited eight months or longer to receive child support payments. The proposed amendments to the Maintenance Enforcement Act will reduce this 60-day notification period to 21 days. This brings the Yukon's act into alignment with similar acts in most other jurisdictions within Canada.

I am pleased to support this amendment, and I encourage other members of this House to do the same.

Mr. Fentie:      As we indicated in second reading and in Committee, the official opposition does support this act. We would like to extend some accolades to the former Minister of Justice, who was a champion of this issue and certainly did a lot of work to lay the groundwork in this regard.

Mr. Jenkins:      As I indicated previously, I am in support of this housekeeping amendment and will be supporting it in its final reading.

I am sure the Liberals will once again be calling division and wasting the time of this House, as a consequence of all-party support at this juncture.

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

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      It is with pleasure that I ask all members to support this bill and, quite possibly, through division, yes.

Speaker:      Are you prepared for the question?

Some Hon. Members:      Division.

Division

Speaker:      Division has been called.

Bells

Speaker:      Mr. Clerk, please poll the House.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Agree.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Agree.

Hon. Mr. Jim: Agree.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      Agree.

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Agree.

Ms. Tucker:      Agree.

Mr. McLarnon:      Agree.

Mr. Kent:      Agreed.

Mr. McLachlan: Agree.

Mr. Fairclough:      Agree.

Mr. Fentie:      Agree.

Mr. Keenan:      Agree.

Mr. McRobb:      Agree.

Ms. Netro:      Agree.

Mr. Jenkins:      Agree.

Clerk:  Mr. Speaker, the results are 15 yea, nil nay.

Motion for third reading of Bill No. 40 agreed to

Speaker:      I declare that Bill No. 40 has passed this House.

Bill No. 42: Third Reading

Clerk:  Third reading, Bill No. 42, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Buckway.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Mr. Speaker, I think Mr. Clerk is getting me in trouble on these, with the voice change and all.

Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill No. 42, entitled An Act to Amend the Employment Standards Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker:      It has been moved by the hon. Minister of Education that Bill No. 42, entitled An Act to Amend the Employment Standards Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      The amendment to this act has been developed as a result of a change to the federal Employment Insurance Act, which increased parental-leave benefits from 10 paid weeks to 35 paid weeks, with a two-week waiting period.

The amendments to our Employment Standards Act will ensure that a worker's job is protected for up to 37 weeks of parental leave. Currently, the Yukon's Employment Standards Act covers parental leave for a period of up to 12 weeks. The proposed legislation would bring our territorial legislation into alignment with the recent changes to the federal Employment Insurance Act.

I am pleased to support this amendment to the act, on behalf of all Yukon families.

Mr. Fentie:      As the official opposition indicated in second reading in Committee, we are in full support of this truly housekeeping piece of legislation.

Mr. Jenkins:      As I indicated earlier, we are in support of this housekeeping amendment. It does a lot of good and provides benefits for Yukoners. It makes one want to rush out and expand the size of one's family, Mr. Speaker. That said -

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Mr. Jenkins:      No, I'm not making an announcement - none whatsoever, Mr. Speaker.

We are in support of this amendment.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. McRobb:     I would like to invite all members to join me in welcoming the Chief of the Champagne-Aishihik First Nations, Bob Charlie, to the Legislature.

Applause

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

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      I don't think I've ever seen the Member for Kluane move so fast. That was great to see. Now that we have an announcement of the expanding families up in Klondike and possibly in the Member for Klondike's riding, I'm sure the whole of Yukon is very happy and pleased to hear that.

This is one way to increase the population of Yukon, Mr. Speaker, and we look forward to not only new families moving up but to the families here doing the same.

I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker, that this act, An Act to Amend the Employment Standards Act, is receiving full support of the House.

Speaker:      Are you prepared for the question?

Some Hon. Member:      Division.

Division

Speaker:      Division has been called.

Bells

Speaker:      Mr. Clerk, please poll the House.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Agree.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Agree.

Hon. Mr. Jim: Agree.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      Agree.

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Agree.

Ms. Tucker:      Agree.

Mr. McLarnon:      Agree.

Mr. Kent:      Agree.

Mr. McLachlan: Agree.

Mr. Fairclough:      Agree.

Mr. Fentie:      Agree.

Mr. Keenan:      Agree.

Mr. McRobb:      Agree.

Ms. Netro:      Agree.

Mr. Jenkins:      Agree.

Clerk:  Mr. Speaker, the results are 15 yea, nil nay.

Motion for third reading of Bill No. 42 agreed to

Speaker:      The ayes have it. I declare the motion carried and that Bill No. 42 has passed this House.

Bill No. 41: Third Reading

Clerk:  Third reading, Bill No. 41, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Buckway.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      I move that Bill No. 41, An Act to Amend the Tobacco Tax Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker:      It has been moved by the hon. Premier that Bill No. 41, entitled An Act to Amend the Tobacco Tax Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      In my budget address, I stated that both as a preventive health measure and as a revenue initiative, our government planned to increase tobacco taxes. This bill will implement those tax increases. Spending on health care is rising rapidly throughout Canada and the Yukon is no exception to that trend, as members have heard the Minister of Health indicate in his report card to Yukoners and on the floor of the Legislature.

One point is that operational costs for the Department of Health and Social Services are almost $11 million higher in the estimates before the House as compared to those for the previous year. Some of that increase must inevitably be related to tobacco consumption. Several international organizations estimate that tobacco-related diseases consume up to 15 percent of annual spending on health in more developed countries.

The present raising of tobacco tax will go some way to offsetting that cost and to discouraging tobacco use.

Beyond the sphere of mere dollars and cents, any reduction in the use of tobacco will mean that fewer tragedies in the form of untimely illness and death will be played out in our society. Mr. Speaker, I'm certain that all of us have that hope in mind, since I expect each member of this House has unfortunately known of someone who is a victim of a tobacco-related illness.

The tax itself in the bill, Mr. Speaker, will rise one cent per cigarette, or 25 cents per package of 25. This equates to a 12-percent increase in the tax, and a similar percentage increase will apply to cigars and plain tobacco. I know there are many cigar smokers in our society who are concerned but recognize the need for this particular initiative, Mr. Speaker. The increase will take effect on June 1 of the current year and, Mr. Speaker, over half a million dollars per year will be raised by this initiative, dollars that will help fund health and other programs important to Yukoners.

I commend the bill to the House, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Fentie:      As we indicated in Committee and in second reading, the official opposition certainly supports this act.

I must follow up on the minister's comment about the half a million dollars being raised with this initiative. It seems to me that what we might want to do with that extra money is put it toward trying to keep people from smoking, and hopefully that's where it will eventually be implemented.

Mr. Jenkins:      I rise in support of this housekeeping amendment. We certainly concur with what the Premier and the House leader of the official opposition have said. We are in support and will be supporting this act.

Speaker:      If the Premier now speaks, she will close debate. Does anyone else wish to be heard?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate the support of all members of this House for this particular initiative of the government.

The Member for Watson Lake has made note that he would commend to the government side, as to the dollars anticipated to be raised by this initiative, that some of that revenue be dedicated to help those who are addicted to nicotine and who are smoking to cease smoking.

The most fervent champion of that particular type of programming has been my colleague, the Member for Riverdale South. I know that her championship of that particular initiative has not ceased, even though she has now moved to this side of the House, and we are all continually lobbying our very fit Minister of Health in this regard.

I take that suggestion seriously and thank the members for their support.

Speaker:      Are you prepared for the question?

Some Hon. Members:      Division.

Division

Speaker:      Division has been called.

Bells

Speaker:      Mr. Clerk, would you please poll the House.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Agree.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Agree.

Hon. Mr. Jim: Agree.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      Agree.

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Agree.

Ms. Tucker:      Agree.

Mr. McLarnon:      Agree.

Mr. Kent:      Agree.

Mr. McLachlan: Agree.

Mr. Fairclough:      Agree.

Mr. Fentie:      Agree.

Mr. Keenan:      Agree.

Mr. McRobb:      Agree.

Ms. Netro:      Agree.

Mr. Jenkins:      Agree.

Clerk:  Mr. Speaker, the results are 15 yea, nil nay.

Speaker:      The yeas 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. 37: Third Reading

Clerk:  Third reading, Bill No. 37, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Buckway.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill No. 37, entitled An Act to Amend the Territorial Court Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker:      It has been moved by the hon. Minister of Education that Bill No. 37, entitled An Act to Amend the Territorial Court Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      The amendments to this act are necessary due to the P.E.I. Reference Case. The judicial independence that the P.E.I. case talks about is paramount to our system of law in this country. We have introduced these housekeeping amendments to keep the independence of the judiciary and to prevent challenges to that independence.

I am therefore pleased to recommend to this House to pass these amendments contained in this act.

Mr. Fentie:      The official opposition, in trying to debate this act with the Minister of Justice, simply was not able to get the Minister of Justice to realize that this was not a housekeeping bill. It's simply not of a housekeeping nature. This issue dates back to 1997 - the independence of the judiciary, the minister pointed out.

In 1998, the former government brought forward amendments to this act and since that time there has been no challenge in this territory by the judges. Under the former amendments, a commission was to be set up. The commission was to review compensation for judges in five-year intervals. These amendments that the members have brought forward here today also have an impact financially on the taxpayer of this territory. With all the other priorities facing this Liberal government, we in the official opposition find it quite astounding that they would ram through legislation like this when there were so many other things they could be doing. I must emphasize that the changes and the amendments brought forward in 1998 were brought forward by a government who faced the very same issues. It's important to note for the members opposite that no challenge came forward, but under pressure the members opposite have succumbed. It's truly unfortunate, because they have succumbed to a very small segment of the Yukon population.

The official opposition cannot support this bill as we pointed out in debate; therefore, we will be voting against it.

Mr. Jenkins:      It must be pointed out that this bill is not of a housekeeping nature. It goes much further and is much more extensive than being a bill of a housekeeping nature.

Furthermore, we were advised during briefing that there were some 40 or 50 further amendments required in this act itself. We were further advised that the amendments done in 1998 were drafted in haste. I really have grave difficulties with an explanation of that nature.

There have been no challenges under this act since 1998. We recognize that the independence of the judiciary is an important area and is very much a concern. But, seeing that this act is probably going to be brought forward again in the fall session - I would hope not again in the next spring session - where it will require further amendment and further debate, we really haven't done the job properly.

We should make fair and just legislation. That is what we are elected to do. Given the order of magnitude of the further amendments that this act requires - or that we are informed that this act requires - I have serious reservations about whether we are doing justice by amending the sections that we are looking at. I don't believe that we are doing the job properly by doing that. I cannot support these amendments at this time. Hopefully, when this act is brought back with further amendments, we can look at them favourably.

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

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      It truly is very unfortunate that we cannot respectfully - and I again say "respectfully" - agree to disagree on some aspects, some issues, some controversy, some ideas in this House, Mr. Speaker.

The government has done the right thing here, and to suggest that we have succumbed to pressure is quite inappropriate and is very wrong, Mr. Speaker. I believe that the Minister of Justice emphatically defended the actions of this government and provided complete rationale for why it was imperative that we move forward with this housekeeping piece of legislation in order to mitigate potential problems in the near future. She attempted to express that time and time again, even with the adverse comments that came toward her, some quite personal, from the other side of the House.

We will on this side of the House continue to try to improve the demeanor in this House. We will make best efforts. We do hear from the public at large that we could be doing a better job in here - we as government - and we do take those comments and criticisms quite constructively. So, Mr. Speaker, we will continue to push forward on items such as this.

Again, I would like to repeat that it is unfortunate that we cannot respectfully agree to disagree on certain issues rather than it becoming personal. I hope we on this side of the House will set an example of conduct for the other side to pick up on.

Thank you very much.

Speaker:      Are you prepared for the question?

Some Hon. Members:      Division.

Division

Speaker:      Division has been called.

Bells

Speaker:      Mr. Clerk, please poll the House.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Agree.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Agree.

Hon. Mr. Jim: Agree.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      Agree.

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Agree.

Ms. Tucker:      Agree.

Mr. Kent:      Agree.

Mr. Fairclough:      Disagree.

Mr. Fentie:      Disagree.

Mr. Keenan:      Disagree.

Mr. McRobb:      Disagree.

Ms. Netro:      Disagree.

Clerk:  Mr. Speaker, the results are eight yea, five nay.

Speaker:      The yeas have it. I declare the motion carried.

Motion for third reading of Bill No. 37 agreed to

Speaker:      I declare that the Bill No. 37 has passed this House.

Bill No. 43: Third Reading

Clerk:  Third reading, Bill No. 43, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Duncan.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      I move that Bill No. 43, entitled An Act to Amend the Fuel Oil Tax Act, be now read a third time and do pass this House.

Speaker:      It has been moved by the hon. Premier that Bill No. 43, entitled An Act to Amend the Fuel Oil Tax Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      This is a very simple amendment to the Fuel Oil Tax Act, but it accomplishes two very important purposes. First, it adds the tourism industry to the list of commercial activities able to avail themselves of the off-road fuel tax exemption.

Members know that the following industries are currently able to access this exemption: fishing, logging, hunting, outfitting, trapping, mining, mining exploration and development, and farming. The Wilderness Tourism Association and others have made a number of representations to include tourism operations among those who can take advantage of the off-road exemption, and we're pleased to have acted upon this suggestion.

We on this side of the House recognize the critical importance of the tourism industry and our growing wilderness tourism industry to the economic well-being of our territory and believe it is incumbent upon us to provide it with as much help as possible. It's a very simple but very important amendment.

The lost tax revenue as a result of the change is in the neighbourhood of $19,000 per year. It's a small saving; it is of significant benefit to tourism operators.

The second purpose of the amendments to this act is to place the capacity criteria used for interprovincial or through carriers under regulation rather than providing for the same under the act. The function of this is to exclude by regulations those small buses and vans used by tourism operators in the territory. At present these small vehicles are subject to reporting requirements for fuel consumption mandated by the act. The change will eliminate for operators the burden of paperwork necessary to comply with the Fuel Oil Tax Act. Representation has also been received on this matter, and we are pleased to be able to address the concerns of industry.

This latter change is revenue neutral, being more in the nature of an administrative or red-tape reduction type of initiative. These changes in taxation policy are evidence of our commitment to Yukon businesses, our understanding and business-friendly attitude of this government, and our support for citizens to aid in the private sector in promoting economic development throughout the territory. We will continue to examine other options in this ongoing process, because a healthy private sector is good for everyone.

I also appreciate that, during debate in Committee on this particular piece of legislation, the Member for Klondike has asked for a specific analysis to be conducted, and that will be provided to the member as quickly as possible. It is being assembled at this point in time.

Mr. Fentie:      The official opposition did not pass this in second reading and in Committee, because we obviously had some questions in Committee. In this case, the side opposite was very forthright in their answers. Unfortunately, that was not the case in other areas. We are comfortable that the amendments here did go the distance that was necessary and are in full support of this amendment to the legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Jenkins:      I will be supporting this amendment to this act. It is certainly not of a housekeeping nature. It is much more extensive than a housekeeping amendment.

Further to that, I support fully the area to include the wilderness tourism operators for their off-road initiatives for tax-exempt status for fuel.

I have some reservations with respect to the interterritorial and extraterritorial operating authorities and moving that area out of the act itself and into the regulations with respect to the application of the fuel tax rules. Usually, when something is moved out of the body of the act and into regulations, changes can come very quickly, Mr. Speaker. They are just done by order-in-council. They don't come back to the floor of this Legislature for any further debate.

We appear to be somewhat in synch with other jurisdictions - somewhat in synch, Mr. Speaker, not totally. I am still waiting for the analysis from the minister that she agreed to provide with respect to this area. I will look forward to receiving it in due course, but I believe that, in consideration of the wilderness component of this act, it will receive my support.

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

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      During the Committee of the Whole work on this particular piece of legislation, I had an opportunity to fully acquaint members opposite with the housekeeping nature of this legislation and the advantages it presents to the wilderness tourism operators as well as to the smaller business operators. I appreciate that the Member for Klondike has asked for specific examples in order that we can ensure that these amendments have not unduly had any unintended consequences. I'm quite confident that they have not; however, I appreciate that the Member for Klondike would like that reassurance and specific examples, and we will provide that to him as soon as possible.

I appreciate the members' support and the thorough scrutiny they have given this particular piece of legislation.

Speaker:      Are you prepared for the questions?

Some Hon. Members:      Division.

Division

Speaker:      Division has been called.

Bells

Speaker:      Mr. Clerk, please poll the House.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Agree.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Agree.

Hon. Mr. Jim: Agree.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      Agree.

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Agree.

Ms. Tucker:      Agree.

Mr. McLarnon:      Agree.

Mr. Kent:      Agree.

Mr. McLachlan: Agree.

Mr. Fairclough:      Agree.

Mr. Fentie:      Agree.

Mr. Keenan:      Agree.

Mr. McRobb:      Agree.

Ms. Netro:      Agree.

Mr. Jenkins:      Agree.

Clerk:  Mr. Speaker, the results are 15 yea, nil nay.

Speaker:      The yeas have it. I declare the motion carried.

Motion for third reading of Bill No. 43 agreed to

Speaker:      I declare that Bill No. 43 has passed this House.

Bill No. 38: Third Reading

Clerk:  Third reading, Bill No. 38, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Buckway.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      I move that Bill No. 38, entitled An Act to Amend the Public Utilities Act, be now read a third time and do pass this House.

Speaker:      It has been moved by the hon. Premier that Bill No. 38, entitled An Act to Amend the Public Utilities Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Bill No. 38, An Act to Amend the Public Utilities Act, clarifies the definition of "gas" and confirms the Yukon Utilities Board's regulatory authority over piped propane distribution systems. As I stated many times during Committee of the Whole debate, a number of energy supply companies have made unsolicited inquiries to the Yukon government regarding the possibility of building and operating a piped propane distribution system in Whitehorse.

The inquiries were made to the Yukon government because it is responsible for granting a utility franchise for such a system. We believe that a piped propane distribution system offers many advantages to the territory, not the least of which is an expression of confidence, interest and excitement about the efforts of this government and the Yukon economy.

A distribution system would position Whitehorse for the future availability of natural gas. The energy supply companies that have expressed their interest to date anticipate converting the propane system to a natural gas distribution system down the road. The government is amending the Public Utilities Act to pave the way for regulating the utility. Many of the questions that the members opposite have posed during Committee of the Whole debate I have answered by legislative return as well as during debate. I have assured members that the very questions and concerns they have raised are questions and concerns that should and could be put before the Yukon Utilities Board.

It is unfortunate that there has been somewhat of an anti-business attitude expressed by members opposite during debate in Committee of the Whole. The most recent example is their opposition to this particular piece of legislation. It is also obvious that there should be further discussion in this House and greater understanding of the role of the Yukon Utilities Board and what it can do as a strong, quasi-judicial board on behalf of this government and their regulation.

Again, I commend this bill to the House. It's about continuing to support private sector development and investment in our energy infrastructure. I look forward to the members' vote.

Mr. Fentie:      Well, Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that this bill simply is not a housekeeping piece of legislation, given the ramifications on this territory that it will have in the short term and indeed in the long term. There is much, much more to this - what the Premier calls a simple amendment to define "propane" as gas. With the Premier's response to me, by way of legislative return, it is evident that the Premier lacks any vision around what a utility can be and should be on behalf of Yukon people.

What this legislation will do in this hasty method of ramming it through this House by the Liberal government is to possibly preclude the ability of the Yukon Territory to have its very own utility and ensure that the revenue generated from a utility of that nature will circulate in this territory and not flow outward.

Now, the Premier stood on her feet and made the claim that this side opposite is anti-business. Nothing could be further from the fact. We are not anti-business whatsoever. However, we do have a much better insight into what this legislation will do.

We have to recognize that legislation - the Municipal Act - has been passed and amended and passed to ensure that municipalities can have utilities.

First Nations, as they proceed through the settling of their land claims and implementing their final agreements and self-government agreements, should and can have the ability to create utilities locally owned in this territory. The Yukon has its own corporation, very capable of doing this. Investment can still come into this territory, but it will do much more in terms of benefit.

Furthermore, the Premier ignores existing Yukoners and distributors who have put their life savings into the delivery of propane in this territory. The Premier fails to recognize that they are in jeopardy of losing what they have left with a system like this coming into being.

Furthermore, propane simply is not an economical source of energy. This winter, it was the highest cost of any source of energy in the territory, so why the hurry? And another point, Mr. Speaker, that's extremely important, is natural gas and a Yukon-owned utility. We have the ability in this territory, should the Alaska Highway pipeline become a reality, to inject our own gas into that pipeline from our own utility, thereby being able to regulate and set the price for Yukoners in this territory and not be dictated to by outside utilities as we are through ATCO and Yukon Electrical as we are through Northwestel.

Surely the Premier can understand the merits of what we can do in this territory with our own utility and our own resource. We cannot support this legislation, Mr. Speaker, because it is a poorly and hastily thought-through piece of legislation, and the Premier should know better. The Premier is anti-business. The Premier, in trying to make the claim that she's inviting investment to this territory, is actually selling this territory out. The Premier should be ashamed of herself. We will be voting against this bill, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Jenkins:      On the surface, this appears to be an inconsequential amendment, and I'm sure, when it was presented to the Liberals, they also thought so - a very simple amendment - and we'd capture the provisions of propane air distribution systems.

The problem is that there doesn't appear to have been any analysis undertaken by the Liberals as to the eventual impacts and consequences that this change will have on Yukon. What I see happening is not in the best interests of Yukon and Yukoners.

Maybe initially there will be a flurry of activity surrounding a propane air distribution system in a major centre like Whitehorse, and there will be some jobs created. But, after that franchise is granted, it's a monopoly.

And therein lies the difficulty, because it would start with propane air. We all know that propane is one of the highest cost fuels for heating today. In fact, in the Yukon, electricity for heating is actually cheaper today. Oil and wood are less expensive. But after that franchise is granted, an investment is going to be made and a distribution system will be in place. What they've spent and what they've incurred in expenditures to put that in goes into their asset base. And as utilities work, they will be granted a rate of return on their asset base irrespective, and once you are linked to that fuel system, which the government could make mandatory, we're at the mercy of the holder of that franchise. And the Utilities Board is just a regulatory body that overlooks this area and ensures that what they charge for the product they are delivering - that they have a reasonable rate of return on their assets. And what is determined to go into their asset base is virtually all the expenditures they have incurred to date to implement this system.

Now, I'm sure after I've spoken on this important area, the Premier is going to get on her feet and say that I am anti-business. Nothing can be further from reality than that statement that I am sure the Premier is going to come forward and say.

What I'm concerned with is that Yukoners have a choice - a choice that is going to stand us in good stead and provide energy at the best possible cost.

Now, the only people today who have the forethought to look down the road as to the potential that they could realize from this investment in the Yukon are major utility companies. The utilities field offers tremendous investment possibilities. You only have to look, Mr. Speaker, at the stock market as to where the utility companies lie. They are consistent revenue producers. The high-tech and the oil and gas industries bounce, but the utilities - it doesn't matter if it's telephone, electricity, water and sewer, gas or propane air - are consistent revenue producers. And who is paying for that, Mr. Speaker? It is you and I and the rest of us in this room.

This bill, as it has been amended, does not provide any safeguards whatsoever. The Premier's response to us in general debate, when we questioned how this was going to be controlled or looked after, was: "Well, you just make a presentation to the Yukon Utilities Board, and they are going to be overseeing all of that area." Let's just look at what is happening today with the Yukon Utilities Board with respect to electricity.

Now, major capital expenditures should go totally before the Yukon Utilities Board for scrutiny. Today they are not with respect to electricity; they are not with respect to Yukon Energy's investments. How they do that, Mr. Speaker, they just put the money forward and say that, given that they're not going to accept the rate of return on part of that investment, that this investment is not going to impact on the rates. Mr. Speaker, that is not reality in the utility business. The utility business is every time you invest a dollar, that utility company is going to get a rate of return of $1.10 or $1.15 - wherever is set by the Yukon Utilities Board. Furthermore, when they borrow those monies to invest, the cost of that borrowed money also becomes part of the base and is recovered from whomever buys the product that is being delivered by the utility company, whether it be electricity, propane or natural gas.

What I foresee, Mr. Speaker, is a major utility company coming into Whitehorse. They're going to be granted a franchise to distribute propane air around Whitehorse and, down the road, there's going to be the opportunity to convert from propane to natural gas. The cost of that natural gas is going to be one thing. Whether the Yukon takes natural gas that we have in the Yukon and delivers it to the system for free won't matter one iota, Mr. Speaker, because the utility company is going to get its rate of return on its investment, and the charge for that gas will not bear any relationship whatsoever to the cost of the product.

Mr. Speaker, this government has not thoroughly thought out how this is going to impact on Yukoners. I have very grave concerns and reservations about the course that this government has taken. I certainly am not anti-business. I foresee great opportunities in this field. I see great opportunities for First Nations, Yukon communities and the Yukon Development Corporation that are not going to become a reality here in the Yukon like they are in other jurisdictions.

There are examples of our neighbours to the east of us in Inuvik, where the Inuvialuit have the gas distribution system. And if you contrast that to the propane air system in Hay River, it's very interesting what they're paying in both these areas and who is realizing the benefits from the investment.

On the surface of this amendment, it appears to be very minor, but the consequences of this amendment are extremely serious and may ultimately become so costly for Yukoners that they will act as a deterrent to economic development and stimulation.

I'm disappointed that the Liberal government can't see their way through this maze and can't bring forward legislation that is in the interests of all Yukon and all Yukoners. I will not be supporting this amendment to the Public Utilities Act.

Mr. McRobb:      I would like to take this opportunity to once again speak to this bill. First of all, I would like to support the comments made by the leader of the third party and our House leader today, and also reference comments made during Committee and second reading. Let's make one thing clear from the start: the New Democratic Party and the official opposition are pro-Yukon business, so the rhetoric from the other side is certainly not correct. We are pro-Yukon business and we see this as an opportunity to stand up on behalf of Yukon businesses and make that case.

Now, much has been said about this bill itself and the extensive nature of this bill. It's certainly not a housekeeping bill. We regret that we don't have more time to discuss the ramifications of this bill and the importance of this bill to Yukoners today and tomorrow because it is certainly worthy of that.

I predict that this will be a highly regrettable decision to proceed with this bill at the time. It opens the barn door and lets the horse out, and there won't be a chance in the future to put it back in, unless we are prepared to pay great cost or compensation.

Now, this bill essentially gives outside companies the opportunity to initiate a hearing before the regulator and get their foot in the door for the franchise authority to distribute natural gas systems in the territory.

Mr. Speaker, what about Yukon business? What about Yukon First Nations and Yukon municipalities and so on? Even private investors? This government is saying no. This government is saying no to those people. This government is saying, "No, we are going to give this opportunity to outside businesses." That's their definition of a level playing field, which totally contradicts what we hear at the business summit, what we hear from communities and what we hear from virtually every Yukoner. We recognize that Yukoners need to have a local advantage, and this is a perfect opportunity for this government to stand up on their behalf. But it's saying no to those people. I say shame on this government for taking that type of attitude.

Mr. Speaker, if an outside company gets franchise authority for gas distribution in the Yukon, it's going to ruin the economies of scale. With the Whitehorse market gone, nobody is going to want to put a gas distribution system in one of our communities, because the economics aren't there.

Once established, the outside company will have the competitive edge. I will just briefly touch on why. Their administration will already be in place. To add a community like Burwash Landing is just a simple add-on with virtually no more administrative costs. They will have the competitive advantage.

For this government to completely shun its responsibility to Yukoners and throw it into a highly formal process, under the direction of the Yukon Utilities Board, is disgraceful. Mr. Speaker, the Yukon Utilities Board process is highly formal. The main players in that forum are lawyers. What this government is saying to Yukon First Nations, municipalities or whoever it is, "Go get a lawyer and compete in this process with these outside interests, and good luck to you."

We believe in a level playing field. Well, Mr. Speaker, this is going to be highly regrettable, highly regrettable. That process is very intimidating. It's not a process that's proper for public consultation, and it certainly is not a proper process to strike strategic partnerships such as ones between government and First Nations and municipalities and perhaps private Yukon investors. That responsibility rests with the Yukon government.

Now, the other day in Committee, Mr. Speaker, I proposed a suggestion that maybe we can have Yukon Development Corporation invest along with these other groups to help absorb some of the risk and make the investment even safer. Giving that a little more thought, Mr. Speaker, I think it's a highly appropriate measure. It's a way that the government can help to organize the other investors and lend a helping hand to the process.

Now, the Member for Klondike makes an interesting point about the rate base. Once all these infrastructure costs are rolled into the rate base, Mr. Speaker, there's an ongoing fair rate of return that is returned to all investors on a yearly basis. That rate of return is usually in the neighbourhood of 10 percent. Well, Mr. Speaker, this is the very type of investment that has been sought after by Yukon investors for decades. And the opportunity has been denied them, Mr. Speaker, once again by this Liberal government, which would rather give these opportunities to people they rubbed elbows with in Houston or in Calgary. Mr. Speaker, we don't know who is going to come in here and buy up these opportunities and ruin it for the rest of us. Like the Member for Watson Lake said, what's the rush? Mr. Speaker, nobody's clamouring to have propane piped to their house because it would double the heating bill.

Mr. Speaker, there are far more urgent matters to deal with in this Legislature than opening the door to outside companies and ruining local opportunities.

This does not speak very highly of the priorities of this government, nor does it speak highly of the priorities this government has for local businesses and First Nations, municipalities and Yukon investors.

This government doesn't seem to understand the repercussions and the significance, at this time, of bringing in the legislation. Mr. Speaker, if an outside company initiates a hearing process to the Yukon Utilities Board, it might be a process that they're obliged to start. It will be too late to stop it once it has started. If ever the government fessed up to the fact that it's a mistake and wanted to give local investors the opportunity, we could be facing a very large compensation suit - a lawsuit - to try to retrace these steps that are made in the meantime.

This is a mistake, and the sooner the government recognizes that, the better off Yukoners will be.

Mr. Speaker, I made the point the other day that we need to examine the Yukon as a whole, as well, instead of dividing up the pie. Earlier I alluded to the economies of scale, the administrative costs and so on. It makes sense, before we start carving and slicing up the pie, to look at the Yukon as a whole, because that would be the most efficient and cost-effective way to deal with a gas distribution system in the territory.

Now going back to the need for safe investments, I mentioned that this is something that Yukoners have said they wanted for many years. I know Yukon First Nations looked at investing in companies like Northwestel, for instance, because they felt it was reasonably safe. However, in this day and age of telecommunications and advances and deregulation, I think that we are ready to admit that maybe that's not a safe industry.

The power systems in the territory are already owned and developed. What we are looking at here is a rare case of a new infrastructure, a territory-wide infrastructure. This has to be treated with due respect. Otherwise the opportunity will be lost for local ownership.

And I think I have said enough on this point. I would just urge the government to do what it can to rescind this bill and give Yukoners the opportunities of which we speak, and if not, I'm sure, this will be a very regrettable decision in the history of the Yukon.

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

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      It is regrettable that members opposite have gone way past what this very simple housekeeping amendment does. In their arguments against this, the members have presupposed that this government has already made a decision or decisions around awarding a franchise. The member opposite from Kluane made derogatory remarks about my efforts in promotion of the Alaska Highway pipeline.

The members were referring to us as making some kind of a decision. They're way ahead of themselves. The very fact is that in order to have a public discussion about a piped propane distribution franchise in a fair manner that provides an open, public process - to have the very kind of consultation they are always encouraging us to do - is for the Yukon Utilities Board to hear it.

The Member for Kluane has failed to recognize in his comments that we can frame those questions. We can take into account all those issues that are so near and dear to us as Yukoners - issues around how there should be local content in a franchise. There should be due regard for existing Yukon businesses and there should be full consideration of the fact that municipalities are very, very interested in this - in this case, the municipality of Whitehorse. So are First Nation governments.

The thing is that there has been no way and no ability to hear that interest and to talk about it without the people who have the authority to hear about it and know about utilities - the Yukon Utilities Board. So, we frame the question to them. We have a public review process. We have the opportunity for Yukoners to make the very point that some of the members opposite are concerned about. But, the only way to enable the Yukon Utilities Board to have that kind of a public process was to change the definition of "gas". That's what we've done with this legislation. That is, at its very heart, the most business-friendly move we could make.

And members' lack of support for it speaks volumes, because what they would have us do is say to municipal governments, First Nation governments, Yukoners, B.C. Gas, Canadian Utilities, and Sask Energy and others: "No" - and slam the door - "we're not ready. We don't want to hear from you; we're not interested. We're not interested in your business in the Yukon. We're not interested in your investment; we're not interested in your partnering with Yukoners. We're not interested in your support for and investment in our municipality." That's what they would have us do.

We don't have that attitude, Mr. Speaker. We are interested in business and investment in this territory by Yukoners with Yukoners. We're interested in under what parameters we should discuss them. We're interested in knowing that, in the future, we could be discussing this for every single community. We need to know how to do this. We need to have an experience. The franchise may be granted after applicants have undergone a public review process though the Yukon Utilities Board. The member is presupposing that we have already granted it. That is not the case. What we have done by amending this legislation is foster an environment that enables a solid public discussion to take place.

Changing a definition in an act is a housekeeping amendment. There are two ways to do it before the Legislature. We could do it in this manner and focus as we have on this specific discussion, or we could couch simple amendments like this in a miscellaneous statute amendments act. The members opposite simply do not understand that in order for the Utilities Board to examine all the questions fully, they have to have the authority to hear the question.

The only way they can have the authority to hear the question is if we define "propane" and "gas". That's what we've done. We have not presupposed.

The Yukon Utilities Board is, contrary to the Member for Kluane's view, a strong public forum. I have, as a private citizen, attended their hearings and, yes, there can be situations where there are, in a general rate application, lawyers present. I also know that the Utilities Board over the past number of years has made great efforts to ensure that the process works for people.

This is business-friendly, open, working with our partners in the Yukon, working with municipalities, our partners in governments, First Nation governments - it is a strong, business-friendly, housekeeping amendment that will enable the Yukon Utilities Board to hear a solid discussion of all the facets around this issue in a manner that is entirely open, entirely public. And their recommendations to government will, I'm certain, be public as well.

Then, and only then, decisions are made, Mr. Speaker. Again, we have to enable them to be able to hear the questions. It is highly regrettable that members opposite would have us slam the door on First Nation governments, municipal governments and the private sector interested in investing in this territory. We are looking forward to this public discussion.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I commend this bill to the House.

Speaker:      Are you prepared for the question?

Some Hon. Members:      Division.

Division

Speaker:      Division has been called.

Bells

Speaker:      Mr. Clerk, would you please poll the House.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Agree.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Agree.

Hon. Mr. Jim: Agree.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      Agree.

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Agree.

Ms. Tucker:      Agree.

Mr. McLarnon:      Agree.

Mr. Kent:      Agree.

Mr. McLachlan: Agree.

Mr. Fairclough:      Disagree.

Mr. Fentie:      Disagree.

Mr. Keenan:      Disagree.

Mr. McRobb:      Disagree.

Ms. Netro:      Disagree.

Mr. Jenkins:      Disagree.

Clerk:  Mr. Speaker, the results are nine yea, six nay.

Speaker:      The yeas have it. I declare the motion carried.

Motion for third reading of Bill No. 38 agreed to

Speaker:      I declare that Bill No. 38 has passed this House.

Bill No. 33: Third Reading

Clerk:  Third reading, Bill No. 33, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Duncan.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      I move that Bill No. 33, the Perpetuities and Accumulations Repeal Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker:      It has been moved by the hon. Premier that Bill No. 33, entitled Perpetuities and Accumulations Repeal Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      The repeal of this legislation removes barriers to establishing non-charitable purpose trusts, which are introduced in a bill that is before Committee. These rules are very, very old and are no longer required, because allowing trusts to continue to accumulate assets, rather than ending, will provide more economic value for the community. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to commend this bill to the House.

Mr. Fentie:      Though it can be said that this is an amendment of a housekeeping nature, it's tied to Bill No. 34, An Act to Amend the Trustee Act, and is somewhat premature because I think the minister has to do a little bit more work on the trust act. So one can only question why we are dealing with this amendment, which is the mechanism to allow the trust act to actually take place.

So again, Mr. Speaker, I think it's a sign that the Premier hasn't thought things through, as is the case with the Public Utilities Act amendments, which has sold out the Yukon. She should probably just stand down on this until we deal with Bill No. 34, the trust act, as we so aptly pointed out in Committee.

Mr. Jenkins:      Mr. Chair, this act repeals some sections that allow the An Act to Amend the Trustee Act, which is currently before this House in general debate, to proceed. It's basically the trigger mechanism. That's all it appears to be.

The An Act to Amend the Trustee Act - once again, we have a piece of legislation that may somewhat assist Yukon law firms to gain some advantage in the outside world.

But given the speed at which some of the other jurisdictions are changing their legislation, especially the changes in the tax legislation that go hand in hand with the reason that one sets up a trust act in a certain jurisdiction, that is an equally important consideration. I believe that the Premier, as Minister of Finance, could have gone much further and done a much better job than is currently being done with respect to the An Act to Amend the Trustee Act. We have yet to see that, but this bill that is currently before us is once again just a trigger mechanism for the main Trustee Act, which, I certainly say, I have to support.

I know that the minister could have done a much better job of drafting this legislation and could have gone much further, so that it would do a lot more good for Yukon firms than it currently will do.

I will be supporting this amendment, Mr. Speaker.

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

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      It's incumbent upon us to periodically go through legislation, review it, and examine whether it meets the current standards and issues of the day.

The Perpetuities Act was originally put in place when the territory became a territory. It dates back to centuries old rules that really don't apply.

And while I will agree with the member that repealing it is important to other bills that are before the debate, it is more than simply a trigger mechanism. It is incumbent upon us to repeal bills that are out of date and move forward in today's society in our efforts to provide good legislation for the people of the territory, and I commend the Perpetuities and Accumulations Repeal Act to this House.

Speaker:      Are you prepared for the question?

Some Hon. Members:      Division.

Division

Speaker:      Division has been called.

Bells

Speaker:      Mr. Clerk, please poll the House.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Agree.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Agree.

Hon. Mr. Jim: Agree.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      Agree.

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Agree.

Ms. Tucker:      Agree.

Mr. McLarnon:      Agree.

Mr. Kent:      Agree.

Mr. McLachlan: Agree.

Mr. Fairclough:      Agree.

Mr. Fentie:      Agree.

Mr. Keenan:      Agree.

Mr. McRobb:      Agree.

Ms. Netro:      Agree.

Mr. Jenkins:      Agree.

Clerk:  Mr. Speaker, the results are 15 yea, nil nay.

Speaker:      The yeas have it. I declare the motion carried.

Motion for third reading of Bill No. 33 agreed to

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

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

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

Motion agreed to

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Chair:  Good afternoon, everyone. I now call Committee of the Whole to order.

Do members wish to take a brief recess?

Some Hon. Members:      Agree.

Chair:  Today we'll take a 20-minute recess, since we've been so good.

Recess

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

Chair's statement

Chair:  Before we continue with proceedings on Bill No. 34, An Act to Amend the Trustee Act, the Chair would like to comment on statements made yesterday in this House. Mr. Keenan brought up the point of representation of ridings. While the Chair's decision is final, the Chair has had a chance to reflect on the previous ruling. After reflecting on the ruling yesterday, we find that Mr. Keenan was indeed in order and that the statements on representations were fully within order.

The Chair now makes a qualified remark and apologizes. It is imperative, however, that members remember that while the Chair is in the Chair, all rulings are final and not subject to debate.

That being said and the record corrected, we will continue with debate on Bill No. 34, An Act to Amend the Trustee Act.

Bill No. 34 - An Act to Amend the Trustee Act - continued

Chair:  We are in general debate.

Mr. Fentie:      When we closed debate two days ago, we were having a discussion about the trust act and the possibilities of using it to address one of the most serious issues in economic development for this territory - the ability for small business, specifically, to access capital. I think, Mr. Chair, with all due respect to the minister, that if we did take the time - and I focus on a comment that the minister made, "being innovative" - to be a little more innovative with this piece of legislation and give it serious consideration and utilize this with respect to addressing this access to capital issue, we can dramatically improve this legislation, enhance it to where the benefits accruing to Yukoners would be spread throughout this territory versus in a much smaller focused or specific area that would be with the existing legislation.

Mr. Chair, we have very little further debate on this bill. It's obvious by its extensiveness that it is certainly a substantive piece of legislation and not of a housekeeping nature. Our request to the minister is that she take this bill, let's review it, let's look at a number of options with respect to using this legislation and the establishment of trusts in this territory to address our economic crisis.

One of the possible methods for looking at this bill is if it is possible to establish through this legislation that trusts, if they invest money in this territory for economic development for Yukon and its people - a possibility is tax incentives, not in the trust category but in the corporate category, which we already do. And I would point out the mining incentive program and other vehicles that may certainly apply. I think we should do the necessary work on this. We have an opportunity, and we may very well hit something here that would dramatically improve our lot in economic development by affording a pool of capital that small business in this territory especially could access.

We've left off with cash flow here. It's evident that that's one of the biggest impediments in getting anything going in this territory. And if we can address that, I think we go a long way to improving our economic situation. I urge the minister to give this full scrutiny and to take a look at this. There is no need to rush this legislation through - the work done over the next few months and bring it back in the fall. They may very well vastly improve it, and then we can all be proud in this House of something that is truly going to assist all Yukon people.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      The member opposite is suggesting - it's not even an innovation. He's suggesting an avenue that is outside the scope of this particular legislation and this particular initiative.

In short, we cannot invite people to set up trusts and create an environment where people are interested in establishing trusts and using them as a tool and as a simple yet sound niche market for export of professional services if we were to turn around and hamstring them and tie them into Gordian knots, which is what we would do if we were to spell out where, and only where, the trust must be invested.

The member has suggested we do more work on this bill, and I'd like to suggest that the member opposite from Watson Lake might wish to consider the views expressed to his leader by one of the proponents of the bill in the local legal community, who said that the Yukon trust act represents a beginning.

There are opportunities to further innovate with trust and business corporation legislation to attract capital to the Yukon. First, we must move, and to move, we have before the House, An Act to Amend the Trustee Act, Bill No. 34, and the premise behind the bill is simple, and yet sound. The member has encouraged more work. The work has been done. The documents the members asked for, in terms of review, were provided to them this morning. Members of the legal community have written in support of them and have, I understand, personally contacted them, because they are firm believers that this bill is a good piece of legislation. We as legislators need to do our job and pass legislation that works for Yukoners, and that will provide building blocks.

There is nothing to prevent this Yukon trust act as a beginning. It is a beginning, and further consideration at a future time in the mandate of this government is possible, as is future legislation that supports the business community, which the legal community has also recommended.

We are working with our partners. I commend this bill to the House and encourage members to support it and encourage their close scrutiny in the clause-by-clause debate.

Mr. Fentie:      Well, I think that I should try to be a little clearer here. I am not proposing that we tie this up in knots at all. I am proposing that we offer a further incentive for trusts to come here and, at the same time, entice them to invest in this territory.

Mr. Chair, why is the minister so timid to step outside that very small centre of influence that she continues to listen to? Why won't the minister step out and look at the big picture? Of course the legal community is urging us to pass this bill. It has a direct benefit to the legal community. What we're saying on this side of the House is that we should create something that has a direct benefit for all Yukoners and something in which they can participate.

We're not saying to tie it up in knots at all, Mr. Chair; we're saying make it better. There is no lineup of trust companies now, at this very minute awaiting the passage of this bill, to rush into the Yukon Territory. We're saying there's possibly a way to really improve and enhance our ability to establish trusts and utilize them in terms of much broader economic development for the Yukon Territory. That is not tying up in knots; that is not dictating to trust companies what they must do. What we are proposing is that we offer them more incentive to invest in this territory, and hence even more reason for them to come here.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, we've been advised by the federal Department of Finance that the further tax incentive violates principles of the collection agreement, and that is why the tax incentive initiative is not included in this Yukon trust act. I would remind members that personal trusts are taxed at the personal income tax rate and, while it would have been desirable to have the tax incentive, we've explained why we cannot have the tax incentive, and the balance of the bill is simple yet sound. It creates a platform, and it is not simply the legal community; it is the legal, financial and professional community that then can create and sell the product, and that benefits Yukoners, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Fentie:      Just a point of clarity - we already understand why we can't put a tax incentive for a trust to establish itself here. What we're saying is to use other mechanisms along with this legislation, so that not the personal trusts, but the corporate side, will look at investing in this territory because they will be given a corporate tax break if they invest money in the Yukon. That's what we're talking about, Mr. Chair.

It is being innovative, and I think we would be well-served if we took the time to seriously look at that, think it through and find out for sure that we can establish this sort of trust in the Yukon and this sort of system that will give us that access to capital that we're starving for.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, the member opposite has restated that he understands and comprehends that what we're trying to do with this legislation is to attract trusts to the Yukon. What we cannot do in this particular piece of legislation - we cannot and will not attract trusts if we turn around and dictate how that trust will invest its money.

Chair:  Order please. One member on the floor at a time.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, what I'm trying to explain to the member opposite is that with this legislation, Bill No. 34, we are trying to attract trusts. If, in the same piece of legislation, we were to do as the member suggests and restrict or indicate where that trust must be invested or how it must be used, we would be defeating the purpose of the bill.

The member has recognized, as I have recognized, that we have other vehicles for encouraging investment in the Yukon. And I have indicated, both as an opposition member and as government, that we're very interested in those vehicles and we will continue to explore and use them. But those vehicles would be contrary to the intent of this piece of legislation. I respect the member opposite's suggestion. I fully understand it. It is not the vehicle to be put in this legislation. There are other vehicles for that purpose, which the member so ably defends.

Chair:  Is there any further general debate? Seeing no further general debate, we will proceed right now to clause-by-clause.

Some Hon. Member:      Point of order.

Point of order

Chair:  Mr. Fentie, on a point of order.

Mr. Fentie:      Given the extensive nature of this bill and the official opposition having been very much involved in the work that went into creating this legislation, we on this side - though I can't speak for the member of the third party - we in the official opposition would be willing to deem this read and carried.

Chair:  Ms. Duncan, on the point of order.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      I respect the member opposite's suggestion, and I appreciate it. I do have three amendments that I need to provide to -

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      The member has agreed that I table these now?

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Okay. Shall I send them over to the -

Chair:  One second, please.

The solution to this, because it actually has to be read into the record, is that we will read the clauses as they come up. Then, if it's still agreed that they're deemed read and passed, we will go right on to the next area that needs to be amended. Is that agreeable to all members of the House?

All Hon. Members:      Agreed.

Chair: That's what we'll do then.

On Clause 1

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, I move

THAT Bill No. 34, entitled An Act to Amend the Trustee Act, be amended in clause 2 on page 1 by: deleting the expression "Trusts Act" and substituting for it the expression, "Yukon Trusts Act".

Chair:  It has been moved by Ms. Duncan

THAT Bill No. 34, entitled An Act to Amend the Trustee Act, be amended in clause 2 on page 1 by: deleting the expression "Trusts Act" and substituting for it the expression, "Yukon Trusts Act".

Amendment agreed to

Unanimous consent re deeming clauses of Bill No. 34 read and agreed to

Chair:  Do we have unanimous consent of the House to proceed and have all of the clauses between clause 2 and clause 13 considered to be deemed read and carried?

All Hon. Members:      Agreed.

Chair:  Unanimous consent has been granted.

Clauses 2 to 13 deemed to have been read and agreed to

Chair:  Next amendment, Ms. Duncan.

Amendment proposed

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, I move

THAT Bill No. 34, entitled An Act to Amend the Trustee Act, be amended in clause 13 on page 14 by: deleting the expression "section 65" and substituting for it "section 58" where it appears in section 61.

Chair:  It has been moved by Ms. Duncan

THAT Bill No. 34, entitled An Act to Amend the Trustee Act, be amended in clause 13 on page 14 by: deleting the expression "section 65" and substituting for it the expression "section 58" where it appears in section 61.

Amendment agreed to

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      I further move

THAT Bill No. 34, entitled An Act to Amend the Trustee Act, be amended in clause 13 on page 15 by: deleting the expression "section 68" and substituting for it the expression "section 62" where it appears in section 63.

Chair:  It has been moved by Ms. Duncan

THAT Bill No. 34, entitled An Act to Amend the Trustee Act, be amended in clause 13 on page 15 by: deleting the expression "section 68" and substituting for it the expression "section 62" where it appears in section 63.

Amendment agreed to

Unanimous consent re deeming clauses of Bill No. 34 read and agreed to

Chair:  Will the House give unanimous consent to have the rest of the bill considered deemed read and carried?

All Hon. Members:      Agreed.

Chair:  Unanimous consent has been granted.

On Title

Chair:  Does the entire act, Bill No. 34, An Act to Amend the Trustee Act, carry?

Some Hon. Members:      Agreed.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, I move that you report Bill No. 34, entitled An Act to Amend the Yukon Trustee Act, out of Committee with amendment.

Chair:  It has been moved by Ms. Duncan that Bill No. 34, An Act to Amend the Trustee Act, be reported out of Committee with amendment.

Motion agreed to

Chair:  We'll now proceed to Bill No. 4.

Bill No. 4 - First Appropriation Act, 2001-02 - continued

Chair:  We are in Government Services and general debate.

Department of Government Services - continued

Chair:  I believe Mr. Jim has the floor.

Do you need a couple of minutes, Mr. Jim, for your officials to get here?

Hon. Mr. Jim: A few minutes.

Chair:  Members will take a five-minute recess to allow the officials to join us.

Recess

Chair:  I now call Committee of the Whole to order. We will continue with general debate.

Hon. Mr. Jim: Mr. Chair, in response to the last question that we left off on, it is with regard to e-mail and if we have a directive or a policy. What we do have are guidelines to which the users, the government employees who use the Web or have access to e-mail, have to sign an agreement. It's a guideline that's being used.

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Jim: It's a guideline.

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Jim: We can table this information.

Mr. Keenan:     I just thought I'd save a little time, if I could.

I appreciate the minister tabling the guidelines, and I do support the minister in having guidelines for this type of issue. They are certainly very important guidelines for employees in every department. As I say that, is this a generic set of guidelines for the Yukon territorial government, or just the department?

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Mr. Keenan:      It's generic government-wide. Thank you very much.

I'd just like to go back a bit, if I could. I read the Blues here, and the Premier came in and spoke as I was speaking about one of the Premier's constituents. It seemed to me that we're going to get some results on that issue. The Premier is going to move forward, based on the conversation we had in the House and based on the conversation the Premier had with her constituent. There's action happening right now. It's going to be taking place at the Association of Yukon Communities' meetings - starting this weekend?

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Mr. Keenan:      It starts on May 4 in Watson Lake. So it's starting one week from tomorrow.

That's within one week. I very much appreciate that the Premier would take that proactive approach in doing that. The Premier said, and I guess I could quote the Premier if I had to, but she did say that it would take a little time and that it's a consensus-building situation. There are many partners. I understand and appreciate that.

Now, we have that mind-set, so I will go right to what I said about local hire in Ross River. I want to bring this up one more time. I think that it will be bad for the community. It will not be good for the community if the minister waits for this community visit. I encourage the minister to go to the communities. I encourage the minister to go to every community. I encourage the minister to take every byway when he goes into the riding, because they are all affected there.

But, if we wait too long and different jobs come up and are managed in the same manner that they are presently handled, it will mean fewer jobs for Ross River. I suggest to the minister - and I would like the minister to say yes to doing this - that the minister take a proactive approach to it. I brought it to the floor of the Legislature. Will the minister pick up the phone, talk to the round-table co-chairs about the situation, confirm that there is a problem and suggest that now that we know there's a problem, we can start to work on that because it is going to be in the same situation. Would the minister do that?

Hon. Mr. Jim: I think that, now that we have this at hand here, we can definitely work with the community of Ross River, and I'll give them a call with the Minister of Community and Transportation Services and see if we can come to a resolution of this.

Mr. Keenan:      So did the minister confirm that the minister would pick up the phone and talk to the chairs? Can I get the minister to confirm that the minister will do that also with the Chief of the Dena Council?

Hon. Mr. Jim: That is confirmed.

Mr. Keenan:      I would like to thank the minister for taking a proactive approach. I appreciate that. I certainly understand that it will take a little while, but it shouldn't take too long. If the government wants to move forward on this issue, then we can move forward on this issue.

The minister spoke yesterday about saving, not a million dollars or not almost a million dollars, but over a million dollars. So I guess I would like the minister to prove that to me, to stand up in this House now and to show me where the minister has saved over a million dollars. And I would like to know specifically the costs of redesigning the school plan. I have a whole bunch of bullets here. I can walk through them one at a time if the minister likes; it would probably be a little easier. But what was the cost of redesigning the school?

Hon. Mr. Jim: The cost of retendering for the design and engineering was $63,213. The printing and advertising of tender packages was $15,853. The legal cost was $2,000. The start-up cost, re-surveys, snow removal, et cetera, was $3,400. The travel and meeting cost, Executive Council Office, Education, Government Services, the ministers and officials, $2,779. The total cost was $87,245. Savings resulting from redesign and retendering of the Mayo school project, after costs, are still in excess of $1 million.

Mr. Keenan:      Can the minister explain to me exactly what were the changes in the design of the school?

Hon. Mr. Jim: We went to the committee in Mayo and suggested that we make some alterations. The number of changes was up to about 18 different items. The lobby windows - we deleted aluminum storefront windows from the north wall gym and a skylight in the centre of the flat roof area; the steel doors, general reductions in features; insulation, we changed cellulose insulation to fibreglass; landscaping, we deleted soft landscaping, hydroseeding, shrubs, et cetera; gym walls changed from post and beam to stud wall; we reduced painting in unoccupied areas; the gym roof, we had to go with the conventional roof structure - open web, steel joints and Q-deck.

The gym - we deleted slab finish to the upper wall area. Classrooms - we deleted and replaced cover box controls, electric boilers, cooling systems, irrigation, generator, light fixtures, and we also included the winter construction factor.

Mr. Keenan:      On the first one - the lobby windows - the member has said that the member deleted the aluminium storefront windows to the north wall gym and the skylights to the centre flat. Can the minister tell me what they're replaced with?

Hon. Mr. Jim: Mr. Chair, it was deleted because the community agreed that it wouldn't be needed.

Mr. Keenan:      So we used to have a spot for windows, and now the minister is telling me that on the north wall gym and the skylights to the centre flat roof area, there are no windows at all or no lighting there at all. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Jim: That's correct.

Mr. Keenan:     And that was done through the community committee. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Jim: The community agreed to all of the mentions that I've mentioned.

Mr. Keenan:      And the steel doors - I have a copy here, so I can follow along with the minister quite well. There's a general reduction in the hardware features and the steel doors, and there's a savings of $10,000. I've tinkered with hardware and issues myself a little bit here, so I would really like to know about the general reduction of hardware features. Where are the cost-savings?

Hon. Mr. Jim: Mr. Chair, we don't have this material at hand right now, but we'd be more than pleased to get back to the member opposite.

Mr. Keenan:      I would very much appreciate that. This doesn't have to be a long and gruelling process, but it's certainly going to be an informative process. That's the way it has to be, unfortunately. I would very much appreciate that general reduction in hardware features, because $10,000 is one issue.

Again, a change of the cellulose insulation to fibreglass - is that going to push O&M costs up in the future? I see the experts to the left of the minister saying, no, of course, but I would certainly like to know what the factors are. What are the differences between the two, especially in the coldest spot in the Yukon Territory?

Hon. Mr. Jim: Mr. Chair, I am no expert on resistance factors with insulating materials, but I will get back to the member opposite on that.

Mr. Keenan:      In the landscaping, we have just deleted the soft landscaping, hydroseeding shrubs, et cetera. I guess I have to say at this point in time that a school in a community - and the Minister of Education and others agree here - is so much more than just a central place for children to go to get educated. In certain situations, funerals are held in those schools, potlatches are held in those schools, community meetings are held in those schools, et cetera. So it seems to me that they should be landscaped. I think what we're coming up with here is not just sheer savings for government, but we're starting to diminish the quality of what the community actually wanted.

I sit here and remember when the Liberals were on this side of the House, talking about Beringia and the landscaping. Certainly even the Chair remembers the whole Beringia fiasco and the area around that. I know that the Chair was writing many letters to the editor at that point in time, too, so I know that the Chair is absolutely familiar with what I'm talking about. I think that even contained in one of those letters was the question as to why we are not landscaping the Beringia. I think I said quite flippantly one time, "Well, it is Beringia. Without landscaping, it is Beringia." But I was held accountable.

I am wondering just what the reasoning was for saving the $100,000, at the community's expense, on landscaping.

Hon. Mr. Jim: Mr. Chair, I believe we save $3,500 by deleting all the irrigation for the playing field. At this time, the hard landscaping will be done, but the soft landscaping will be looked at in the future - the rocks and beautification aspects.

Mr. Keenan:      Exactly, my honourable leader. What is the cost of that?

Hon. Mr. Jim: In deleting the soft landscaping - the hydroseeding, shrubs, et cetera - it is $92,500.

Mr. Keenan:      Well, I guess, Mr. Chair, if we're going to do it in the future, we're going to spend $92,500 on hydroseeding, but we're not doing it this year because it's not politically astute to do it this year. We can all say that it's going to go up 10 percent. We're going to throw another $9,000 on it. That's going to be $100,000 we're going to have to spend on the Mayo school next year. We just whacked off $100,000 of the minister's savings - thank you very much.

The gym walls - we have gone from post and beam to a stud wall. I have never seen the design of the school. I appreciate that the community has bought into the design of the school. Is the whole structure post and beam, mortise and tenon-type construction?

Hon. Mr. Jim: It's still a stud wall.

Mr. Keenan:      So, what we have gone from here is that the whole school was of a Hudson Bay or post-and-beam style, and now it has gone straight to frame construction? Is that what it is now - frame construction?

Hon. Mr. Jim: I believe the gymnasium is done by frame construction, yes.

Mr. Keenan:      So what we're talking about is that we have half of the school in one style and the other half of the school in another style. So we have half of the school in post-and-beam construction and the other half in frame construction. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Jim: We can get back to you on this. We believe that it is all frame.

Mr. Keenan:      I will accept that. We can go on to talk about reduced painting in unoccupied areas. I know this sounds trivial, again, but would the minister please explain just where it is not getting painted at this point in time and what is going to have to be painted next year so that we can fill the school to its capacity as a community centre, et cetera, as it was meant to be? Would the minister explain that?

Hon. Mr. Jim: It's not necessarily that it won't be painted. It will be painted but it will not have as many coats as the occupied areas will have.

Mr. Keenan:      And of course that will meet code and the fire safety of it - the code that is there - because certainly a lot of the paint that is put on is for prevention of fire. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Jim: That's correct.

Mr. Keenan:      So the minister says that there will be a saving of $2,000. When does the minister plan on painting in that unoccupied area again in the future?

Hon. Mr. Jim: I don't believe that we will be planning to - I guess there are time frames for use of paint. Paint wears, some seven or eight years down the road. We can probably anticipate that within the five- to seven-year mark we will be looking at conditions of the walls and paint on the walls.

Mr. Keenan:      So, Mr. Chair, we're saving $2,000 to save the Minister of Education's face and reputation at this point in time. The community is being put into a suffering situation. They're going to have to suffer through this situation for - in the minister's own words - another 10 years, for a $2,000 saving. That cost is going to be $20,000 by the time we get around to it, so the cost is going to be driven up, quality down, community held hostage. That's fine on that, Mr. Chair.

Can the minister please explain the gym roof? We're going to go with the conventional roof structure, open-web steel joints and a Q-deck. Can the minister tell me what was there before and why we're going in this manner now?

Hon. Mr. Jim: I believe it was open beam. I can get back to the Member for Ross River to confirm that with him.

Mr. Keenan:      I represent the riding of Ross River-Southern Lakes, as does the member represent the riding of McIntyre-Takhini.

I would appreciate that. I'm a little bewildered, I guess, as to why the minister doesn't have this information. I did tell the minister yesterday, after he rambled on about this million-dollar savings in a motherhood sense, that I would be asking for these today. I'm absolutely surprised that it has to be coming out, and it will be, in a legislative return.

I'm absolutely surprised that the minister is as misinformed as the minister is on the situation, especially being already told.

I notice that the gentleman to the left is shaking his head. That certainly isn't appreciated in here either. I'm talking to the minister.

I would like to know, on the gym, we're deleting the slab finish to the upper wall area. At what point in time do we expect that to be finished?

Hon. Mr. Jim: First, I'd like to say that I apologize for giving the Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes the wrong title. The other is I didn't mention anything saying that I will provide the technical details of this situation, but I said we would look into this Mayo school issue. However, in deleting the slab finish to the upper wall area of the gym, it will be taking its course with the construction of it. Once it's up and closed in, we'll do the finer details on the interior.

Chair's statement

Chair:  Order please. It's important to remember in the Committee of the Whole that the officials are here to make sure that information is given out. No comment about the officials or about actions or body language of the officials is welcome. We would ask members to refrain from referring to the officials here, in the sense that they are invisible and we would ask members to not comment on the actions of them. The officials are here as civil servants to give advice to the ministers. All comments should be focused to the minister and on the actions of the minister only.

Thank you.

Mr. Keenan:      Absolutely. I'd very much appreciate it if the minister would come prepared so that we could get into this and end this dialogue. I would very much appreciate that, Mr. Chair, because I am attempting to get out of the minister what the minister should know in his base knowledge. We're saving $60,000 in classrooms by replacing acoustic slats with Tectum board, and we're going to do that, except in the library and the art room. Is this going to diminish the quality in any manner?

Hon. Mr. Jim: Mr. Chair, no. I have to say that we have saved the taxpayers over a million dollars. The people in Mayo will have a school they will be proud of. Does the member opposite have a problem with saving a million dollars?

Mr. Keenan:      That's one heck of a good attempt. No, I don't have a problem with saving a million dollars. I have a problem with this government ramming something down a community - just by the virtue of being government - and putting up the rest of the money after the community put $500,000 on the table. I definitely have a problem with that.

You know what else I have a problem with, Mr. Chair? I have a problem with another $100,000 being spent next year on this, which came in an admission by the minister in Committee of the Whole debate today that it's going to be spent next year or the year after or whenever it's politically astute. That's what I have a problem with.

So I will continue this line of questioning. If the minister wants to stand on his feet and make motherhood statements, the minister may do that, but I am going to continue this line of questioning until I have the proper figures that have been saved and pro-rated over a few years. I might even ask a question in Question Period tomorrow on this very issue, so the minister has all the room in the world to be prepared. That's what I have a problem with.

Obviously there is another $60,000, by the minister's own admission at this point in time, that is not a saving at all. Mr. Chair, we're already up to about $200,000. Holy moly, there aren't a heck of a lot of savings here. It's just a government flexing its muscles to a community that it doesn't represent and then doing what it wants to do.

We are saving $20,000 by reducing the number of DDC monitoring points and modifications and controls. Can the minister tell me a little bit about that? We are deleting the Wolf House and replacing a box cupboard. What does the minister know about those issues?

Hon. Mr. Jim: Mr. Chair, with respect to the landscaping, we didn't say that we would be doing it next year or the previous year. We said that it will be in the future. That was the soft landscaping, and that's beautification.

Mr. Chair, we have worked very hard to make sure that this Mayo school comes through for the students for January 2002. I don't see where there is a real issue here, because the people in Mayo have actually sat down with this government and discussed a number of changes. They actually sat down and okayed these changes.

Mr. Fairclough:      Mr. Chair, I have a couple of questions to add. First of all, the minister said that they have saved a million dollars on this school. That's the government's position, but what they have failed to do is to say what it really costs the community.

Now, it's not simply cutting back on the costs, which could be done with a contractor. We could, say, make changes within the contract. But it meant that other projects in the community didn't get done because this was delayed for one year. So what does it mean to Mayo? Well, they don't have a school for one more year. That's what this government has done.

What they did was to pull the contract out and say that there wasn't enough money for it and that the costs should be reduced. But it's false, really, in some sense in that these costs are going back into the school at a future date.

Some Hon. Member:      Point of order.

Point of order

Chair:  Mr. Eftoda, on a point of order.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      The member opposite is imputing false motives to another member in this House by calling the information provided false.

Chair:  Mr. Fairclough, on the point of order.

Withdrawal of remark

Mr. Fairclough:      I will withdraw it if it bothers the members opposite, and I'd like to continue.

Chair:  Withdrawal accepted.

Mr. Fairclough:      Mr. Chair, members opposite are very touchy on this issue because they know we on this side of the House are right. They delayed this project and they made changes to the contract and, lo and behold, the contractor who got the contract the second time is the same contractor. What did this government do but take and make changes - 40 pages' worth of changes to the contract, in addition to the things that are laid out on this piece of paper. That could have happened anyway, and that does happen normally with government contracts, and the members opposite know that. What they did was get caught with making the wrong decision and trying to find ways of correcting themselves. That's the way it is.

There are a number of things that this minister has laid out and later, down the road, will make those changes and complete the school as it was designed. What the members opposite did was take a design that the community did and say, "We don't have enough money for it, so change it a little bit." One of the major changes is on the gym. In designing the gym itself, the community, the Village of Mayo, invested half a million dollars to add on to it, because they wanted to build it as more of a community centre.

Members opposite went ahead and made changes to that, made the gym a gym, but not as nice looking as it used to be, or functional as it used to. I think that's a bit of a slap in the face to the community. They're investing money here. I didn't hear anywhere where this government has said that they saved a million dollars, the village has invested $500,000, so here's the savings to the village, and all of that.

It did not happen, Mr. Chair, and that's just not right. We just went through a couple of things on the list here, and already we're up at $200,000. Maybe the Minister of Government Services can explain this. There's a line item here of a savings of $225,000 for winter construction. What is that based on - on the average winter we have up here in the Yukon or the fact that Mayo has the coldest winters of all the communities in the Yukon - or was it based on the mild winter we had in Mayo and here in Whitehorse? Is it based on that? I don't believe the member could fully answer that question and say, "No, it's really $100,000." Maybe the minister could answer that question.

Hon. Mr. Jim: Mr. Speaker, I must commend the members opposite in that they're painting a different picture. However, we must realize and the public must realize also that this government actually stepped into the project. The Mayo school project was a commitment by the previous government and was being rammed right straight through, where technical knowledge and technical briefings for the building were being pushed and they were saying, "Well, you guys, go ahead with it; go ahead with it. It's elections; it's elections, and we've got to go and push right straight through this project."

In the meantime, thank God for this government here now, and we have to slow down the process a bit and then say, "Look, we have some issues here. We have some issues here with this project. We can't see that this project goes through because it's overbudgeted."

Mr. Chair, the Member for Mayo-Tatchun seems to think that the make-work projects that we've created - we realized for sure that the Mayo school and the retendering of the Mayo school was going to cause problems with employment. It was going to cause problems with those people who had commitments of winter employment, but we also created a make-work project that the member is referring to. He has provided winter work for rural Yukoners.

Is the member opposite against winter work projects for rural Yukoners? The project also provided training and apprenticeship hours for rural Yukoners. Is the member opposite against training for rural Yukoners? One more thing: the so-called make-work project provided more housing for the Nacho Nyak Dun First Nation and I can't believe, given the member opposite's recent questions in this House, that he is against helping First Nations with their housing issues.

Mr. Fairclough:      Well, let's look at this a little more carefully so that members opposite understand that. What we would like on this side of the House is what the cost to government was for that, because we will add it on to that list. That's the cost of cancelling that school. Did the members opposite not know that? They had to do something. The reason why they did something was because the community came forward.

Now, let's talk about the plans for the school with our government. The fact is that it was in the budget. The Liberals promised to pass the budget and they failed. They broke a promise. It was another broken promise. That's what it was. The community let the government know, loud and clear.

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Chair:  Mr. Fairclough has the floor. No other interjections will be accepted.

Mr. Fairclough:      Mr. Chair, the members opposite should just go to Mayo sometime and talk to people. They were forced to do it. They didn't go there on the basis of going to consult with the community. Government went because they were in trouble. It was a reactive position that was taken.

Here we have a minister that just stood up and said, "We don't ram things through because they were overbudget. We just don't do that as a Liberal government." But, at the same time, Hamilton Boulevard, in his riding, went $500,000 over; no problem. All that for an intersection. Isn't that a shame?

People don't forget this. The school that's going to be built in Mayo - they're not going to forget what took place there and the fact that this government delayed this project for one year. I will tell the member opposite that it wasn't just the fact that it was delayed for a year, but other projects were tied to this one. The community just doesn't plan for a project and that's it.

The recreation centre for the Village of Mayo and the administration for the Nacho Nyak Dun was to be built two years later, and people would have been put to work. So maybe the member opposite, in his big saving spree - the members opposite say they have saved a million dollars - would really bring out some numbers and we can really look at what it did cost government. Right off the bat, we have $200,000.

I'd like to know what it costs government to have those projects - those carpentry training projects - and the houses leaving the Yukon Housing Corporation to the First Nation. What was the cost of that? What was the value of those houses? Let's put it on paper and really look at what the cost-savings were. Maybe the member could answer that question. He's also the minister responsible for housing.

Hon. Mr. Jim: Mr. Chair, I believe we're talking about Government Services right now.

Anyway, I'd like to say there was a delay - a string of broken promises for 15 years prior to the building of this school.

So I'm just saying that -

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Jim: Mr. Chair, the winter works project would have been done at some point in time.

Chair:  The member has the floor. No other interjections will be welcomed.

Hon. Mr. Jim: The simple fact of the matter is, Mr. Chair, that the tender came in overbudget, and this government brought it back within budget, and that's the bottom line.

Mr. Fairclough:      That's not the practice of this Liberal government, and the member knows that. Hamilton Boulevard came in overbudget - they had no problem spending money there at all. So, that's not the bottom line here.

The fact is, the members say they are saving money. Looking even at the details of what's being saved here - these $817,000 items - some of those could have been cost-savings anyway, and the member knows that. Look at the electric boiler. They rearranged the manner in which it is financed so that the costs would not be contained in the tender price. That could have been done. Government could have gone out and helped out on this for a cost-saving. Why not do that?

So, that's not a real number the member is putting forward. So, when are we going to get the real numbers for the cost- savings on the school? I think, if we dig hard enough here, the numbers that we see will be over and above the $1 million the member opposite has put forward.

Now, if the member can tell us, even right back to the insulation, is that for sound purposes, or is that going to reduce the R-value of this school?

Hon. Mr. Jim: In respect to that, once again, I have to say that I don't know. I'm not an expert on resistance factors, and I do not have this information in front of me, but I will get back to the member opposite.

Mr. Fairclough:      Well, I appreciate that. One of the things he can get back to me on is whether or not this could have happened whether the tender was given the first time or not. The other one is the cooling system. If it were found not feasible to do that with the way it was designed, then it could have been chopped out of the contract. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Jim: I have to say that, yes, but it wasn't. Another thing that I have to say is that this general debate here is supposed to be talking a little bit about policy discussions and we're getting into technical discussion now. I have to say that it's not policy.

Mr. Fairclough:      Well, maybe the minister can tell me what the policy is for changing contracts. Would it normally be pulled back to government and reconsidered by Management Board and approved then? I'm referring to two contracts: the Mayo school and Hamilton Boulevard.

Hon. Mr. Jim: Mr. Chair, the Management Board authorized the retendering of the Mayo school replacement project as early as possible, with construction to start in the spring of 2001, and asked the departments to ensure that the consultation on redesign and modification includes the community of Mayo as well as the contracting community and the architect.

Mr. Fairclough:      The minister didn't answer the question that I asked about the policy and process in this whole thing - about the two contracts. Why is one approved and the other one delayed and looked at and reduced?

Hon. Mr. Jim: I can only relate to the Mayo school as I am not the Minister of Community and Transportation Services, and the Hamilton Boulevard section, I believe, is the Minister of Community and Transportation Services.

Mr. Fairclough:      Mr. Speaker, I'm asking a policy question. The minister should be able to answer that. It has to do with the contracts. It has to be approved by government somehow, so what is the policy of pulling one back and approving the other? I know there was a cry of poverty, but you can't do that with communities like that.

Hon. Mr. Jim: Mr. Chair, in the case of Mayo, we felt that by retendering and working with the community we could bring it within the budget.

Mr. Fairclough:      Well, why is the minister refusing to answer the question about government policies? Is it the Liberal government's policy that one contract gets chopped up because it went over the tender - and another one went over and got approved. So what is the policy? Give us the government policy.

Hon. Mr. Jim: Mr. Chair, I'd like to say that it was not necessarily policy; it was more over the timing of the different projects.

Mr. Fairclough:      Mr. Speaker, I don't believe that. That project on Hamilton Boulevard was on its way. The Mayo school was on its way. What the government did was tease the community a little bit. Here you are. You put in the foundation, the footings, the floor and everything, right outside the existing school for all the kids and the community to look at, hoping that work would continue over the winter. So that's not an excuse that this minister can use for that. So tell us what the policy is.

Hon. Mr. Jim: Mr. Chair, I can only respond by saying that, with the Hamilton Boulevard, the infrastructure was there and operating, so we had to continue on with the development as opposed to this being a school that was going to be developed. We had the opportunity to look back and say, "Look, we can come in within budget on the Mayo school." However, with Hamilton Boulevard, in order to maintain the traffic, we had to carry on with the project.

Mr. Fairclough:      Well, that's a pretty poor excuse, because the Mayo school was well on its way. It had the blueprints, and the footings were down. The outline of the school was down. What came forward from this government was that they were going to change the design of the school, which could have cost a lot more than it did. The community was the one that wanted to stick with the original design, over and above what government wanted.

It's thanks to the community speaking out and calling meetings with this government and officials that they came up with a design. Sure they had to agree to cutbacks. What else could they say? Does the government keep saying, "No, no, no," for another year? No, we're not going to throw another $500,000 into this? The community doesn't want that. They want a school. But the fact of the matter is that when it came to the communities, this government cried poverty.

It's an absolute shame, because I know that that government knew that there was money coming in to this government in the following year. Still, they cried poverty. They had $64 million in the bank, but they couldn't do this for a community. Why is that? That's the question the communities are asking - why?

A simple project like Hamilton Boulevard could get, what is it, a 30-percent increase to their budget? And get it done in just a snap of the fingers. That's absolutely incredible. Then along comes a list like this, with 18 different items on it that changes the look of the school, and it's a shame to do that.

I know the Member for McIntyre-Takhini knows that. When there's a design of a school - the windows and everything, the corners and the design of the roof - all are taken into account in how the community designs things. All they needed to do was go up to the school in Old Crow and have a look at that and how that community designed that school.

Now, there have been 40 pages' worth of changes in the new contract that was given out by this government. Will the minister let us know what those changes are?

Hon. Mr. Jim: The first question is that, with the Mayo school, we felt that it could be brought in within a budget of a million dollars or less, and we were right.

We were very right.

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Chair:  Order please. Interjections are against Standing Orders. Mr. Jim, please continue.

Hon. Mr. Jim: Much more is that the school is now being built. It's being built now, as we speak.

We've looked at a number of different projects that went back through the years and, on average, they came out to about 20 or 30 different addenda coming from architects and coming from the different design changes. In this case, with the Mayo school, usually when that happens, it means that things are being pushed. We came up to approximately 126 addenda for this school to be built on schedule, which in turn tells me that, in large part, lots of things have been forgotten, pushed through and rushed.

So, this government said, "Well, let's slow the process down. Let's look at what it is that we can and can't do." From that point, we said that we should be able to come within budget. We went to the Mayo community, and we said, "We are going to try and make some changes to this, but we're not going to make drastic changes - no alterations to the structure of the school. The changes would be minor." We have managed to save over a million dollars.

Mr. Fairclough:      I think the minister has his facts wrong. Government didn't pull back and say that they would take their time on this. They went and looked at the contract and retendered it - late. That took time to do. The fact is that the government is now rushing to build the school during the summer to try to avoid some of the winter construction. Can the minister tell us the cost or the saving to these 126 changes that have now come in with this contract?

The member says that they took the time to look at it carefully, but I believe this is common practice with most of the big contracts like this - there are changes all the way through.

Hon. Mr. Jim: There are not 126 changes. That's on a different project. That's a bit extreme - addenda.

Anyway, we're not rushing, we weren't rushing, and we're not rushing. We wanted to do it right, and the project is now on budget, and we're continuing with it.

Mr. Fairclough:      The minister didn't answer the question about the 126 addenda to the contracts or changes - whatever you want to call them. What is the cost-savings for this? The member always speaks about saving a million dollars and how good it is for government. The fact of the matter is that if you bump this project back a year, those that have been on the list for replacement of schools have also been bumped back, so the effects are not just in Mayo. It's riddled right down to other communities that were next on the list, according to the chairs of the school councils and the Education department, which are Pelly Crossing and Carmacks. So what is the cost-savings or additional costs to these changes that have been put forward, the 40 pages of changes to the contract?

Hon. Mr. Jim: Mr. Chair, we do not have this information at hand right at the moment, but I can certainly get back to the Member for Mayo-Tatchun.

Mr. Fairclough:      The minister must know whether it's a cost-saving or additional cost; can the minister tell me that?

Hon. Mr. Jim: Mr. Chair, in large part, when you do addenda, they have to do with safety design, many different factors come into play, whether it's safety codes, building codes or electrical codes. Things have to go in accordance to Yukon Building Code, I guess. With addenda, at times there can be cost-savings and at times there cannot be cost-savings. It can add additional dollars. These addenda were put into play when we first got into government. When we first got into government, we were faced with the construction of the Mayo school, but these addenda had already in play on the Mayo school project and the design of the Mayo school project.

Mr. Fairclough:      The minister still didn't answer the questions. Was it a cost-saving or additional costs?

Hon. Mr. Jim: The additional costs were about $87,000, as I mentioned earlier.

Mr. Fairclough:      I didn't ask for additional costs of retendering and so on. The contract went out. That $87,000 was the cost; the tender went out. Now, the changes made to the contract - were they a cost-saving or did it jack up the price of the contract?

Hon. Mr. Jim: The low bid came in at $1 million less than the previous low bid.

Mr. Fairclough:      I don't know where the minister is hearing these questions, but I didn't ask that question. I asked - the bid went out, there were changes to the bid, and according to the member opposite, 106 addenda - 40 pages' worth - was it a cost-saving or did it jack up the price of the contract?

Hon. Mr. Jim: Once again, I have to explain that in addenda there may be a cost-saving or there may not be a cost-saving, depending on the number of changes that have to be adhered to - building codes, electrical codes, technical classifications.

Mr. Fairclough:      The minister still didn't answer the questions. Is this additional cost to the second contract that went out - is it an additional cost to the contract, the second contract that went out? Is it an additional cost to that?

Hon. Mr. Jim: No, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Fairclough:      Well, if it's not an additional cost, it's a cost-saving. Is this a cost-saving to government?

Hon. Mr. Jim: These are mostly technical classifications, Mr. Chair, and moreover, actually, technical clarifications that need to be answered. If the Member for Mayo-Tatchun so wishes, I can gather that information.

Mr. Fairclough:      The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chair, that the minister doesn't know what those changes are, so he can't say whether or not they are savings, or it will jack the price of the contract up. You can't answer that until you know what they are.

The minister knew that we were going to come and ask questions with regard to the Mayo school and, right now, it's a big saving out there. The minister said he's saving a million dollars. And from our very first question on this - or second question - we're already identifying up to $200,000, and even more, I think, once the minister brings back the answers to my questions about some of the changes taking place.

So when can we get the changes to the addenda to the contract, and will we be getting a figure with that, whether it's a cost-savings or additional costs to the contract?

Hon. Mr. Jim: We know we saved, because the bid last fall, in comparison to those coming in this spring - they came in at a million dollars less.

Mr. Fairclough:      He didn't answer the question again. I hope that the minister can concentrate on this.

The fact of the matter is the savings because of the change in the contract, but it doesn't mean it's saving the government any money because a lot of the work is still going to get done, but maybe a year or two down the road. I'm sure the member opposite is not going to let the kids in Mayo run around in a big mud pool while, in all the Whitehorse ridings, the yards are at least done up nicely. There's either grass or toys out there and a decent, flat playing ground to play on. Right now, it's rough. So the shrubs, grass, seeding and so on are done at another time, and the minister - is that correct? And will we be seeing additional costs to that?

Hon. Mr. Jim: Mr. Chair, we came in, and we saved because I have to say, again, that compared to last fall - this spring, we came in with the retendering bid of $1 million less.

Mr. Fairclough:      It's getting hard to ask questions because the minister isn't listening to the questions. He refuses to listen to the questions, or simply doesn't know the answers to the questions. The member could get back to me on them. This is really important.

Right now, this Liberal government is saying that they saved $1 million. The piece of paper that was given to us was not $1 million; it's $817,000. So, it's not $1 million, and already we're identifying items in here that could have been cut out of the project anyway, and it would have been a saving of the original contract.

Already, the member opposite is admitting to the fact that some of the work that was cut out of this contract has to be done anyway. So, I ask the member this - he can't answer the other questions: of the 18 items listed here, some of the work is going to be done at a later date. That's what the minister said, whether it's a year, two years or three years down the road. Will the minister go back to his department and table with us what work is going to be done down the road and the cost of that?

For example, I'm sure that if you're doing some landscaping, the costs will increase down the road. It's simple economics. So I would like to have those figures, if the member opposite can give me those.

Hon. Mr. Jim: Mr. Chair, those numbers were departmental estimates. It is impossible to tell what the exact savings were in each item. Obviously the department did a good job, as the actual savings were close and were higher. I'd like to say that the $800,000 was an estimate. Now we have the bid at $1 million less. So if he can't understand that there is a savings in that $1 million less, we can certainly get back to the Member for Mayo-Tatchun about the work that we've done so far on the savings.

Mr. Fairclough:      Well, the information I'm looking for is the list that has been given and additional changes to the contract that's there. I want that additional cost and I want to know what it will cost government for putting in some of the things that they've deleted out of the contract - landscaping for one. I know that has to be done down the road. I'm sure the member opposite is not going to allow a big gravel pit for the students. So, that has to be changed. That's a $92,000 item.

So, can I get those? That's what I asked the member opposite for - what it will cost the department anyway to do this work down the road.

Hon. Mr. Jim: Mr. Chair, we have to realize also that there are general maintenance schedules that go around to the different buildings on an annual basis. There is also work that needs to be done in future years. With regard to that work that needs to be done in future years, we will certainly get back to the Member for Mayo-Tatchun.

Mr. Fairclough:      Maybe the member can tell me what work in the future years has to be done? What work is that?

Hon. Mr. Jim: I don't want to be jumping in and saying things that will not happen. That's not what I'm here for. There are things I would like to see - that there is clarity in what it is that we will be doing in the future on the Mayo school. I will also get back to him on that.

Mr. Fairclough:      Mr. Chair, I believe what the minister is talking about is regular O&M work. If the carpets need to be replaced, they will replace the carpets. If it needs repainting, they'll paint it. That goes on with every school in the Yukon Territory. I believe that that is what the member opposite is saying. But if he isn't, I would like to know what additional projects or whatnot are attached to this school that were left out of this project.

But the minister did not answer my question about getting back to me in detail about the list of items that he read out - the 18-item list that is there - about what is going to be built and included in the school that was left off of here. What are those additional costs?

Hon. Mr. Jim: I believe that this question should be directed to the Department of Education, as Government Services provides services for the different departments - building and maintenance, upgrade, O&M. We provide services and technical services for the different departments. If there is any additional future work that needs to be included within this building, then I believe that question should be directed toward the Minister of Education.

Mr. Fairclough:      I'm talking about the Mayo school and the project and the contract that was tendered out. Could the Minister of Government Services take it upon himself to talk with the Minister of Education on this and get that detailed list of items back to me as soon as possible? Because I would like to know and take that information back to the community.

Hon. Mr. Jim: Yes.

Mr. Fairclough:      I believe that some of these items could be quite high, and it can change the million-dollar mark that the member opposite has targeted in savings; for example, landscaping, and so on. I also ask the member whether or not - there are additional costs I would like to talk about. With regard to insulation, the insulation change was to go to fibreglass. Is this in the interior walls? Is it for sound purposes in the libraries and so on? Or is this on the exterior walls and in the ceiling, which would affect the R-value? I believe the R-value, in looking at these two types of insulation, is reduced by one-third. Can the minister give me that information?

Hon. Mr. Jim: Mr. Chair, I said earlier on that I would get back to him on this.

Mr. Fairclough:      Well, maybe the minister can also give me some information about what it's going to cost additionally to government by reducing the R-value in that school over the next, say, 10 years? We'll just take that as a 10-year average and see what it costs to government, because I'd like to add it on to the cost to government in the changes that were made to the school.

Now, the other thing that we asked for was, the people in the community took some training - carpentry training and so on - and expected to go from this project into another project - the First Nation administration building and go from that project into the recreation centre for the Village of Mayo. Can the minister give me that cost to government, what it cost to have - I know the First Nation brought in the materials. There was training money provided for this, I think, through government, and also a donation of these buildings. The true cost of that total package, that's including the value of the buildings that was given by this government. Can the minister do that?

Hon. Mr. Jim: Mr. Chair, I don't have this information in front of me at hand again, and I will get back to the Member for Mayo-Tatchun on this.

Mr. Fairclough:      I thank the member opposite for that and for looking into the other departments, because this is all to do with the costs of the school.

Now, the minister has given us a list for the retendering of the project, such as the cost of travelling to the communities. I would like a more detailed breakdown of that travel, such as the costs for chartering the plane, and so on. If the member opposite can give us some of those costs and maybe we could nail down this a little bit.

What we don't have and we can't factor into this whole thing is the fact that we have projects that have been delayed and those projects cost the communities. You can't put a dollar value on that.

If the member opposite can bring that information by legislative return, it would be greatly appreciated. At this point, given the time, Mr. Chair, I move that you report progress.

Chair:  It has been moved by Mr. Fairclough that we do now report progress.

Motion agreed to

Mr. Kent:      I move that the Speaker do now resume the Chair.

Chair:  It has been moved by Mr. Kent that the Speaker do now resume the Chair.

Motion agreed to

Speaker resumes the Chair

Speaker:      I will now call the House to order.

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

Chair's report

Mr. McLarnon:      Mr. Speaker, Committee of the Whole has considered Bill No. 34, An Act to Amend the Trustee Act, and directed me to report it through Committee with amendment.

Mr. Speaker, Committee of the Whole has considered Bill No. 4, First Appropriation Act, 2001-02, and directed me to report progress on it.

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

Some Hon. Members:      Agreed.

Speaker:      I declare the report carried.

Mr. Kent:      Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Speaker:      It has been moved by the acting government House leader that the House do now adjourn.

Motion agreed to

Speaker:      This House now stands adjourned until 1:00 p.m. Monday.

The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m.

The following Sessional Paper was tabled April 26, 2001:

01-2-83

Travel Expenses of Members of the Yukon Legislative Assembly 2000-2001 (dated April 2001) (Speaker Schneider)