back

Whitehorse, Yukon

Wednesday, November 18, 1987

Speaker: I will now call the House to order. At this time we will proceed with Prayers.

Prayers

DAILY ROUTINE

Speaker: We will proceed at this time with the Order Paper.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I am pleased to introduce to the Legislature today an executive of Curragh Resources from Toronto, Mr. Ralph Sultan, vice president of the company.

POINT OF PRIVILEGE

Hon. Mrs. Joe: I would like to rise on a point of privilege to correct the record with respect to information I gave the House on Monday last in response to a question from the Member for Riverdale South.

On Monday, I stated the City of Whitehorse had given my department information with respect to possible unlicensed day homes. Following further questions on this matter from the Member, I reviewed the exchange in this House with departmental staff. They have subsequently informed me that my statements were based on incorrect data the department had prepared.

I would now like to correct the record in this matter. The information with respect to possible unlicensed day homes was provided to Health and Human Resource staff by the Yukon Child Care Association and Public Health and not the city, as I originally asserted.

I recognize, as a Minister, I am responsible for this error. I would like to apologize to this House and to the city administration for making inaccurate statements about the source of information in this instance.

Speaker: Are there any Returns or Documents for Tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Hon. Mrs. Joe: I have for tabling information as requested by the Member for Riverdale South with respect to O & M grants to day care capital development grants and other information, as requested in her motions 2 and 3.

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: I have for tabling the draft Standard Bylaws for Societies and the forms for the draft regulations.

Speaker: Are there any Reports of Committees? Are there any Petitions? Introduction of Bills? Are there any Notices of Motion for Production of Papers? Are there any Notices of Motion?

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Curragh Resources/Faro Real Estate/YTG Agreement

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I rise today to make an important announcement that was only concluded moments ago, and therefore I apologize to Members opposite for the short notice given to them for the details of my remarks.

I am pleased to announce to the House today that a new arrangement has been struck between Curragh Resources, Faro Real Estate Limited and this government that will assist the people of Faro by lowering their housing costs. Late this morning an agreement was reached that will result in modification of the $3.4 million Yukon mortgage with Curragh Resources. Members will recall that the original mortgage provided a repayment term over seven years. In recognition of the continuing confidence this government has in the company’s operation in Faro and the future developments on the Van Gorda Plateau we have agreed to extend the repayment term of the loan for an additional seven years. In effect the original mortgage will be modified to provide for a term of 14 years commencing November 22, 1985 and expiring November 22, 1999.

We are delighted with this new arrangement because we not only protected the security position of the government but this arrangement will result in reduced housing costs for the people of Faro. We are particularly pleased because Curragh Resources have facilitated this arrangement by agreeing to extend long-term financing to Faro Real Estate Limited.

I would like to emphasize that the mortgage modification contains the following terms: Where previously interest payable at ten per cent was tied to the cash flow of the operation, now the government will receive a fixed interest rate of ten per cent during the extended term. Further principal payments on the mortgage will be repaid in equal quarterly installments beginning February 22, 1988. As well the issue of partial discharges under the mortgage is resolved which will encourage housing sales in Faro to proceed.

I would note that although I was restricted during the intense negotiations during the past several months from revealing details of the deal, a precondition of this mortgage modification was the discharge of the Yukon government guarantee. Although previously announced by Curragh Resources, this precondition resulted in the Yukon government no longer guaranteeing the $15 million line of credit between Curragh Resources and the Toronto Dominion Bank. I would remind Members that this guarantee was put in place to facilitate the very critical start-up period of the Faro mine, but the guarantee was never called.

I must emphasize that because of the diligent effort of all parties concerned in this arrangement there will be a 45 per cent reduction of the base rents in housing secured under the mortgage. This will convert to a significant reduction in overall housing costs to the community of Faro.

In closing I want to pay tribute to my hard-working negotiating team, the goodwill of the participants at the negotiating table and the support of my colleagues in helping this important deal come to fruition.

Mr. Lang: I am pleased to see that we have a new policy initiative announced during Ministerial Statements. It is nice to see the rules being followed. We are very pleased to see the positive outcome of the negotiations, especially the resolution of the issue of the partial discharge. Our caucus wants to give credit to the Member who has been persistently raising this issue on behalf of his constituency, the Member for Faro. It is a very important that people have the ability to obtain homeownership. We wonder why it has taken so long to resolve this issue, which has been consistently and persistently raised by the Member for Faro.

Mr. McLachlan: I am very pleased by the announcement made by the Minister of Community and Transportation Services this afternoon. The biggest loggerhead problem, that of the transfer of title and partial discharge of mortgage, seems to have been solved, but perhaps more importantly out of the whole thing, is the announcement of the extension of the mortgage term to a 14-year period from a seven-year period. That is an expression of confidence that this government has in Faro and in the future of the community. It is a feeling, as a resident of Faro for 18 years, that there was not always a factor of confidence in all Members of the government and in people in the territory, generally. I am hoping that today’s announcement will clear that up for a long time to come.

There is one small issue that is partly due to the lateness of the preparation of the statement but has not been addressed during the Ministerial Statement. When does the 45 per cent reduction in rate begin?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I can find the actual date for the Member. It will be in the very near future. The deal was the result of a lot of hard work by a number of people, and there are many people who deserve specific credit for this arrangement. The government is pleased to have been able to, in part, facilitate the housing reduction in Faro. It was due to our diligence in wishing the housing costs would come down that it was done. There is also credit that should be relayed to Curragh Resources and to Faro Real Estate who were negotiating parties to the agreement and who were also interested in bringing down the cost of housing in Faro. I give all parties full credit.

QUESTION PERIOD

Question re: Land availability

Mr. Phelps: I have a new question pertaining to land availability, which is an continuing problem under this government. I think we are probably coming into a critical stage, not only in the rural areas but in Whitehorse as well.

My first question is of the appropriate Minister; I gather that is the Minister of Community and Transportation Services. I would like to know how many agricultural applications are now outstanding with this government.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I am not sure of the exact number of outstanding applications. They are coming in regularly, as there is a continued interest in pursuing agricultural development in the territory. If the Member wishes for me to provide that kind of information, I will be happy to try to comply; and if the Member has other further details he also wishes, then a written question will be most appropriate.

Mr. Phelps: I ask these questions every session so it should not come as a surprise to the Minister or his department. Can he tell us how many agricultural applications have gone through and have been transferred in the last 12 months?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I do not have a tally here but I have a list of all the applications in the last 12 months or so. If the Member wishes me to read them out, I can; I can also table relevant documents, which I anticipate will be requested by Members, as they have been requested in every session since 1985.

Mr. Phelps: I would be pleased if the Minister would table the successful transfers as well as a list of the outstanding ones, because I understand they are way up again, to over three or four hundred. Would he undertake to do that as well?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: The information the Member requests with respect to outstanding transfers, transfer requests and transfers completed, have all been anticipated, and I will table a document that will essentially delineate the numbers.

Question re: Land availability, Carcross

Mr. Phelps: Perhaps we could move to one rural area where there does not seem to be any land available at all, and has not been for some time, for people wanting to build homes, and that area is Carcross. I would like to know whether or not a request for block land transfer has gone in from this government for the Chooutla subdivision of Carcross?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: A request for the Chooutla subdivision has been in place, I believe, since 1984, when this government assumed office; we reiterated our belief that lands requested should be lands transferred, and included the Chooutla subdivision in that list. As the Member knows, the Chooutla subdivision has not been transferred and I am not exactly certain of the reasons why the government has not transferred it to us.

Mr. Phelps: With regard to that subdivision, there was an agreement, as part of the land claims process, that that area would be developed and half the lots would be sold to the Carcross Tagish Indian Band at cost and paid for by the federal government, and that is why the subdivision went ahead. We now understand that the band is blocking the transfer. I am wondering if this government is taking a position on that issue?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: The historic position of the government, a position that is the position of the government today, is that a portion of the lots that were developed on federal lands by the Yukon government ought to be allotted to band members and to the general public, and there has been no change in our position at this point. I do not anticipate a change, either.

Mr. Phelps: This block land transfer has been outstanding since the government took office. There are no lots available for people in Carcross to build on. What is the government going to do about the situation in Carcross regarding land availability?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: There is one other player in the equation, and that is the federal government. We have made requests for land — specifically, the Chooutla subdivision — before to resolve some of the demands for housing land and needs in the Carcross area. We have indicated to them a number of times that we would like to see some lands transferred. We have not received lands to date. I think it would be an appropriate question to put to the federal minister. I have asked the federal minister in the past to transfer lands once band consultations have taken place and in the particular case of the Chooutla subdivision, the lands have not yet been transferred. But it would be an appropriate question to put to the federal minister.

Mr. Phelps: Will the Minister undertake to become active on this matter and do something about the Chooutla subdivision? Will he press the minister to transfer it under the terms of the original agreement?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: That has already been done. I do not need requests from any Member to encourage me to continue doing that. I will be doing that, in any case. We have also been discussing the matter of general land use around the territory and we have expressed to the federal minister that we would like land transfers expedited as well.

Question re: Whitehorse accommodation

Mr. McLachlan: For days and days now we have been hearing from the Minister of Community and Transportation Services that the only housing crisis in the territory is the inadequate social housing that exists in a number of communities, and that this Minister and the Government Leader are going to come riding in on a charging white steed and solve all of those problems. I want to ask the Minister that, given the statement released by the Yukon Economic Council today, which shows the deficiency in the housing allocations here in the City of Whitehorse — 120 units needed in the next year — will this Minister now go back to the drawing board and re-think the housing situation that they are trying to address here in Whitehorse? Will he do that immediately?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: There is absolutely no need to go back to the drawing board because, as I indicated to the Members even as recently as yesterday in this Legislature, the government, as of early this year, has undertaken to review the barriers to home ownership in the territory and are well underway in terms of establishing some alternatives that we could pursue in the coming year. We have also, as I have indicated to the Member before — a fact immediately forgotten, perhaps — that the government is trying to get residential land available as soon as possible in Whitehorse, given the lead time that is naturally required in land development.

Mr. McLachlan: I am not sure if the Minister has read the statistics in the report and, if he has read them, if he believes them. Why can the government not design a program that will address the shortage of multiple-unit residential buildings? That is critical. Why is it only the single-family residential units?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: The Member is setting up a straw man and then beating him down. I did not say that we were unaware of the problem of the private sector in constructing multi-family residential units. I referred to it in this Legislature only last week. That is a problem that has to be addressed. We are addressing that problem as well as others. We are acutely aware of the housing shortage in Whitehorse, and we are acutely interested in helping to resolve the situation through land development and through home ownership programs that would encourage construction because, as we know, up until this point, there has been very little private sector construction in Whitehorse.

Mr. McLachlan: It took this Minister a year to react to a study, a motion in this House. How long is it going to take him to react to a housing shortage that is made apparent by these statistics by the Economic Council? It is apparent today, in 1989, that we are going to be struggling with it if he does not do something. When are they going to come out with something concrete?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: The Member once again is repeating what is commonly referred to, in Orwellian terms, as the big lie. The suggestion is that the government has done nothing in the last year. That is patently false. The government is not only aware of the situation but is attempting to do something about it. We would hope to be able to do something about it in concrete terms in the coming season.

Question re: Whitehorse accommodation

Mr. Lang: The Minister has just indicated that he is acutely aware of the housing problem in the territory over the past year. If this has been such a high priority, why has it taken him over one year to appoint a general manager for the Housing Corporation?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: There are a couple of reasons. Firstly, I think it is important to note for the Member’s information that the Minister responsible for housing does not appoint the general manager. The board of directors does. There was every attempt to recruit a full-time general manager over the period of the last year. It has been difficult because when the Housing Corporation was inherited by this government it was in a very sorry condition, and it was not an attractive prospect for an up-and-coming person to want to take over the leadership of this corporation.

There were some difficulties and, as I said yesterday, a person has finally accepted to take on the job on a full-time basis.

Mr. Lang: The Minister of Housing has been there for two-and-a-half years; at the same time, of his own volition, spending millions of dollars without a general manager in place. When the government made the decision to go ahead with the roughly $70 million public housing program, did they take into consideration the question of the options of home ownership?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I think it is important to note the historical context in which the government took over the Housing Corporation. When we took over there were a very few disgruntled employees left, amalgamated within the Department of Community and Transportation administrative unit. They were operating quite improperly out of that department and quite contrary to legislation passed by this Legislature, but with the full knowledge and support and concurrence of the minister of the day. The accounting system of the Corporation was in very bad shape. In trying to put the Corporation back together so it could meet demands, the government had to follow a fairly significant work plan, which was completed.

Certainly, home ownership has always been a consideration of the Corporation. It is a matter of timing and priorities. Getting the Corporation back on its feet so it could deliver anything at all was obviously a top priority.

Mr. Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have to once again register my concern with you and your office with respect to this Legislature. I asked a very direct question and I once again did not get an answer. When that happens it is a reflection on the House, not just the Minister in question.

I would ask, with you as a parliamentarian to the Minister, again: In the decision that was made by the government to go ahead with that multi-million dollar public housing program, were the options for home ownership considered?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Prior to the motion for home ownership being tabled and passed in this House, the government of the day — meaning this government and this particular Minister — indicated a desire to encourage home ownership, not only for middle and upper income people, but also for lower income people, and to try to encourage people in social housing to assume ownership and the responsibilities of the social housing units. That has always been the consideration that the government has expressed to the Corporation, and I think the government is going to be able to deliver in spades in the coming year.

Question re: Whitehorse accommodation

Mr. Lang: How, in good conscience, could the Government of the Yukon make a $70 million commitment of taxpayers dollars without having the results of the homeowner option study completed in order to take all those factors into account?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: As I have tried to express to the Member in the past, the government’s commitment is stated clearly in the Capital Estimates. The government is not committed to the so-called $72 million Five-Year Capital Plan. The government is committed  to the Capital Estimates that have been tabled in this Legislature. Certainly the government wanted to put the Corporation back on its feet and make it a decent delivery agent. At the same, time we had to direct resources toward the needy people in the territory, the people who were in most need. There would have been very little generosity on the part of the public if we had done nothing of any sort while we were trying to get the Corporation back on its feet, so we tried to do both. We tried to get the Corporation back on its feet and also directed funds towards the most needy.

Mr. Lang: I will try again. In deference to yourself and the Legislature, I will ask the question again.

How, in good conscience, did the government make a multi-million dollar commitment of taxpayers dollars for public housing throughout the territory without having in its possession the home owner option study completed in order that the two could be considered at the same time?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: There was a demonstrated need for housing programs while we were getting on our feet. For that reason, we decided that it was most appropriate to try and meet the people greatest in need while we were getting  the Corporation back on its feet again. That is why we engaged in some social housing expenditures prior to the Homeownership Study being complete. It is nevertheless very much a commitment and a priority of this government to complete the study and to provide some options for the public.

Question re: Territorial Court Act

Mr. Phillips: Section 36 of the Human Rights Act states that this Act supersedes every other Act, whether enacted before or after this Act unless it is expressly declared by the other Act that it shall supersede this Act. Since there is no such statement expressed in the Territorial Court Act, does the Minister not agree that the Human Rights Act is paramount?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: That is obviously asking for a legal opinion. The legal opinion is so simple and obvious that I will give it. Yes.

Mr. Phillips: That is the answer that I have been looking for a long time. Would the Minister not agree that Section 41.1 of the Territorial Court Act, which requires a Justice of the Peace to retire at age 65 is discriminatory and has been superseded by the provisions in the Human Rights Act?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: That specific question is before the courts today. It would be improper to make a comment about that specific proposition at this time.

Mr. Phillips: If the Minister had done his job, it would not be in front of the courts today. Why did the Minister, through his Justice Department, dismiss Mr. Thompson on September 8 when they knew clearly that on July 1 they were violating their own Human Rights Act, and why have they not reinstated Mr. Thompson with full compensation and an apology?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: The premise of the question is inaccurate. I, and the Ministry, did not dismiss Mr. Thompson. Mr. Thompson was dismissed by letter by the Director of Court Services who has a dual reporting relationship and was acting on the direction of the Territorial Court. The reason why I cannot correct the situation is that the correction must necessarily involve a change in the legislation. That should come, and it should come soon.

Question re: Day home surveillance

Mrs. Firth: The Minister of Health and Human Resources has made comments in this House several times about there only being one home under surveillance. Information that I have indicates that there were individuals, neighbours and parents called, who are participating in other day homes. Can the Minister confirm for the Legislature if her information is absolutely accurate?

Hon. Mrs. Joe: What happens is that we receive information that there is a home which could be operating without a licence. Then the Day Care Services Board very often approaches that operator to find out whether or not she or he would be interested in becoming licensed. There is a process that follows, and I believe that has happened. It does not mean they were under surveillance, it just means they were approached to find out whether or not they were interested in becoming licensed. Other than that, I know nothing more about any kind of surveillance.

Mrs. Firth: Do I take it that the Minister is saying again, by that comment, that there was only one day home under surveillance? I am talking not about the operators being approached but by parents and neighbours being approached of day homes other than the one under surveillance. If it is the Day Care Services Board doing this — the day home that was under surveillance that was charged — if the Day Care Services Board is doing this, they are really a board of the government and I would like the Minister to come back with accurate information if she could at this time.

Hon. Mrs. Joe: That board was created as a result of legislation introduced in this House many years ago. They have authority to go into those homes to talk to those people. My information right now is that we have only had one home under surveillance and I have said that repeatedly. If I am not correct, I will come back and let the House know.

Mrs. Firth: Is it true that her officials, department officials, or members of the Day Care Services Board, parked outside the family day homes and counted the cars as they were dropping the children off at the family day homes?

Hon. Mrs. Joe: I understand that process was used. There were not any other persons available who could do the investigation. We did not have anybody on staff that could follow that. We do have a law in our Day Care Act that says people have to become licensed under certain circumstances and we have to follow that law. The information I have is that one home was under surveillance by a member of the Day Care Services Board and our day care coordinator.

Question re: Day home surveillance

Mrs. Firth: To follow up on the process, is it true that through this surveillance process — that the individual on the Day Care Services Board had embarked upon — parents were phoned at home and asked how many children the day care had, even to the extent that parents with unlisted phone numbers were being called?

Hon. Mrs. Joe: I do not have that information.

Mrs. Firth: Why does the Minister not have that information? I believe she said in the Legislature that she had not authorized the process but was aware of the investigation. I would like the Minister to report — because I have had parents tell me that they were called and they had unlisted phone numbers — how the unlisted phone numbers were acquired by her officials.

Hon. Mrs. Joe: I said that I was aware that there was an investigation going on, that I was aware that a home was under surveillance. If she requires further information, I will get the information for her.

Question re: Placer mining on Wheaton River

Mr. Nordling: In September, an official with the Department of Renewable Resources wrote a letter calling for a halt in placer mining on the Wheaton River. I believe the letter called it an inappropriate use of the land and water resources along the Wheaton. A couple of weeks later, the deputy minister of Renewable Resources said the letter represented the position of the staff in the Department of Renewable Resources and did not represent the position of the Government of Yukon.

What is the position of the Yukon government on this issue?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: If the Member is asking what is the position of this government with respect to placer mining on the Wheaton River — in that Cabinet has not specifically addressed such a question, we have not taken a position, other than that expressed by the deputy minister before the Water Board with respect to the particular licence and application referred to by the Member.

Mr. Nordling: The deputy minister of Renewable Resources went on to say that the Yukon government would like a study of the potential conflict between placer miners and other land and water users. Has this study been done? If so, when will it be released?

Hon. Mr. Porter: The Member is referring to a particular responsibility that is being carried out in the Department of Renewable Resources under the Lands and Parks Branch. There is a resource inventory study being undertaken by that department. It is called the Wheaton River Inventory Study. When it is complete, I will undertake to ensure the Member knows the particulars.

Mr. Nordling: My impression was that this was a separate study the deputy minister was calling for, separate to the inventory of resource use that was going on. Has the Minister of Economic Development’s department had any input, or will have any input, into the preparation of this study? What is a more accurate date as to when it is expected?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: With respect to the study identified by the Minister of Renewable Resources a moment ago, the people who are involved in that are a matter of public record.

With respect to the possibility of another study indicated by the Member opposite, I cannot respond to that except to say, in a general way, that any such question that would touch on the responsibilities of more than one department, or touch on the responsibilities of the Department of Economic Development, would under this administration involve officials of that department.

Question re: Inventory of lots

Mr. McLachlan: I have a question for Community and Transportation Services.

There were 112 building permits issued in the City of Whitehorse in 1987. Thirty of those were in the Kwanlin Dun area. I consider this to be a very active year for building. Of those 82 lots, that is only two-thirds of the level of activity called for in the Yukon Economic Council’s report. The   Granger Subdivision cannot be ready until the late fall of 1988. Where does the Minister intend to get the inventory of available building lots to be able to fulfill the called-for 120 units in the Economic Council Report?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: There are a fair number of lots on the market right now. If the Member requests I can always provide a detailed breakdown of where they are and when they went on the market. One of the problems with land development is that it takes some time for advance work to do the job right. That is the reason why it takes as long as it does to put in a subdivision of this sort. We have experienced problems in the past when the job has been rushed. The government will move as quickly as it can to get the Granger lots on the market and will encourage private sector and Kwanlin Dun, if they have land available, to make lots available as well. We will do whatever we can to see that housing land is available for private construction within the City of Whitehorse.

Mr. McLachlan: Briefing notes passed out on Monday night with the Budget Speech referred to upgrading or replacing 110 housing units. Is it the plan of the Yukon Housing Corporation to sell — get rid of — all of its mobile housing stock?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Perhaps the Member might want to put that question more in context because I do not believe I understood it. If the Member is asking whether or not the Housing Corporation as a matter of policy does not wish to have mobile homes as part of its inventory, I do not believe that is the case. If the Member wants to be a little clearer in what he is asking for I will try to answer.

Mr. McLachlan: Certainly I will, but I do not think I should have to use my final supplementary to clarify a question for the Minister.

The briefing notes passed out with the Budget referred to replacing of 110 housing units by the Corporation, or replacing of inventory. Does the Yukon Housing Corporation, by the meaning of replacing 110 housing units, mean they are getting rid of or selling its mobile housing stock throughout the territory?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I am fairly certain that it cannot be interpreted as narrowly as the Member suggests it should. I think there are a fair number of housing units in the inventory which are in extremely rough shape and it would not be economical to repair them. I am sure those units would be sold, as is common practice. What I can do to cut what could potentially be a long answer short is find out what sort of mobile homes are in the inventory and what the Corporation plans to do with them.

Question re: Tax exemption forms

Mr. Brewster: My question is to the Minister of Finance.

Recently new Fuel Tax Exemption Forms were issued by the Department of Finance. The forms are considerably more complicated than the previous forms and ask questions of the agriculture applicants regarding residents on a farm, type of production, if farming is the main source of income or existence, and the applicants are asked to attach a copy of their latest profit and loss statement.

Why does the department need all of this information for the fuel tax rebate?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I will take that question under notice.

Mr. Brewster: The Minister obviously does not know about the great forum we have here.

How does a statement of income relate to whether or not an agricultural applicant is eligible to receive the exemptions?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I presume that if the applicant has no or very little income from agricultural activities, it would have some bearing on whether or not the vehicles that were being fueled were being used properly or not.

Mr. Brewster: Can the Minister explain under what statue, authority or regulation the Department of Finance is using to request this information?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I will take that question as notice too.

The purpose of the tax measure that we brought into this House shortly after coming to office was to provide fuel tax relief for certain occupations off-highway. In every other jurisdiction I know of in the country, the regulation of that activity has been a problem.  That is why many jurisdictions went to purple gas. I will check with the department to make sure that whatever regulatory enforcement provisions they bring in comply with the legislation under which they operate.

Question re: Fuel tax exemption

Mr. Brewster: Can the Minister of Finance tell me if an applicant who refuses to conform to all of this government red tape will still be eligible for exemption?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: Someone would have to qualify for the exemption in order to receive it. I would have to double check as to whether or not the questions that are being asked are necessary to establish a test of qualification.

Mr. Brewster: Can the Government Leader explain why the Department of Finance has to know what type of production the applicant is engaged in before receiving the fuel tax exemption?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I am not sure. I will take that question as notice.

Mr. Brewster: We are not getting very far today. There are seven different types of businesses that have the same application, yet the only one that is being picked on for financial statement and other such statements is those of pertaining to agriculture. Can the Minister explain why it is only agriculture, and not the others?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I do not concede that point at all. The Member complains that he is not getting far today. He may not know this, but there is an age old parliamentary courtesy that if a person wants detailed answers to specific questions, notice is given to the Member opposite of the question. Had the Member given me notice, he probably could have had the answers.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MOTIONS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF PAPER

Speaker: It would appear to the Chair that Motions for the Production of Papers No. 2 and No. 3, have been satisfied by documents tabled earlier today and the Chair will, therefore, under Motions for the Production of Papers, direct their removal from the Order Paper.

Motions for productions of papers?

Motion for the Production of Papers No. 1

Clerk: Item No. 1, standing in the name of Mrs. Firth.

Speaker: Is the hon. Member prepared to proceed with Item No. 1?

Mrs. Firth: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker: It has been moved by the member for Whitehorse Riverdale South:

THAT the House do issue an order for a return for information which would provide a detailed breakdown of the $900,000 in improvements to be made to the day care system including:

a) costs of increased subsidies and grants; and

b) costs of change of fee schedules.

Point of Order

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: I am rising on a point of order because I would like a ruling from the Chair as to whether or not this motion is in order or is within our rules in its present form. I understand that this motion would follow, perhaps, an Alberta practice, but I would submit that it does not follow the practice of the House of Commons in Ottawa. Our Standing Orders have very little to say about motions for the productions of papers but they do say that where our Standing Orders do not specify a practice that the rules of the House of Commons shall prevail.

I have looked very closely at Beauchesne, citations 385, 386, 387, 388, 389 and 390 and I would submit that there are two policies here that are implicit in the procedure for production of papers and are missing. Those two policies are these: that the notice for production of papers must specify, with some degree of specificity, what papers are being asked for; this motion does not do that, and I will explain why in a moment. Secondly: the second principle is that the notice for production of papers must call for papers or information that is in existence, and cannot call for a compilation of figures or documents and cannot call for research to be done.

Now, I would freely say that if this motion were in the form of a written question, it would be acceptable. Also, if it were in the form of a notice of motion to be proceeded with under an ordinary motion, it would be acceptable.

However, it is not acceptable as notice for the production of papers. I would specifically refer you, Mr. Speaker, to citation 390 in Beauchesne, which talks about the kinds of things that can be produced, and they are all papers and information that exists. The description clearly is that the procedure is to allow Members to acquire factual information such as government papers, documents and reports which can be produced. I would argue on the face of this motion that it is impossible to know exactly what is being asked for, and it appears to ask for the compilation of statistics, which is not in existence now. I would argue for those reasons that it should be ruled out of order.

Mrs. Firth: I thank the Minister of Justice for his legal interpretation and, as always, his version of the way this House should be conducted and what the Speaker should rule on what subject matter.

If we look closely at the three motions for the production of papers that have been presented to us, really the request is the same for all three motions. The context of the first is really no different from the other two. I did some consultations of my own when I brought these motions forward, and it was considered that they were in a correct form. The Minister of Health and Human Resources made this announcement publicly about this information; the context is no different from the other two motions, which are seeking public information. For the verification of the Members in government who are wanting to know when it was made public, I will support that with an article from the Yukon News, Wednesday, October 14th, 1987, where the Minister of Health and Human Resources said, in a public forum she had attended, that they were looking at costs of different options, and that the future plans for improving the day care system in the Yukon would include subsidies, grants or a change in fee schedules. She said the first draft estimate of the cost was $900,000. So, therefore, the information was announced publicly, and I see no reason why, in the context of this government professing to be open and forthcoming with information, this information would not be provided. With all the substantiation the Minister of Justice has felt necessary to bring forward, it leaves me with one question: what is this government trying to hide by not making that information public? If they are prepared to make the information that is associated with the other two motions public, what are they trying to hide if they will not make this public?

Speaker’s Ruling

Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order, the Chair is satisfied that the motions for the production of papers are in order. However, the Chair is aware that some confusion may have been caused by the style of motions for the production of papers. The Chair undertakes to review the past practice of this House. In this respect, it will review the practice of the House of Commons, and report back to this House.

Mrs. Firth: I had not anticipated the approach of the Members in the government. I had thought this was a simple motion asking for information but, as I have said, the Minister had made some public announcement about it, and some public reference to it, therefore I did not think it was anything that was confidential or top secret about it. In that public statement, I believe the Minister even went as far as to say she was not sure how soon they would come to a definite decision, but that she hoped to announce something within two months. If she is going to be announcing something and they have this information in the department — I know the news media has been trying to find out what the costs involved — we on this side are interested so we can review it with the public and see if it is consistent with this government’s policy with respect to child care services.

Hon. Mrs. Joe: The Member for Riverdale South has requested a detailed breakdown on the $900,000 in improvements to be made to the day care system. In a program area of considerable interest, and in which considerable inactivity occurred in the previous government’s tenure, it is not unusual that a number of program proposals, options and ideas are under consideration.

It appears that the Member opposite has taken a figure of a draft estimate of cost of all options, if all options were to be immediately acted upon, as was quoted in an October 14th Yukon News report of the meeting I attended that the president of the national action committee on the Status of Women here in Whitehorse the previous week. It appears the Member opposite has incorrectly assumed that the immediate initiatives announced in my ministerial statement of November 10 will cost the $900,000 quoted. That is far from the fact.

There were a number of other things that were said during that meeting, where I listed a number of other totals as well. In a manner of speaking, they were ideas and we were talking informally. The kind of information that you saw in the paper is just a small part of that conversation. I heard the Member for Porter Creek East asking for it the other day, and he mentioned at the time that it included universal day care. I do not know where he got that information from, but he said it on the radio. I do not have the kind of information that she wants.

Mr. Nordling: I think we can take the Minister’s last words as the story with respect to this issue: that this information does not exist. It is interesting to note that, back on October 18, 1983, the present Minister of Justice was talking about access to information. He stood up and said, “I welcome this opportunity to speak to this principle because it is an exceedingly important principle.”

He went on to say that freedom of information is one of the most important impediments to modern democracy. Then instead of allowing the Minister to get up and say that this information does not exist, he tries to stop debate and prevent us from getting information. Obviously this information does exist in some form.

The Minister, on October 14 quoted the $900,000 figure of this year. The Minister of Justice wanted to have it specified as to what papers. He wanted us to tell him, or the Minister of Health and Human Resources, that this information actually exists, and it could not fall for research. Obviously for the Minister of Health and Human Resources to use the figure $900,000, there is no research that needs to be done; the information exists, and there obviously was papers to come up with that number.

I do not understand how or why the Minister can stand up now and say that this information does not exist. I would at least ask the Minister  to make a commitment to make an effort to come back to this House and show us where the $900,000 figure came from.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: Could I briefly get into this debate? Having participated in many of the dozen or more debates in the past involving notices of motion for production of papers, I would just remind the Member for Porter Creek West that most of the ones brought here were defeated  or amended by the previous administration as a matter of routine.

I worked at the House of Commons and had some occasion to prepare for debates on the notices of motion for production of papers and debates on the production of papers. I remember very clearly that the request for a specific document was absolutely essential in order for the debate to even proceed, much less have it approved.

The question of calculation of a range of options of course is something that Ministers and Members may get into in debates in all sorts of situations in public. As Members opposite who have been in Cabinet — perhaps not the Member for Porter Creek West — will know that when a government makes decisions it will consider options that come before Cabinet in the form of Cabinet documents which, by the Rules of this House and the House of Commons, are specifically excluded from tabling in the House. I have not heard anybody on either side of this House make a coherent argument that Cabinet documents should be tabled. If that is what was being requested then clearly the motion was out of order.

In a typically spiteful way, the Member for Riverdale South asked what the government was trying to hide. Nothing, of course, because the results of our deliberations on this question were announced publicly in this House by the Minister of Health and Human Resources, I believe, on the second day that we sat in this session.

I believe the costs associated with those decisions were also announced in the House. They are a matter of public record. Projections of cost implications of those initiatives are also available on the floor of this House to any Member who wishes them. So there is nothing to hide. Unless a specific document is requested, a specific document which is permissible to be presented in this House — in other words not a Cabinet document — we cannot comply with the motion; therefore, we have no choice but to defeat it.

Mr. Lang: The Minister of Justice made a feeble attempt to justify his point of order. Section 390 says, “To enable Members of Parliament to secure factual information about operations of government to carry out their parliamentary duties and to make public as much factual information as possible consistent with the effective administration, the protection of the security of the State, rights to privacy and other such matters, government papers, documents and consultant reports, should be produced on Notices of Motion for the Production of Papers.”

It is obvious that the Minister of Health and Human Resources made a public statement in her capacity as the Minister, regarding the question of day care. There is no request in this motion for a Cabinet paper. We are referring specifically to the statement that the Minister made in the meeting on October 14. The number was not pulled out of the air. We are talking about $900,000 of taxpayers’ money. I recognize that the side opposite does not feel that it is the public’s right to know. It is the right of the public to know how the government is contemplating spending $900,000.

The spirit and the intent of the Notice of Motion that we have here is the same spirit and intent of the other two motions that the government has tabled, in providing information in this House, without debating the motion. We have one choice left. That is to ask, as the Member for Riverdale South has, what does the government have to hide? The government has stated that they have the intention of spending $900,000. All we are asking on behalf of the general public, which is going to pay for this directly, is how does the government intend to spend that $900,000?

The request is legitimate, and I do not understand why the side opposite is taking the position that they are, other than to filibuster, on this issue.

It is an unwarranted use of the majority that they have in this House. All we are requesting is factual information that was publicly announced by the Minister of Health and Human Resources?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: Just to make a few simple points. The Member of Porter Creek East stated that the government has an intention, and has stated an intention, to spend $900,000 on day care. That is not a true and accurate statement. That has not occurred and the Member was wrong to say that. I should also bring to the Member’s attention that the same Member stated on an earlier occasion on this House — when I moved as an Opposition Member, a motion for the production of papers I moved that a draft green paper on human rights be tabled. That motion for the production of papers was defeated. This was in April 14, 1982. That same Member said, and I quote,  “documents relating to policy decisions under consideration but not yet finalized would be exempt from tabling or bringing forward for discussion.”

The problem here is that statements are made that the government is intending to spend $900,000. That is not accurate and the motion calls for the production of something that is not specified.

Mr. McLachlan: When I indicated my intention to say a few words on the subject it was mainly in relation to a topic that I had brought up during the Address to the Throne Speech, when I referred to the topic of open and accountable government. And I felt from the Members opposite, “How dare you think we would not be open and accountable?” This is the number one issue that is in our motion for production of papers: the open and accountable government. If the $900,000 is not true, are parts a) and b) a valid consideration? Is there an increase in the subsidies and grants? Can that information not be provided? I simply think that an attempt should be made for the total request to be honoured, in the spirit that the government has said: that they are open and accountable.

Hon. Mr. Porter: Having heard the voice of reason of the other two House Leaders, I would feel a bit lonely if I did not speak on this issue as well. The Official Opposition House Leader and I had not intended to speak, but I think there is a point of clarification with respect to the statements by the last speaker, inasmuch as his interpretation of our position on this matter is that it signifies that this government is not living up to the standard of an open government. I would refute that statement. I think that there are many instances where this government has, emphatically, produced information that has never before been allowed in the history of this Legislature.

If he would read through the previous debates he will find that out. If he does some research on this question, he will be sure by the nature of how this House is being conducted today that, indeed, this is an open government. On the question that the Member says is just information, why do you not make it available — as enunciated by the House Leader of the Official Opposition, citation 390 of Beauchesne very clearly specifies the purpose of the Motion for the Production of Papers. If you read the following criteria to be applied in determining if the government papers or documents should be exempt from production — although section 390 speaks about the principle of information — it very clearly as well lays out which particular pieces of information shall not be released and should be exempt. Very clearly, in that section, Cabinet documents and those documents which include a Privy Council confidence, internal departmental memoranda, are clearly specified in Beauchesne citation 390 as being documents that are not to be released and should be exempt.

There are many times that many departments of government bring forward proposals to Cabinet on many issues and invariably, through the process of Cabinet government, they are considered and a decision made by Cabinet. We live with that process and that is how the government is structured. The fact of the matter is, our position regarding the funding issue of day care has been clearly laid before this House. The Members are intimating and implying by bringing forward this particular order that there is somehow another proposal that has not been announced to the public. As the Government Leader has clearly indicated, there is no $900,000 program that exists within the government for the funding of day care. The position of this government with respect to the funding of day care has been laid before this House and has been done so by the Minister of Health and Human Resources.

Mr. Phelps: I was not going to speak to this motion either, but we have a situation where there is a public meeting of day care and the Minister of Health and Human Resources stands up and says, in public, we are looking at the different costs of all options. She is unsure whether future plans for improving the day care system in the Yukon will include subsidies, grants or a change in the schedules, but she says the first draft estimate of cost is $900,000. Now, we have the side opposite trying to hide behind Cabinet documents. If these are simply Cabinet documents and there was no decision, what is the Minister doing standing up at a public meeting and making these kinds of comments?

She is out of line — completely out of line. You cannot have it both ways. She should really stand and apologize in this House to the public for coming out with these ridiculous figures if they are ridiculous, and if they are based on some Cabinet documents that have not even been dealt with by cabinet yet. She is completely out of line. You cannot have it both ways. Stand up and apologize, and we will withdraw the motion.

Mr. Webster: I was not going to speak to this motion either, but clearly, from reading the newspaper article, it is clear that the Minister has considered all the costs of all the options, which totalled $900,000.

It does not specifically say that she has decided which options to follow, and the final bill is $900,000. That would be seen in the House when the budget is presented. The motion says that a detailed breakdown of the $900,000 in improvements are to be made to the day care system, and that there is an intention to spend $900,000. That is not true.

Speaker: If the Member for Riverdale South now speaks, she will close debate.

Mrs. Firth: The $64,000 question, or the $900,000 one is: is there a document or is there not a document? We have one Minister of the House saying that there is no document, that the document does not exist, that the information cannot be given because the document does not exist. Yet, there has to be a piece of paper somewhere in this government with that figure of $900,000 on it, from having done some review of child care costs.

The Government Leader has a nasty little way. He always has to accuse us of being spiteful. I brought an innocent motion to this Legislature asking for information about a public announcement that the Minister of Health and Human Resources had made. Everybody in the front bench has gotten upset about it. When the public saw that we were going to be spending almost $1 million on day care in the Yukon, they were phoning and asking what kind of Cadillac system of child care we were going to have.

The Members like to make fun of this and go on about what an open government they have. Yet, they come forward with these two other motions with the information that is tabled promptly. The Minister of Justice gives us a huge recitation about three or four citations in Beauchesne. The Member for Klondike reads the motion for us again. This is intelligent contribution. The Government Leader babbles on about how we are asking for Cabinet documents. It does not say anything about a Cabinet document being requested.

The Minister of Health and Human Resources is saying that she has a little piece of paper with $900,000 attached to it. Let us have it if it is there. Do not say that it does not exist and then say that it does. The media say that it does exist. The media are looking for this information too. The public is looking for the information. I do not care if it is a little teeny document or if it is 10 pages. We want the information, and we have a right to have it. The Minister made a public announcement about it, and we have a right to have it. People in the Yukon are interested in what the cost is going to be for child care and what this government is planning.

The government continually says that two and one half or three years ago this was the way that you guys did it, so we are going to do it that way to, and how dare you criticize us for doing it.

That is great. What are they doing? They are giving the electorate the choice of two evils. “You were bad. We are not as bad, so we are not as bad as you guys were.” That is what it amounts to. That is what people say to me.

Obviously we are not going to get any information from this open government. They are going to defeat the motion. They will return to surveillance. They will stand up, as the Government Leader did yesterday, and make unsubstantiated accusations about documents being stolen, yet they will not come forward with this information. The Minister of Health is constantly saying, “The former government did nothing about child care and had no interest in it. We are interested in it, we are prepared to spend $900,000 on it.” Yet we are not sure whether the document is a Cabinet document, a big document or a little, teeny tiny document, or even whether it exists, so I guess we have the choice of four options.

I am very disappointed to see the government react this way to this motion, particularly when they have made it so obvious. They have come forward with the information for the other two motions and intentionally left out the information for this one. I think that is going to raise great suspicions within the public and within the media. The Minister of Health and Human Resources says she does not know why; that seems to be her favourite answer these days. She does not seem to know an awful lot about what is going on in her department. The Minister will have her chance to get up and speak again I am sure.

I want to express, again, my concern that the government does not want to produce this information, and I want to ask what they are trying to hide. What is it that they do not want us to know; what is it that they do not want the public to know about the cost of child care in the Yukon Territory? We want the piece of paper with the total at the bottom of it for $900,000 for child care in the Yukon Territory that the Minister of Health and Human Resources announced at a public forum that this government was working on.

Motion negatived

MOTIONS OTHER THAT GOVERNMENT MOTIONS

Speaker: Motions other than Government Motions.

Mr. Lang: On behalf of the House Leaders, I will request unanimous consent for the motions under Motions Other Than Government Motions to be called in the following order: Motion No. 3, Motion No. 20, Motion No. 19, Motion No. 4, Motion No. 1, Motion No. 6 and Motion No. 15.

Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

All Hon. Members: Agreed.

Speaker: There is unanimous consent.

Motion No. 3

Clerk: Item No. 1 standing in the name of Mr. Brewster.

Speaker: Is the hon. Member prepared to proceed with item No. 3?

Mr. Brewster: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Member for Kluane,

THAT it is the opinion of this House that Yukoners are continuing to be denied their rightful say in the management of freshwater fisheries as a result of the action taken by the Minister of Renewable Resources to terminate negotiations with the federal government for the transfer of this valuable resource;

THAT this House urges the Minister of Renewable Resources to immediately resume these negotiations; and

THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to make reasonable and realistic demands of the federal government in these negotiations to ensure that an agreement, acceptable to all parties, is reached within a satisfactory period of time.

Mr. Brewster: I would like to start out by explaining to the Minister of Renewable Resources that I do not play politics with the future of the Yukon, of which he accused me. I am probably the least political man in this Legislature; I think sometimes even my own caucus wonders where I am going. There is only one way that I can have any influence on government to do anything, and that is by motions; I will continue to do this. If defending the Yukon and getting things moving for the Yukon is politics, I make absolutely no apology for that. It is with extreme regret that I must present this motion to this House. I believe more time has been spent getting this issue into the Legislature than in actually negotiating the transfer of freshwater fisheries of the Yukon.

A year-and-a-half ago, I proposed the following motion in the House: “THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to recognize the importance of freshwater fisheries to the Yukon economy and accept its responsibility in negotiating the transfer of this important resource from the Government of Canada.” Even though this motion passed unanimously, we appear to be no closer to a freshwater fishery transfer than we were then. Obviously, the Minister of Renewable Resources is not up to the task at hand.

The original move to bring freshwater fisheries to the Yukon was made by the hon. Howard Tracey. At that time, he was facing an extremely reluctant government in Ottawa; they did not want to give us anything and, if the truth be known, were in fact trying to take responsibilities away from the Yukon Government. In my short term as the Minister of Renewable Resources, I, too, tried to cut through all of that bureaucratic red tape to get things moving, but with no success.

It is not my intention to play politics with this issue, nor to take sides. I feel perfectly free to lambaste the federal government for not putting it up on the table, just as I criticized the previous Liberal government for not being able to put anything on the table. The onus is on us. If we want something bad enough, we have to fight for it. There is a problem that the Minister of Renewable Resources; he simply does not like to work that hard. The Minister would much rather travel to conferences to talk about fish and to eat fish than actually acquire the ability to manage this resource.

Let me give you a case in point. On July 18th, 1986, I received a letter from the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries inviting me to attend hearings in “my area” — my area was defined as Victoria, Nanaimo, Vancouver, Prince Rupert and Kamloops. There was no mention of any Yukon community at all. I was deeply offended by this oversight and in my usual fashion made my opinions clearly known to the Senate Committee in no uncertain terms.

I am sure I was not the only one who received a copy of this letter from the Senate Committee. The Minister of Renewable Resources must have received this letter as well but he, in his usual fashion, did not do anything about it. I did, and it got results.

On October 13, 1986, I received a letter from the standing Senate Committee announcing that they were coming to the Yukon after all. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. I do not want Members to get me wrong. I am no great fan of the present Senate, but we have to use whatever forum or medium we can. I, for one, am prepared to use whatever forum I can to advance Yukon causes.

You may have noticed that the Senate committee wanted to talk about marketing of fish, but I explained to them that, before you can market fish, you first have to be allowed to catch them. Yukon got a pretty raw deal in the Canada/U.S. Pacific Salmon Treaty. I also used the opportunity to talk about the transfer of freshwater fisheries. Nearly all of the other briefs to the committee followed this approach. I would like to commend the Minister of Renewable Resources for the presentation he and his officials made to the Senate Fisheries Committee. I would also like to table the report.

It clearly shows that when the Minister does get motivated to do something, he can do a good job. Sometimes he needs just a good kickstart to get him going. When it comes to negotiating, however, the Minister could use a few lessons. In attempting to negotiate the transfer of freshwater fisheries from the federal government, the Minister has shot Yukon in one foot and is now taking careful aim at the other one. The demand by the Minister for $950,000 annually and eight positions to manage the freshwater fisheries in Yukon is totally unrealistic and, frankly speaking, not very smart.

The Yukon government might as well have asked for the moon and the stars. When you make excessive demands, you are in danger of getting nothing. The federal government has never recognized the importance of freshwater fisheries in the Yukon. Do any of the Members think that they are going to give us a bunch of money to run a Cadillac system? It just is not going to happen. Moreover, the Yukon government is going to have a hard time pleading poverty when it is throwing a $1 million budget around all courtesy of the federal government.

The Minister is reported as having said that the Yukon will not be a dumping ground for federal programs. He went on to say that he would not accept the freshwater fishery transfer because the federal government was not prepared to put enough money on the table to run it. His threat to go it alone is hollow. To quote the Minister, “We would go back to our own funding sources to enhance what the federal fisheries in the Yukon is doing.” Our own finances is the federal government.

Is the Yukon government going to fund the eight positions and spend $950,000 annually on freshwater fisheries that they are demanding of the federal government? Are they going to spend all this money and still have no say over how the resource is managed? This is foolishness. The federal negotiators in Ottawa must still be laughing at the antics of our novice negotiator. The Minister of Renewable Resources’ threat to take his marbles and go home simply does not make sense.

First of all, with all due apologies to the Minister, he does not have any marbles to take and it is not his game. We are playing a federal game. He does not gain anything by walking away. The feds will not even notice that he has left. They will, and probably still, are all laughing.

Let us give our heads a shake here. Let us examine why we want the transfer of freshwater fisheries. A major reason for promoting transfer is because the federal fisheries department has been managing this valuable resource. His sole preoccupation has been to protect and preserve the migratory fish. The freshwater fisheries has mainly been used by the Department of Fisheries as another lever against the placer miners. There is virtually no money and no staff devoted to freshwater fisheries in the Department of Fisheries budget.

Further, some of the things they do or allow are counterproductive. They issue permits for some sports fishing lodges that are operated by southern-based companies. These companies sell fishing tours in the summer months and then, as soon as the season ends, they immediately head south. Yukon receives very little benefit from this type of operation.

Yukon freshwater fishery deserves better management and I am convinced that Yukoners can do the job. Yukoners will benefit from assuming responsibility of the resource. The resource will be properly managed and the transfer should lead to a better working relationship between the Government of the Yukon and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. This better relationship should help the Yukon government to act as a mediator in resolving disputes over migratory species of fish between federal fisheries and other resource users. Ultimately I hope that Yukoners will be able to assume the management and responsibility for migratory fish, as well.

The transfer of freshwater fisheries would be a major step forward in promoting an integrated approach to resource management. Through sound management and land use planning, many needless conflicts between resource users could be eliminated. The Yukon government must take the lead role in this regard. The onus is squarely on the territorial government to ensure that there is cooperation and that all Yukoners and all Canadians benefit from the best use of our resources.

Further, I believe that the party in the best position to bring about a resolution of inherent conflicts between the fisheries resource protection and the extraction of placer gold, is the territorial government. This is one of the reasons why I have been urging the Yukon government to become more and more involved in fisheries resource management.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the 1987 Constitutional Accord, there is now a very important constitutional reason for proceeding with fisheries transfer now. I heard the Government Leader say that he was worried that the Meech Lake Accord would block further constitutional advancement. You would think, therefore, that the government would be serious about negotiating a freshwater fisheries transfer which would establish a very important precedent, and possibly influence how the Accord is to be interpreted in the future.

Let us get on with the job. I urge the Minister of Renewable Resources to go back to the table with realistic demands, and work out the best possible deal that he can get. The time for talking about the transfer about freshwater fisheries should be over. The time for action is now.

I would like to inform the Minister that on October 23, 1987, the Canadian Wildlife Federation passed a unanimous motion that the Yukon and federal government get back together and negotiate for freshwater fishing. I urge every Member in this House to support this motion. Thank-you.

Hon. Mr. Porter: At the outset of the debate I would like to comment on some of the specifics that the Member for Kluane has raised in his debate. First of all, the question of $950,000 a year: the Member is not correct. In our negotiations with the federal minister, we have not asked for $950,000 a year. What we have asked for is that over the initial three-year period, we should set aside $300,000 a year to do the necessary inventory work in all of the lakes in the Yukon. And after three years, when we have done the inventory, that cost will drop off the fishery responsibility.

The Member raises an interesting question about the transfer notion, as it relates to the Meech Lake Accord, which is a constitutional accord struck between the federal Crown and the provincial Crowns. This issue of constitutional authority or transfer of jurisdiction from Ottawa to the Yukon was never on the table, and the federal government would not even entertain any notion of discussing those responsibilities. In essence, all they are saying to us in the negotiations is management: “All we are going to give to you, the Yukon government, is administrative responsibility and management.” The constitutional authority, the authority to make law will still rest in Ottawa — they still will control that. That is a fundamental position of theirs. So it would follow that regulation of placer mining, where there is conflict between fisheries and mining interests, will not be able to be resolved, even if we did just take management and administrative responsibilities. This is because it is the federal fisheries act that is used by the fisheries department — I believe it is Section 31, the Leader of the Official Opposition would know that section — and it is what the fisheries people rely on for their legislative authority to block the placer miners in terms of where there is a conflict with fisheries.

In summation those are some of the points I would like to clarify. I notice the Member for Kluane took some personal shots, as he had the opportunity, and I would not rebut or rejoin him in that sense because I do not think he really means it. We will leave it at that.

On the negotiations themselves I completely agree with the sentiment as expressed in the Member’s motion that it is better managed here in the Yukon than it is ever going to be in Ottawa. The question in the negotiations is what we are attempting to do is get the best deal possible for the people of the Yukon in the fishery transfer. One has to look at the federal position. The Member says you have gone too high with the numbers you have produced, but I only look to my department to ask them — because they run wildlife programs on a daily basis — for advice as to what they think is necessary for us to run a fisheries branch through Renewable Resources. They produce those specific numbers. We are negotiable on those particular numbers. It is very difficult to negotiate when you go to the federal Minister and he says, “My bottom line is that you get what is in the Yukon, that is it, 1.6 person years, $55,000. We throw in one shot at $300,000.”

There is no room for negotiations on that particular score as the federal Minister has put the issue down. Then you have to look at what exactly Fisheries is doing. The federal government currently has responsibilities for freshwater fish management in the Yukon as well as salmon management for the species. As they do in the Northwest Territories. When you examine the operation in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon there is a vast difference. The Yukon operation is run out of the Pacific region which is located in Vancouver; the NWT operation is run out of Winnipeg, where Fisheries has that particular office set up. You look at what they are doing in the Yukon: we are getting $56,000, less than one person. In the NWT the budget for next year in freshwater fisheries — and these numbers were obtained by the Director of Wildlife as I asked him to call his counterpart in the NWT and get these numbers for me — for inventory of freshwater fisheries,  the federal government will be spending $600,000 in the next year alone. We asked for that in the Yukon for a two-year period and we cannot get it.

In the next year for O & M for their operation of freshwater fisheries in the NWT they are spending half a million dollars. Ten times the amount they are spending here in the Yukon.

So fundamentally there is an unfair attitude that exists within the Department of Fisheries as it views its operations within the NWT and the Yukon, and one has to wonder why we are treated so unfairly when compared to our neighbours across the Mackenzie Mountains.

I think that it is clear, and everyone of us in this House recognizes this, that there is a real problem with the federal government’s operation on the freshwater fisheries issue.

I think that we are unanimous in that particular sentiment, and I think the people of the Yukon are. I have talked to a number of people in the communities, a number of people in specific interest-oriented groups, and I have not seen anyone who would take the position that, over the long term, there should be continued federal responsibility. There has to be something on the table that we can accept, that we can say is beneficial to the people of the Yukon. I will not accept the current position of the federal government. I invite comment from the side opposite on that particular proposal. I have heard them on our proposal. They are saying what we are advocating is simply too much, it is a Cadillac system. Are they suggesting that we take a broken down bicycle system and try to run a fishery on a non-existent program in the Yukon?

From my perspective, that is what is being put on the table. Are they advising me to accept what the federal government has put on the table? I would like them to respond to this. I would like to hear those comments.

On the particulars, the motion that is before us, if you read it clearly, states that the Government of the Yukon, through my office, has basically shut the talks down. That has never occurred. We have not walked away from negotiations. We have not shut the talks down. As a matter of fact, the federal Minister of Fisheries was supposed to come to the Yukon on November 5 to meet with us. Unfortunately, as I have had it explained to me, because of a memorandum from the Prime Minister’s office on travel, the federal Minister of Fisheries had to cancel that meeting.

There is no intention on the part of this government to shut those talks down. I was just passed a note as we were sitting here that the federal Minister of Fisheries office now has put to us the idea of mid-January as a potential date for him to come to the Yukon to again begin these negotiations. That is a very important point of clarification with respect to the motion that we have on the floor of the House.

I repeat our position that we are prepared to negotiate. We are willing to accept a program that we deem is in the best interest of the people of the Yukon. We have not received any proposal at the negotiating table that I believe is fair to the people of the Yukon, and I will not accept any proposal until we see a position from the federal government that meets the basic needs of the Yukon.

I do not believe the people of the Yukon should be treated any differently than anybody else in Canada. I do not believe the people of the Yukon should be treated any differently from the people of the Northwest Territories. I think we should have a fair shot at resources that the Government of Canada makes available to all Canadians, and those resources should be given to the people of the Yukon on an equal basis — just as to they are given to any other Canadian in this country.

As well, earlier in his statement the Member asked the question, “What does the Minister of Renewable Resources intend to do by saying that now we are going to have to go out on our own?” What we are attempting to do is we are trying to continue a cooperative effort with the federal government. We are saying to the federal government: fine, if you do not want to enhance the fishery resource in the Yukon, if you want to continue to neglect the fishery in the Yukon, we feel that something should be done about it now.

For example, the other day the Member for Riverdale North came into my office and said: “Look, the Fish and Game Association is interested in putting forward signage on the highway system to indicate to the travelling public where there exists a fishery resource, where there are potential fishing sites.” I agreed to look at our programs, to look at the guidelines of our signage programs, and try to accommodate the request of the Fish and Game Association as represented by the Member for Riverdale North. Fundamentally, what we are talking about when we talk about a program that is unique to the Yukon is that we would like to look at potential alternatives in the government that the people of the Yukon can enjoy. For example, if we expand on the motion that the Fish and Game Association has put forward, I think one of the areas we should be looking at is developing fisheries from the perspective as to how it would enhance the tourism sector of our economy. Another way in which we could look at this issue — and the federal Minister of Fisheries has agreed at the previous meeting I had with him to assist me in this matter — is to try to look at a current economic development programs that the federal government operates that can be project-specific. In other words, if we want to do enhancement programs, they can be jointly done with the Fish and Game Association, ourselves, and, say, the Council for Yukon Indians. Then I think we have a responsibility to try to gain access to those programs and try to get the benefit of those programs set aside to assist the fishery development.

As well, the Member insinuated that if we are going to do any program funding, we are going to have to rob Renewable Resources’ programs. That is one of the arguments I have made on accepting a transfer that is not resourced adequately. If we take a responsibility from the federal government that has basically been gutted, if we want to deliver according to the demands of how the people in the Yukon have been living, we would have to steal from other programs. Basically, that is what we would have to do. In this instance, my position is — I am immune to the Member for Porter Creek East; it is like mosquitoes: if you get enough dope, they will not bite you, and I have built up an immunity system over the last four years so I cannot even hear a word he is saying — but — directing my comments to the Member for Kluane, on the question of funding — my proposal is that if there is going to be a program that is going to be funded by the Yukon Government the major source of that funding should be from licences revenue. I think the Member for Riverdale North would agree with the statement of fact that the Yukon’s licence revenues, the licence fee charges levied by the government, are some of the lowest in Canada. Five bucks is what we are talking about in terms of the fee for Canadians to be able to fish in the Yukon; in most areas other than the Yukon it is $15 or $20. What I am saying is that if we are going to expend revenue, that is one of the sources we would look at. It would take quite a bit of time to be able to change those fees because we would have to operate through the Department of Fisheries and put forward a request for regulatory change affecting the fee structure, and then it would go through the process. That is no change from the process as it exists anywhere else in this country. Regulations are held by the federal government. The provinces make recommendations for regulations and the federal government approves those regulations. Sometimes those regulatory changes can take in excess of a year to change.

We are willing to continue to cooperate with the federal government to try to look at programs and ideas that can enhance the fishery. We want to do this by talking to the people of the Yukon. We are willing to sit down with the Fish and Game Association, the Council for Yukon Indians and any other organization that would want to discuss this matter with us, and examine the various alternatives that can be open to this government to take a Yukon initiative to try to enhance the fishery resource that we are all in agreement with.

Because of the comments that I have made, I cannot accept the motion that was presented by the Member for Kluane. Out of deference to his record in the House and his real intentions in bringing forward this motion, I would not counsel our side to defeat the motion. I would rather look at an amendment to the motion that can satisfy what he wants to do, which is to put pressure on both governments to get the job done, but as well, to clarify the reality of the situation.

Amendment proposed

I move That Motion No. 3 be amended by deleting the following words: As a result of the action taken by the Minister of Renewable Resources to terminate negotiations with the federal government for the transfer of this valuable resource, and that Motion No. 3 be further amended by deleting the word these where it appears in the second clause of the motion and substituting, for it, the words freshwater fisheries transfer.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister of Renewable Resources that Motion No. 3 be amended by deleting the following words: As a result of the action taken by the Minister of Renewable Resources to terminate negotiations with the federal government for the transfer of this valuable resource and  That Motion No. 3 be further amended by deleting the word these where it appears in the second clause of the motion, and substituting for it the words freshwater fisheries transfer.

On the amendment.

Hon. Mr. Porter: If the motion is left intact as it is, it suggests that talks should terminate. I have produced evidence to this House that talks have not terminated. There are planned discussions between myself and Mr. Siddon in January. Further, the second amendment that was proposed would simply change these negotiations because there are no negotiations referred to; that we insert freshwater fisheries transfer, so that anyone who is reading the motion would understand what the intent of the motion is and what it addresses. These are amendments of clarification and are of a technical nature. I hope that they will receive consideration by the side opposite.

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

Hon. Mr. Porter: Division.

Speaker: Division has been called.

Mr. Clerk, would you kindly poll the House.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: Agree.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Porter: Agree.

Hon. Mrs. Joe: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: Agree.

Mr. Joe: Agree.

Ms. Kassi: Agree.

Mr. Webster: Agree.

Mr. Phelps: Agree.

Mr. Brewster: Agree.

Mr. Lang: Agree.

Mr. Nordling: Agree.

Mrs. Firth: Agree.

Mr. Phillips: Agree.

Mr. McLachlan: Agree.

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

Amendment agreed to

Mr. Phillips: I do not intend to speak for long, but this is a subject that in no way should belittle its importance. A great deal has already been said in a motion that was brought forth here in April 30, 1986. Those same arguments were heard again today.

I would like to thank the Member for Kluane for bringing this motion forward and bringing it back to this Legislature.

When this government came into power two-and-a-half years ago, it said the transfer of freshwater fisheries was a priority. I hope it does not treat all its priorities the way it has treated this one. The government has decided to stand firm with a pie-in-the-sky request for funding along with the transfer. It is becoming more clear every day that, in this political game, the only one who is suffering is our freshwater fishery resource itself. I believe in some areas far too much damage has already occurred. We all know that when it comes to fish and wildlife it takes a great deal of time to repair the damage. It certainly cannot be repaired overnight.

The Government of the Yukon must get back to the table today with a realistic proposal. They have a prime responsibility to protect the fishery resources of Yukon. This impasse is not all the fault of the Yukon government. As we know, it takes two to tango and, right now, it seems that the two governments are not even at the same dance.

The federal government has, for far too many years, almost totally ignored the freshwater fisheries in Yukon. Their officials have struggled with a bandaid approach and a shoestring budget. The federal Department of Fisheries in Ottawa has to bear most of the responsibility for the terrible state of our freshwater fisheries today.

I listened to a speech recently by the hon. Tom Siddon, the Minister of Fisheries, and he told the audience freshwater fisheries resource was, and still is, a very high priority of his government.

Today I would like to challenge the hon. Tom Siddon to put his money where his mouth is and get back to the table with a realistic offer. I would like to extend a similar challenge to our Minister of Renewable Resources and encourage him, in the strongest terms possible, to get serious and get back to the table as well. There must be  some room for these two governments to move. The freshwater fisheries resource loses ground every day that there is not an agreement. We can ill afford another year without any action. The Minister of Renewable Resources in the Yukon has recently changed the name of his department to the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and it is high time that he accepted a little more responsibility for the resource than just changing the name.

Mr. Phelps: I have listened with some interest to the debate thus far, as I did back in April of 1986 when a similar motion was before this House and passed unanimously. As I said back then, it is an issue of tremendous importance to the residents of Hootalinqua, because that is where the freshwater fisheries is for the most part. It takes in Fox Lake, Lake Laberge, Coghlan Lake, a large part of the Teslin River, Teslin Lake, Tagish Lake, Bennett Lake and Fish Lake to name a few. The mismanagement of freshwater fish in this jurisdiction is critical because, of course, all of these lakes are easily accessible by tourists because of the highway systems as they presently exist in the Yukon — also by all the residents of Whitehorse, many of whom have cabins on one or more of the lakes I have just named. Of course, as all Members of the House know, the best freshwater sports fishermen in the territory come from the Carcross-Tagish area, and that has been proven many, many times.

We have all acknowledged in the past the poor efforts that the feds have made to maintain this resource; it is absolutely deplorable. But I did have to listen with some interest to the speech of the Minister of Renewable Resources because he gave as a contrast the NWT where there is substantially more money being spent in O&M and inventory. However, that is probably because they have a huge commercial freshwater fisheries there, and we do not have that in the Yukon. In fact, in terms of netting fish for food and commercial sale as a freshwater resource, I do not think that that has ever been seen as a realistic, large scale resource of the future. I think most Yukoners agree that the best income to be realized in terms of using fish in a commercial way in the Yukon would be from sports fishing by guiding tourists and that sort of thing.

The vast freshwater resources of the NWT dwarf those of virtually every part of Canada, in Great Bear Lake, in Great Slave Lake and so on. The contrast does not do much for the debate in this House. It is just not a very realistic comparison. That is not to say that a lot more should not be spent here. A lot more should be spent here. A lot more undoubtedly should be spent in the NWT on freshwater fisheries by the federal government as well.

Our real basic concern here is the way in which negotiations seem to taking place. We are playing the labour negotiations game. It is not going to bear fruition. This government has a duty to come forward with a realistic, bottom-line position from which it will not budge. The position should be reasonable enough that it can be sold to the people of the Yukon Territory, and in particular, those most directly affected. It should be simply sold to the rest of the nation.

Playing the game that we are going to start at X and come down to here, they will start here and go to there does not work in those kinds of negotiations. A bottom line position is realistic and from which we will not budge is the way to go. I urge this government to come forward with the position that is not gamesmanship but is the real final position. If it is realistic, I am sure that all of us will find ways to work in concert and to sell the position.

We were asked for our comments about the federal position. It is simply not acceptable. I do not think there is a person on this side or a Yukoner who feels that it is. I would really like to see us go with something that is better, that does have some realism attached to it and that we can all sell as a bottom line position. We have done this before in other kinds of negotiations with the federal government. The COPE claim was a situation where we took a bottom line position right from at least three years before the final deal was signed. We sold it, and sold it and sold it, and we finally got it. This is another situation that bears the same kind of approach.

I am very pleased to support this motion of the hon. Member for Kluane. It is certainly true that next to Hootalinqua, that riding is perhaps the most important sports fishing area of the Yukon. I am sure that if there were a few experienced sports fishermen who resided in the Member’s constituency, they would probably come up with results as good as those that we have seen year after year from the Tagish-Carcross area.

Speaker: The hon. Member will now close debate if he now speaks. Does any other Member wish to be heard?

Mr. Brewster: This side is a good Conservative party, and Conservatives never agree with each other. I would also mention Kluane Lake, Tin Cup Lake, Dog Path Lake, Kathleen Lake, Dezadeash Lake, Nelson Lake and Martin Bates Lake, and that does not include all of the rivers. Undoubtedly, the Leader will give me a little punishment when we get out of here. That is alright because that is how we Conservatives live. The Minister of Renewable Resources mentioned that he likes our opinion on the motion. No bicycle. No Cadillac. If we can get a Ford in between, we will all be happy.

Maybe I owe the Minister an apology, when I read a statement he made. I am not a negotiator, but when you make the statement, “We will go back to our own funding source”, and this is heard by the other side that is trying to beat you out of money, I think that this is not very good negotiating. I am not too smart, but I do not think statements like that should be made. If you did not break off negotiations, then I apologize, but I do not statements like that should be made when you are dealing with Yukon money, and put the other side in a position of thinking they have got us, we can use our own money now, I just do not agree with that at all.

There is no such word in my dictionary as “can’t”, and there is no such word as “no.” If I have got to sit on the outside of the door, I will sit on the outside of the door, and I am quite prepared to stay there and stay there and stay there. You learn, as you get older in life, they can holler and scream at you all they want — but if you keep going back, they get tired. I found that out in this Legislature: if I keep coming back, most of the Ministers get tired and give me what I want. Sometimes it takes me four or five years, and I will probably have to stay here another four or five to get the other things I want, but I will be around to do it.

I agree with my leader, that you cannot compare us to the Northwest Territories because they do have many more, and larger, lakes than even Kluane has — although we do have the largest lake in the Yukon and that is something that my leader cannot deny. I am quite prepared to go with these amendments. We have agreed with them, and if this makes the Minister happy and solves some of his problems, I have no problem with it. My idea is simply to turn around and make it very plain that this Legislature is solidly behind it. We are fed up with what Ottawa does, and we want some of this stuff turned over to us, and we want it done just as fast as we can get it. And, right now you are the Minister, and you are the person in charge who can get this.

Motion agreed to as amended

Motion No. 20

Clerk: Item No. 2 standing in the name of Mr. Phelps.

Speaker: Is the hon. Member prepared to proceed with item 10?

Mr. Phelps: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Leader of the Official Opposition

THAT it is the opinion of this House that the Government should request the low bidder on the fire pump system in Carcross to hold his bid for a period of 15 days in order that government officials may properly consult with the Fire Department in Carcross; and

THAT if additional funds are required to provide this adequate, essential service, the government should consider dropping or delaying filling of one or more of the following government positions advertised in the Whitehorse Star, November 13, 1987, namely:

Manager, Student Services $40,166 - 52,232

Translator $1,457.41 - 1,690.62, bi-weekly

Program Coordinator $38,828 - 45,270

Supervisor, Highway Maintenance $32,717 - 37,900

Corrections officer $31,263 - 36,200

Traducteur/trice $1,457.41 - 1,690.62 bi-weekly

Mr. Phelps: I should have said in the motion, but I did not, that even if you just delay buying these new positions new desks, you would save enough to be able to afford an essential service to the community of Carcross.

By way of background on this important matter, fire has always been a concern of residents in the historic Town of Carcross; in fact, it is one of the older Yukon communities that was wiped out by a great fire back in the early 1900s. Several hotels burned at that time, as well as several residences, and the Caribou hotel, which unfortunately is not in business right now, was built after the great fire.

Many of the buildings in Carcross are old buildings that have been restored by government or by individuals, and many of the ones in the downtown area have sawdust as insulation between the walls and nothing else. They are frame buildings that would go in a flash if a fire was to start in a wind. I have said that the government has put money towards the restoration of a good many of these buildings, and it has. It has a stake in some of the businesses in Carcross and, of course, has been restoring the S.S. Tutshi, which could go up in flames rather quickly. The government has been restoring that vessel over the course of a good many summers.

In addition, the housing of the Indian Band has been increased and residential housing has been built, although we are now out of land, and we are at a bit of a standstill.

We have, at the present time and have had for some time, a fire truck that can deliver one load of water to a fire. That is adequate if it is a small fire and if it is caught immediately and there is not a strong wind and so on — a good number of ifs — for it to be adequate. But the Department of Community and Transportation Services realized that the fire truck by itself is not adequate. That truck has a pump that is carried with it in order to refill the fire truck, but of course the delay in refilling it could be critical.

The officials from that department went to Carcross and consulted with the fire department. They went around the village and looked on site for the best possible solution, which was to build a small pumphouse on the railway bridge so that there would be a pump in place with an insulated culvert down into the river so that instantly 500 gallons a minute would be available should a large fire occur. That facility was designed so that, once in place, it would be capable of pumping that kind of quantity of water in either direction — to the south side of Nares Lake where the original Indian village was, and to the north side where the S.S. Tutshi and the commercial and other residential part of town lies.

I think it is important that people realize that, with that facility in place, hoses could be kept on standby by the bridge, which could be unwound and cover most of the downtown area of Carcross almost immediately with a steady supply of water in addition to the fire truck.

The source would be in an area of town that is abandoned in the wintertime where a fire could start without anybody seeing it. Before anybody would observe it, it could be completely out of control. The fact that a lot of these old buildings, the hotel, the store, the depot, the S.S. Tutshi and some other buildings in that area are unoccupied and unused during the winter months is a very serious concern to the people of Carcross.

Very recently, in fact within the last ten days or so, there was a situation at the Post Office where somebody set fire to some bulletin board notices in the Post Office and very nearly started the building on fire. Had that not been caught or seen in time, it is quite likely that the whole downtown area, including all those historic buildings, would have been gone, and it certainly would not have been stopped with one fire truck load of water.

In any event, everybody agreed on what the best solution was. Last winter drawings had been prepared at a cost of some $20,000 using outside consultants. The project went to tender, and there were a bunch of bids at that time. The low bid was rejected. Shortly after that, on January 14, I came forward with a motion in this House, which is reported in Hansard on January 14, 1987 at pages 459 and 460.

The government had estimated $93,000, — at least that was the information given to me — and the lowest bid was $108,000. It is interesting that at that time the Minister disagreed with my figures and stated that the shortfall was really about $60,000. I want to once again quote him in the House because he said, “In the past few months, it has become clear to us that the lowest bid was 50 percent higher — and  my information is not the Member for Hootalinqua’s information — than the engineer’s initial estimate. That resulted in the shortfall of approximately $60,000 on the project. That is not the sole reason for determining whether or not a system would be put into Carcross or into any small community, because safety is the significant factor to be considered within reasonable financial limits. Even with the discrepancy between the Member for Hootalinqua’s figures and mine, I think the reasonable limits would be met.”

That means to me — and I have read it many, many times — that even if there was a shortfall of $60,000 on the engineering department’s estimates then, nonetheless, because of the safety requirements and the need in Carcross, that it would be considered reasonable by the Minister.

The Minister went on to say that the reason for canceling the project in January of this year was not the bid. It was the fact that they were having a hard time putting together a deal with White Pass for the use of the railway bridge in Carcross.

What has happened is that, apparently very recently, they cleared up any problems with White Pass and put the pumphouse out for tender once again. Again, there were a number of outfits that bid on the project. This time, the low bid was higher — costs have gone up. Building costs have gone up, mechanical costs have gone up. The low bid now is some $122,000.

When it became apparent that the department may not accept the low bid and may not go with this project once again — it is a serious time of year because it is the winter time during which you have most fires in the Yukon — I tried to get in touch with the Minister. I was put on to people in his department on Friday the 13th. I always kind of pooh-poohed Friday the 13th as an unlucky day. In this case it was an unlucky day not only for me but for Carcross. That was the morning that they decided not to go with the project. I was told that they thought it should only have cost $85,000. Therefore, it would appear that the shortfall was $37,000, not $60,000, which was apparently okay to the Minister back in January — but not on Friday the 13th.

The officials in the department told me that the department had decided to go with plan number two. That was to have a trailer and a pump, and house it in a temporary kind of insulated shed, where the firehall is right now. They had not talked to anybody in the community about this. I immediately talked with the fire chief and the band, and they did not know anything about this. That was going to cost them $20,000 for a trailer and a pump, and approximately $20,000 for the shed, for a cost of $40,000. This much money for a band aid solution. I suppose they are saying, never mind the $30,000, now that it has cost us for outside consultants for design. It cost them $20,000 last year and another $10,000 this year and the $5,000 or so it cost them to put this thing out to tender. It is a waste of money. Never mind that it is a band aid solution. It is how we are going to go without even consulting with the people in Carcross.

On Monday there was some consultation by the department with the fire chief.  I talked to the fire chief after that on Tuesday morning. He was told this trailer was the way to go, but the department had no money in its budget and they would be lucky if they got the trailer and the shed. The other interesting fact that was put forward was that a good feature of the trailer and the pump in it, is that once Carcross got a permanent kind of solution for its fire problems it could be trucked off somewhere else.

What a contrast that is with the remarks made by the Minister in this House on January 14, 1987 when he said: “We do recognize the increased activity around the centre of town in terms of investment put into the town and into people’s homes and business. The S.S. Tutshi has been upgraded and it would be a true tragedy to see that vessel burn into oblivion because people did not have the foresight to provide proper fire fighting capabilities to the community. In so doing, the department had to ensure that a system was designed that was reliable and could withstand the test of time and weether in a sense that would provide a service in the winter months for many years to come. There is a significant capital investment that would have to be made in the community to ensure that would take place.”

What an aboutface. First of all, money is not the real problem. It is White Pass. Then when they come in with a low bid which is closer to their estimate than it was in the first place, they refuse it on the grounds of money alone. Secondly, rather than go with the system that would stand the test of time, they come in with a band aid solution — one of the “good” points in favour of that band aid solution is that they figure they can use it somewhere else.

The position the Minister is taking simply is not good enough for Carcross. This is a very serious situation. The idea that most of the town could be covered by hose, from the outlet of the pipe from the pump on the railway bridge, is a very important one. That is the way Whitehorse was protected for many, many years, from the Yukon River. I do not believe the trailer comes close to providing the same kind of protection for Carcross. I think, and I am confident in this, that it will not be satisfactory for the south side of Nares Lake, which is where the reserve is and a lot of old houses that could go up rather quickly in a fire. I really feel the department has underplayed the danger to the community, and perhaps underestimated the impact of a strong wind on a fire in late winter. I would wish that every serious-minded Member in this Legislative Assembly support this motion.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Where to begin? I actually enjoyed very much the speech by the Member for Hootalinqua in his presentation this afternoon. I think it was a fairly good rendition of what the situation has been. I would dispute, however, significantly some of the points he made. I will say this, and it may be one of the first times it has happened here: I certainly had every intention of coming into the Legislature this afternoon and voting the motion down for what I believed to be sound reasons. However, upon reflection, and after having listened to what I think are decent remarks and cogent arguments made by the Member for Hootalinqua, it would warrant a review. For that reason, I would be tempted to recommend to my caucus that the government actually vote positively for the motion. I would have to read it once again just to make sure I am not doing anything that would be unwarranted.

I do not think we are going to be canceling any job advertisements even if two of the jobs are one and the same — the translator and the French version of the same. That was obviously not intended to be serious in any case.

The point of the matter is that this government is very concerned about fire protection in Carcross and it was this government that initiated the activity to review the situation in the first place. We felt that a 1,200 gallon fire truck with some back-up — there is a water truck with 800 gallons and a holding tank of 5,000 gallons, which is standard equipment for the communities — was not good enough given the investment in that particular community.

What I will do, given the remarks that the Member read back to me that I made myself, given the remarks the Member has made, and given the arguments that have been put forward, I will be recommending that we support the motion.

Motion agreed to

Motion No. 19

Clerk: Item No. 3, standing in the name of Mr. McLachlan.

Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Member for Faro,

THAT it is the opinion of this House that parliamentary democracy in Yukon should be improved by providing television coverage of the proceedings of the Yukon Legislative Assembly on a more consistent and higher quality basis than is presently the case; and

THAT the Members’ Services Board investigate and report to the Assembly on the methods and costs of alternative means by which this goal might be attained.

Mr. McLachlan: In moving this motion I wanted to draw particular attention to all Members of the 26th Legislature and subsequent Legislatures, that we do have a golden opportunity to bring the workings of government closer to the people of the Yukon through the medium of television. At least as far as rural members are concerned, probably very few of our constituents have much idea of what goes on in these chambers. They may read from time to time of the debates in the Legislature, get them when the newspapers do reach them. They will sometimes hear short 30-second clips on the radio and will hear the news stories of the debate. How long all this remains with the constituents is anyone’s guess. Most, I am willing to wager, have very little concept of the inside of the Legislature. The mysteriousness is not quite so pronounced for those who live in Whitehorse. They may physically visit these chambers if so desired. But I believe it would all be made so much easier if there was a community channel that could carry the programming nightly.

We already have in existence a Parliamentary Broadcasting Society. We have the legally recognized framework for carrying on broadcasting from these chambers in the form of radio. It would take very little extra to include television broadcasting within this legal framework.

I believe that the quality of television coverage of Question Period could be upgraded considerably; obviously that is the case when it is not presently covered. But upgrading from the form of television coverage that most of us have been used to in the 26th Legislature is going to take some effort. For example, the present design of the Legislature and our House Rules allow for a television camera to be mounted at one end of the Assembly only. This is hardly conducive at times to flattering portrayals of Members. The best camera pictures are taken by what is known as in the industry as “straight-on shots”. Television coverage of Question Period has been provided solely by private enterprise. To upgrade the mechanism the hours of TV coverage will almost inevitably require expenditure of public funds. That is the only way it could be, for we cannot expect private enterprise to film and carry continual, uninterrupted coverage of Members in debate and it probably does not carry very high Nielsen ratings.

Members of this Legislature who have visited other legislatures in Canada are probably quite aware of the recent improvements made in the delivery of television services in provincial capitals. The television system in Regina is first-class. Queen’s Park has recently improved its coverage extensively when that Legislature was remodeled in 1986. There are some things that I believe this Legislature is ahead of the Northwest Territories in; television is not one of them. They have had a system for two years now. With the advent of home VCRs, Members can, for a small fee, videotape their sterling performances and send the tape to their constituents. I believe that could be far more exciting than the old-fashioned method of mailing out Hansard. The medium of television coverage will be able to record events for future posterity of which we only now have a memory. Important events such as: the swearing in of new governments; a visit by royalty to this Legislature; an identification of special guests in the VIP box. At present we have a permanent record of what was said in this Legislature — we have nothing of what was seen. Who knows, we may spawn a new era of television viewing in the Yukon with this move. When the Government Leader rises in the House to introduce the Capital Budget, we may have the greatest TV give-away game show the Yukon has ever seen.

If the Member from Kluane is ever able to engage in a conversation with a raven again, we may have a series that will rival Mutual of Omaha’s wildlife show. And when the day care debate heats up again — as it inevitably will — I am certain we will see a television shoot-out that will rival the Cagney and Lacey show.

For those who are unsure how all the television coverage would ever make it to our airwaves, let me remind Members that CRTC regulations make it mandatory that television stations carry a minimum percentage of Canadian content. We, the politicians, can provide that coverage, but we ask only that the local stations carry it in accordance with regulations. At a time when the government is developing an entirely new policy on broadcasting and communications in this territory, I think that it is timely that we give consideration to the advancement of television in the Legislature. I believe that it can raise the level of debate within this Legislature and move Yukon politics more in step with the 20th century and the video era. I am interested in the views of other Members. Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: For my personal point of view, it is bad enough having a Hansard to record all my grammatical errors. The prospect of having videos to record for all time the way I look, is too frightening to imagine. I have always considered myself extremely fortunate to live in the Yukon Territory and have the opportunity to practice politics in a pre-television political culture. That is my personal view. No doubt I shall not survive its introduction.

The mention was made of the Member who moved this motion of the present radio coverage of our proceedings. I daresay, either because the signal is so weak or the debate so undiverting, that I had almost forgotten that we had radio coverage. I have certainly never, in my time in this House, ever heard anyone except one particular citizen ever mention to me that he has ever heard it. I may be dead wrong, and there may be thousands of people out there turning to their radios every afternoon to listen to our debate. I would be very pleased to hear from them, because I have not heard from them so far.

I must deal with the motion not in terms of my own interest but in terms of the interest of the House and in terms of the interests of our democracy. In that connection, I want to respond to the suggestion from the Member opposite that bringing television into the House would improve the quality of debate and the decorum of the House. The experience everywhere is exactly the opposite. I would refer Members to a recent article in McLean’s by George Baine which made the very convincing case that television has turned the Question Period in the national Parliament into a total sham. Even though I am an unashamed supporter of one of the Opposition parties in the House of Commons, I believe the Question Period is no longer a question period at all, but some kind of glorified parliamentary gong show, and completely defeats the original purpose of Question Period — which was to ask questions of Ministers about policy and to receive policy response. It is now regarded as some kind of political gladitorial sport, played out for the entertainment of citizens across the country. I use the word entertainment advisedly, because it is not a forum for providing information, which is what it was originally intended to do.

I would think there are plenty of observers who would also say with conviction that the introduction of television into the Congress of the United States has caused debate into that body to deteriorate considerably. It is such that members now get up and pontificate entirely for the cameras, entirely to use up time, and entirely to make political points — not to have a reasoned debate and exchange of views, as was the original purpose of Parliament.

There is a further entirely unfortunate development in the House of Commons that is the result of television. People now feel obliged to wear red ties and pin-striped suits, get their teeth capped and have their hair blow-dried, or whatever it is they do. I find that frankly appalling, and the idea that one day — on the basis that they look good on television — we elect a Parliament full of blow-dried airheads, is something that I find slightly frightening. If we are going to have a day and an age when people get elected on the basis of how they look and how they sound, rather than on the basis of what comes out of their mouths, I think that would be very unfortunate.

Having said all that, if we are going to seriously contemplate this, I think we should take a look at some of the experiences elsewhere in the country. I remember when television came in Alberta. I remember going to that Legislature and being surprised that there was only one television camera angle, and that pointed at the government front bench. I think the Opposition only got the backs of their heads on television. I think that would be an objectionable arrangement to Members here.

The model of the electronic Hansard in the House of Commons is probably, if we are going to have television, not a bad standard. It means that when Members are speaking, the camera is only on them. Apart from the silliness of people packing the benches immediately behind the person who speaks in order to pretend the House is full when it never is, except during Question Period, that system works quite well. There cannot be reaction shots. There can only be closeups or medium shots. We only see shots of the Members speaking, the Speaker, and occasionally a wide angle shot of the whole House.

That is the way it ought to be done, if it is done. That means that the rules under which television operates in the House have to be very clearly laid down by the House and by no one else. I can imagine nothing more irritating than having bright lights in one’s face while one is trying to make a point or answer questions. Question Period is close enough to a third degree without having some shining lights in one’s face. That would be unfortunate. Members should not have camera crews and technicians wandering around on the floor of the House. We should not be tripping over cables. We should not have to suffer that interference during our debate.

However, the notion that the Member put, which is not embodied in his main motion, the suggestion that this should all be done with public funds, is one that we need to consider very carefully. There are, I do not doubt, many things that Members on all side of this House would propose for expenditures from the public purse before they would have us spend the large sum of money that would be involved to provide gavel to gavel television coverage of this House throughout the territory.

Notwithstanding my personal views, I recognize that television is here to stay. This House will have to deal with that reality. There are many people who do not read newspapers or books anymore. They depend on television for their news and their information. Our party will support the reference of this subject to the Committee that is proposed in the motion. I would caution Members about thinking that the matter of the money associated with this idea can be dealt with easily or quickly. I do not think that it can.

Mr. Brewster: For a change, I have to agree with the Government Leader. He talked about people having their hair done. In the professional hockey leagues, they have contracts that state that they have to have their hair permed or waved so often, and they get extra pay for that. I wonder if the Government Leader would be willing to let that be included too. I would have a problem with that.

I really do not know what we did to the Member for Faro. He wants us all to get booted out and not get elected next election. He certainly got the answer. What goes on here would put all of us in the poorhouse, and we would all be out of here in very short time.

Mr. Lang: The question of cost has to be looked at very carefully. There is a fear being expressed by some Members of this House of television. Although up to now during this session we have not had television, we have in the past had television in these chambers. I have not seen any blowdryers being used by Members. Perhaps, in some cases, they should be used. It is important to recognize that this Legislative Assembly was the first assembly in Canada to permit television in its chambers.

That’s an historical fact, although I believe the Alberta tries to claim that honour for themselves. I think people should realize that the number of people who do have access to the TV, in Whitehorse in particular, watch it. I am surprised at the number of people who comment that they have watched Question Period on TV. The same, unlike what the Government Leader has said, applies to the radio; there are quite a number of people who listen to it as well. I agree with the Government Leader on the use of telecommunications becoming used by the general public so much that people are starting to get to the point that they do not read the newspapers. I think we have a duty to review what we can with respect to this issue and report back to the House. At that stage, a decision can be made. So I, for one, support this resolution.

Speaker: The hon. Member will close debate if he now speaks. Does any other Member wish to be heard?

Mr. McLachlan: I have a couple of remarks in conclusion. In response to some of the points raised by the Government Leader, rules can be written; there is no question of that. There are on