back

Whitehorse, Yukon

Wednesday, January 6, 1988 - 1:30 p.m.

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

Prayers

DAILY ROUTINE

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

Introduction of visitors? Are there any Returns of Documents for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I have for tabling the Annual Report of the Fire Marshall’s Office of the Department of Community and Transportation Services for 1986 and a Legislative Return regarding activity by the Yukon Housing Corporation in house purchasing in Whitehorse.

Speaker: Are there any further Documents for Tabling?

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?

Are there any Statements by Ministers?

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Federal Tax Reform: Yukon Concerns

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I am sure that Members are aware that the federal government has recently announced its new tax reform proposals, and I am sure Members also know that these new initiatives will have an immediate impact on many Yukoners.

In order to ensure that the Federal Minister of Finance was aware of the position of Yukon, an active role was taken in the consultation process leading up to the development of these new tax proposals, both at an official and a ministerial level.

In addition, in September of 1987, I appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs of the House of Commons and advised them that there was concern that the Yukon might be affected adversely if some of the proposed reforms were instituted. In particular, we were concerned about the possible changes to flow through shares and the proposals for a telecommunications tax and a national sales tax.

The House Committee’s response to our position on the proposed telecommunications tax was favourable and it recommended that the tax on long distance calls in the Yukon be capped at three dollars per month. We were naturally disappointed that the federal government did not see fit to accept the Committee’s recommendation in this area and we maintain our opposition to the concept of a blanket ten percent tax. It is this government’s belief that this tax will be a special hardship to those living in remote communities where the telephone is a lifeline.

We are pleased that the federal government has addressed our concerns about the effect of a national sales tax on the North and has decided that basic groceries as well as medical/pharmaceutical necessities will not be subject to this tax. Considering the high price of groceries in the Yukon, their inclusion would have placed an inequitable burden on our northern taxpayers.

We are not pleased that the federal government did not accede to our request not to amend the provisions relating to flow through shares. I explained to the Committee our concern that such an initiative would reduce the incentives for investment in our mining sector and it recognized the vulnerability of the Yukon economy in its recommendations that the proposed phasing out of earned depletion be deferred for a further period of six months and that tax incentives and that government subsidies should be used to ensure the survival of exploration activities in Canada during periods of depressed prices or economic downturns.

The federal government’s position at this time is that flow through shares should be retained although an adjustment in valuation will be made which would have the effect of making them less attractive to investors. Although we are pleased that flow through shares will be retained, we do not feel that the proposed amendment is beneficial and we will continue to press this point with the federal government.

Although the Government of Yukon supports the principle of tax reform and is pleased to see that some progress has been made, we take the position that much still needs to be done. We are especially concerned by the fact that tax revenues in Canada continue to be raised primarily from low and middle income individuals through the combined devices of personal income tax and sales taxes on commodities. Until such time as a truly progressive, equitable taxation system is implemented in Canada, one which ensures that corporations and high income individuals contribute their fair share to government revenues, the policy of this government is that tax reform is merely work in progress and that a lot more will have to be done before it is anywhere near complete.

Mr. Nordling: I am pleased that the Government Leader has brought this statement of government policy to the attention of this House and to the public of the Yukon. We, on this side, have long been on the record with our concerns on the three areas, the tax on long distance calls, the national sales tax, if it applied to basic groceries, and amendments to the flow through share provisions.

We were very concerned about the ten percent tax on long distance calls as it will impose a more severe impact on Yukoners than on other Canadians, and my colleague, the Member for Porter Creek East, as communications critic, has written to the federal government, the Minister of Finance, with a copy to the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, expressing this concern, and we will continue to press our concern.

We would like to join with the Government Leader in congratulating the federal government for its decision not to apply a federal sales tax to basic groceries or medical and pharmaceutical necessities. In that respect I think most of the concern and fear in Yukon was created by the NDP in the federal by-election campaign. If, as it appears in this ministerial statement, the Government Leader is claiming credit for the fact that the tax will not apply to groceries then he is just knocking down the straw man that he helped to build.

With respect to flow through shares, it was this side that introduced the motion in this House on January 8, 1987, suggesting that this government should urge the federal government to retain the existing flow through share tax incentive program that is of great benefit to the Yukon mining industry.

In conclusion, we would like to congratulate the federal government for undertaking a tax reform program that will result in middle income Canadians having more money in their pockets.

Mr. McLachlan: I am particularly pleased to see that the flow through share issue has been retained by the federal government, although not at a 133 percent of deduction or at 100 percent. It is, no doubt, responsible for a lot of increased mineral activity near my riding and in Mr. Speaker’s riding, and is no doubt contributing to the Yukon’s economic recovery.

With respect to the tax on groceries and foodstuffs, nothing can be more disdainable than taxing a basic necessity like food. I am pleased to see that it will not be implemented. As for the telecommunications tax, although somewhat questionable, I am still glad to see it reduced from ten percent to a maximum cap of $3.00. I still question the applicability of it at all in that area.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I want to thank the Members opposite for their largely constructive interventions on this important matter. I would point out that the question of the telecommunications tax is more important in the north than it is anywhere else in the country, and I think that is recognized on all sides. I would want to say to the Member for Porter Creek West that this party and this government neither created the fears about the tax on food, nor settled them. The responsibility for both ends of that discussion lie in Ottawa.

The flow through shares provision is a very important one. Notwithstanding our efforts in this House, it has been the single most important factor in terms of the exploration that has gone on in Yukon this past season, particularly. I am told by most of the principals of the mining companies now operating here that it will have a very serious impact on their plans in coming years.

Speaker: This then brings us to the Question Period.

Question re: Northwestel sale

Mr. Phelps: I have some questions with regard to the privatization of Northwestel. Yesterday in Question Period I raised this issue and it was apparent that this government had had discussions with a group of northerners who came forward with a press release yesterday and who the Leader refers to as the Hougen group. Yesterday, the Inuvialuit Development Corporation were down here by invitation of this government to discuss the privatization of Northwestel with this government and its Development Corporation. This government and its Development Corporation have had discussions with the government of the Northwest Territories with to regard to privatization.

What I would like to ask the Government Leader is whether this government - either itself, or through Yukon Development Corporation - is, in effect, double dealing with the Hougen group by preparing a rival bid in conjunction with other groups such as the Inuvialuit Development Corporation and the Government of the NWT to compete with the bid being prepared by the Hougen group. Is that the case?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: No. We demonstrated our interest in this matter because we wanted to protect the public interest of the people of the Yukon Territory in respect to telephone service, some months ago. I, personally, had discussions with some of the potential interests quite soon after we first heard the announcement of the privatization plan. I believe it may not be true that the meeting yesterday was at our invitation. I believe that the discussions may have been at the other party’s invitation. That does not matter terribly much. We initiated, I think, the discussion with Mr. Hougen, mindful, of course, and cautious about the fact that I believe Mr. Hougen is still on the board of Northwestel and we think we have to be somewhat prudent about his position and somewhat cautious about his position in that respect.

Our interest, as I told the House yesterday, is in trying in to seriously discuss the possibility of a genuinely northern group, a group that would provide for control of this important public utility by the people in the areas it serves. That is a possibility which we were exploring in my one meeting with Mr. Hougen, and in the one meeting that I have had with the Inuvialuit Development Corporation, and I would hope that when Mr. Hougen gets back from Hawaii that I will be able to have further discussions with him on the subject.

Mr. Phelps: I find it difficult to understand - and I would like an explanation - why this government is holding secret meetings that exclude the other group, which the public is now aware of, if it is not for the purpose of examining the possibility of merging with a rival bid for Northwestel.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: They are not secret meetings because following the meeting yesterday, the first thing that I insisted be done was that an official of Mr. Hougen’s group be briefed on the meeting that we had - on the existence of the meeting and the nature of the conversations. I gather from the questions here that he chose to brief others as well. That is fine since it is his business.

Rather than behaving in any way that does dishonour to us, we have been quite clear about our purposes - and we have immediately upon the meeting with Inuvialuit Development Corporation communicated to Mr. Hougen’s group that we had a meeting. Furthermore, after the meeting with Mr. Hougen, which IDC might have been concerned about, we communicated that to them.

Mr. Phelps: Has the Government of Yukon or its officials or the Yukon Development Corporation had meetings with the Yukon Indian Development Corporation regarding the privatization of Northwestel?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: We will be having meetings shortly with aboriginal interests in the Yukon Territory. To anticipate a further question, I have already have had two preliminary discussions with a representative of the employees. We have had discussions with the Government of the Northwest Territories at a number of levels. We are also very keen to continue discussions with representatives of the Yukon private sector, including Mr. Hougen.

Question re: Northwestel sale

Mr. Phelps: This is an area of great concern to us on this side for a number of reasons. First of all, the broad based private group that came forward yesterday has taken some pains to have objectives that meet the concerns as stated by the Government Leader. Secondly, we do not see what role the government has to take in terms of owning Northwestel.

We know that in December, 1987, Northwestel had 508 employees - 62 in BC, 307 in Yukon and 139 in the Northwest Territories? Yet, the Northwest Territories provide 50 percent of the revenue. If the two governments are major shareholders in conjunction with groups both here and in the Northwest Territories, how can we ensure that the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Northwest Territories group will not insist upon, at a political and a corporate level, that the head office will be in the Northwest Territories?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I have to respond both to the preamble and to the question. The Member talks about the broad based private group, which includes a telephone company owned by a southern provincial government. That does not seem to me to be a broad based northern private group, that is a group where potentially the controlling interest is held in southern telephone companies, one of them owned by a government.

Now it seems to be completely absurd and contradictory for the Member to suggest somehow that it is quite appropriate for a government of a province that does not even have any interest in this telephone company to be an owner, but it is highly inappropriate for a government in the north, which has a vital public interest, to play any role. That seems to be a patently absurd position.

Now that I have responded to the preamble, let me respond to his question about the jobs. I frankly think the possibility of protecting northern jobs is going to be enhanced considerably more by the involvement of two northern governments than it is by the involvement of two southern telephone companies.

Mr. Phelps: Once again we have the obvious situation here where the Government Leader and the side opposite are going to go out and dedicate themselves to socializing whatever private enterprise they can. The problem is this: now we have a good position where a primarily private and northern group has stated that they intend to defend. If the Government of the Northwest Territories is a major player along with this government...

Speaker: Order please, I would like to remind the Member of our guidelines. There is a one sentence preamble allowed in each case of supplementary questions.

Mr. Phelps: Of course, Mr. Speaker.

How can we fight the insistence of the Government of the Northwest Territories, as a major shareholder and player, that a larger percentage of the employees - which now are almost all here - be moved to the Northwest Territories.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: It seems to me that there is much greater likelihood of us being able to make an agreement with another northern government to protect a head office and northern and Yukon jobs, than there would be by some southern corporations that are beholden not at all to northerners, have no accountability, no responsibility whatever to northern residents.

Let me respond in another way. The Member talks about socializing a private corporation. Northwestel is a Crown corporation; it is a publicly owned corporation. It is being sold. This is a party that believes the public have an interest in protecting services, and jobs, and investments, and development when it comes to public utilities. This is not a party that is opposed to public ownership of public utilities. Nor, for that matter, are most Conservative parties in most provincial governments. This one may be an exception.

The model we are proposing - I am sorry the Member is embarrassed by the position he put himself in but I have to finish my answer - is one that involves a minority position for the Yukon and Northwest Territories governments as a concept, and it also involves involving all other northern major interests that can appropriately be involved including the private sector, so that we can guarantee not only that we have good telephone service but we can protect the jobs, we can protect the head office, and we can provide this community, and the community to the east of us, with the jobs, the development, and the economic prospects that are expected from involvement in this kind of business.

Speaker: Would the Member please conclude his answer?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: We can have no such guarantees from southern telephone companies.

Mr. Phelps: He is all over the map and did not answer the question. How can this government, with the Government of the Northwest Territories as a major owner, insist that the job ratio remain the same?

This group has undertaken to meet all the concerns expressed by the Government Leader just now in his tirade. This group has also undertaken to ensure that the company can be owned by northerners. All northerners can have a stake in it.

I am interested in whether the side opposite has any concern about ...

Speaker: Order, please. Would the Member please get to the supplementary question?

Mr. Phelps: ... whether the side opposite has any concern about being a major player in this corporation and, at the same time without a conflict of interest, fighting to ensure that the rates remain at a reasonable level. They have done that in the past. We have done that in the past. As a government, are they going to have a conflict of interest?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: This is quite wonderful in terms of its ironies. We have the Leader of the Official Opposition, a good Yukoner, defending the proposition that the control of our telephone company should go to a British Columbia company, an Alberta company and, what is worse, an Alberta company that is owned by the Government of Alberta, versus our proposal, which is the control should reside in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, a company for northerners, owned by northerners.

The Member opposite talks about rates. The contradiction is so obvious. What ability, if any, would we have to protect the consumers of the Yukon Territory when control of the company was held by non-resident southern telephone companies? Look what happened when Alberta owned Pacific Western Airlines. Look what happened to service in the north.

If we are involved, obviously one of our roles would be to protect the interests of Yukon consumers, and I believe that is part of the public interest as we define it, and I believe we can more appropriately do that than perhaps any other body I can think of in the Yukon Territory.

Question re: Northwestel sale

Mr. Phelps: Would the Government Leader please answer a simple question? A group of northerners came forward with their proposed shareholders. One of them is BC Tel, but a significant part of the operation is in northern BC, and that was the reason for that. The group has said it feels that Northwestel headquarters should remain in Whitehorse and control of the corporation should rest with northerners. Those are two of the main principles. Another one is that the company should be as widely held in the north as possible.

Is the Government Leader telling us and the people of the Yukon that he does not believe this group when it says that control of the corporation should rest with northerners and that is the principle upon which they are acting? Is he saying that is a lie? I would like to know.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: No. I am depending, of course, on that very reliable source of information, The Whitehorse Star, which was told, apparently yesterday, by Mr. Hougen’s representative, that 40 percent of the company - which would be a controlling interest, I expect, in a company of this size - would be held by two separate telephone companies. There may be an appropriate role for BC Tel. We have no problem with that. British Columbia is part of the service area of this company; we would be quite happy to be involved and work with them, and with Mr. Hougen. I have said that. We have reiterated that. How can the Leader of the Opposition justify any involvement by the Government of Alberta and oppose involvement by the Government of the Yukon is blatantly an absurd position. Absurd.

Question re: Watson Lake school committee elections

Mr. McLachlan: I have a question for the Minister of Justice in respect of a complaint that has been filed with the Human Rights Commission in regards to the school committee elections in Watson Lake. I want to ask the Minister, under the existing Human Rights Legislation, since when did losing an election become a basis for a complaint under the prohibitive grounds of discrimination?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: The question is absurd. It is not.

Mr. McLachlan: If it is absurd, why then, since the provision for dismissing complaints under frivolous and vexatious complaints was included in the legislation, would it not be dismissed immediately on that basis instead of undergoing an investigation, a trip to Watson Lake, et cetera, et cetera.

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: That is a decision for the Commission to make. It is my understanding of the facts of the matter that the complaint is not about winning or losing an election. It is about the manner in which the election was held, which is of course a different thing. In any event, it is not an investigation that is controlled by the government. In fact, it is an investigation of the government and the people to ask are the Commission itself.

Mr. McLachlan: On the same issue, I wish to ask the Minister of Education if his department is actively considering guaranteed representation on school committees based upon race, gender or something other than the current formula allows.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: The policy of the government on school committee representation is as it stands in the Act. Any changes to the Act that are proposed will be made available through the white paper process, which will be released in the spring. The situation that has occurred in Watson Lake has not provided the impetus to change the school committee composition at this time.

Question re: Lottery licensing act

Mr. Nordling: Yesterday the Minister of Justice attempted to explain the scheme and the regulations for setting fees and said, “The gamblers themselves should bear the legitimate costs, and that is the scheme that is in place now.” That is not the scheme that is in place now. Does the Minister agree that, as it stands right now, the charitable organizations will bear the costs?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: No. I do not agree with that. The philosophy or the policy in the regulations that were tabled here with the Bill is that the administrative costs of lotteries, bingos, casinos, et cetera would be borne by the people who are gambling. There would be a proportional fee based on the size of the lottery. Most of the lotteries are very small, and the fee should be very small. We have maintained that.

Mr. Nordling: Could the Minister tell me if when a raffle is held by a charitable organization, who does the Minister identify to be the gamblers?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: The people who buy the tickets.

Mr. Nordling: The people who buy the tickets are not paying the fees. Does the Minister feel that people who support these organizations by buying tickets should be punished through this tax that he is imposing on the organization.

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: It is my position that nobody should be punished at all. There is not and should not be a tax on this kind of activity that is carried out primarily by voluntary associations. The legitimate administrative costs should be paid for by the process, and the gamblers or the ticket purchasers ought to bear the costs.

Question re: Lottery licensing act

Mr. Brewster: Does the Minister of Justice not realize that the old arena in Haines Junction, the swimming pool, the curling club and the television dishes to provide extra television channels were all put into place by volunteer organizations. The Shakwak Valley Community Club raised money through raffles. Under these current regulations, with a ten percent surtax on such donations, it is highly unlikely that these facilities would ever have been built .

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: I realize the history of the involvement of lotteries in Yukon very well and I am also aware of the situation in other jurisdictions, and it is important that we keep our system clean here and administer it properly and effectively, for the benefit of the charitable groups involved.

Mr. Brewster: As usual, I never got a answer. I never do, I do not know why I bother wasting my time. To get these facilities in Haines Junction, three private hunts and other big prizes put up. I also resent the fact that we might be a little bit sleazy on this, because we are not.

My question to the Minister is: I would like to know why the Minister is trying to punish these volunteer groups and is attempting to destroy small communities and their spirit.

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: The government, of course, is attempting to do no such thing. The government supports the spirit of volunteerism and the raising money by charitable groups and intends to regulate it to their benefit.

Mr. Brewster: I guess I would support it too if I could put ten percent away, like the government is doing.

Would the Minister now reconsider his position, in view of these facts, and rescind the new regulations?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: The Sport Yukon body has specifically communicated with me and have asked specific questions about the interpretation of the regulations and have made information available that leads me to conduct a review of the whole situation and that is ongoing, in fact.

Question re: Lottery licensing act

Mrs. Firth: I have a question for the Minister of Justice regarding the lottery licensing act.

The representations made by the sports group and the question of interpretative questions with the regulations came from the Minister, I believe, not from the sports group. It was the Minister interpreting his own regulations.

This controversy over the lottery licensing act continues to grow and the future of many volunteer organizations - such as church groups and childrens’ athletics organizations, and seniors’ groups - is very questionable, and we heard that on the news this morning. The reason that it is questionable is because of this government’s unbearable regulation, their eagerness to impose laws on Yukoners, and taxes on Yukoners.

I would like to say to the Minister that if he is going to put it under review and if he supports community spirit and charitable organizations, why does he not prove it today and stand up and give all of these groups a commitment today - which is what they want, they want this - to repeal immediately the payment of the ten percent of the retail value of the prizes. Will he stand up and do that and prove that his intentions are good?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: The assertion about the interpretations that was made in the preamble of the question is totally wrong, and is irresponsible and completely unfounded. The question of the effect on practical situations - the effect is basically on five or six major lotteries in the Yukon. This is lotteries with substantial prizes. That question is being reviewed and that review is ongoing and I have assured Sports Yukon of that - yesterday, in fact. It is premature to announce any changes because the practical effect of all of these fees is still being considered.

Mrs. Firth: There is no commitment there. None whatsoever. The practical effect is obvious, and I cited yesterday the increase of the fees. I am going to ask the Minister again - these groups are asking to have the ten percent revenue that has been imposed on them - the tax on volunteers - removed. Is the Minister prepared to stand up and say yes they will remove that. That is what they are asking for.

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: That is repeating a question. I repeat the same answer.

Question re: Lottery licensing act

Mr. Lang: I want to pursue a little further the question of lotteries. I get the idea from the Minister’s answer that he is trying to implicate the whole Legislature in that they approved the regulations. I want to say for the record that we did not; the Cabinet has that responsibility. Over and above that, we spoke against it. We spoke against a number of things.

There was one question that I put on April Fool’s Day in 1987 to the Minister of Justice. It read as follows, “All I have asked is for the Minister to give us an assurance that it is not the intention of the government to levy a percentage tax on lotteries in view of this bill coming forward. That is all that we are asking. I would like a yes or a no, I do not want a big convoluted answer.”

Mr. Kimmerly’s response at that time, on April Fool’s Day in 1987, was as follows, “Yes, that is not our intention.” Can the Minister tell this House why he went ahead and imposed that particular percentage tax?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: There is no percentage tax. There is no tax at all. The wording of the regulations was tabled at that time and was available for all Members to see at that time. In the light of that information that was under discussion, I expressed a view that it is not the intention of the government to tax lotteries. That is not our intention. We are not doing that. The administrative costs of lotteries should be borne by the system. That principle was not objected to at all at the time. That is a legitimate principle even the charitable organizations are accepting. It is the way in which it is applied that is under review.

Mr. Lang: For the record, on April Fool’s Day, 1987, this side said in respect to lotteries regulations, and it was said by my good colleague, the Member for Riverdale North. He said: “....I have been involved in a great many volunteer organizations in the territory a great many times, you are talking about a percentage of the profit for the licence, the idea you were discussing earlier. What I am concerned about is some organizations who were terribly strapped for money may make a decision to hold one larger lottery instead of half-a-dozen smaller ones in one year. I think it would be a shame to penalize these people with the much larger fee if they make a larger profit....”

That was the position that was put forward from this side. Why does the Minister not come clean and tell the people of the territory and those organization directly affected, why he went ahead and put that percentage tax levy in place, in view of the position that was put forward by this side of the House?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: The lottery regulations as proposed were known to all Members at the time. The Member opposite is talking about a percentage of profit that is not in place. There is not a fee on the percentage of profit. There is a fee based on the size of the prize, which is not the same at all as profit. The profit is determined by the price of tickets and the number of tickets sold. The scheme of a rising fee was well known at the time.

Speaker: Order, please. Would the Member please conclude his answer.

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: It is the application of that which should be put into place to not work particular hardships. We are trying to do that.

Mr. Lang: It concerns me very much that the Minister stands in this House and tries to insinuate that Members of this House were responsible for the regulations. That really concerns me and I want to put a point on the record here. Back on April Fool’s Day, 1987, I asked the following question: “Is it safe to say that we are actually talking about, approximately, being conservative, $4,000 that you are going to need for the actual per diem for the board? Is that not correct?” And Mr. Kimmerly said yes. I put the view across at that time that perhaps the front bench could maybe stay in town and not take a couple of trips outside, using Canadian Airlines, and put that money towards the costs of the board.

Speaker: Order, please. One sentence preamble.

Mr. Lang: I put that view across, and the Minister at that time said, “I now have the Member’s view and I thank him for that.” Why did the Minister not see if he could get the money elsewhere as opposed to bringing this surtax in? It can be nothing but a tax to basically kill volunteer organizations.

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: There were two questions. One was essentially a statement that I am trying to insinuate that the regulations were brought in by the Legislature. I am not at all. I am simply making the statement that they were tabled and known at the time. In light of that, I answered specific questions and I was asked about the approximate $4,000 fee on the per diems for the board members, and I answered accurately - yes, that was accurate then and remains accurate on the per diems for the board members.

Question re: Office accommodation

Mr. Phillips: I have a question for the Minister of Government Services regarding the great 1987-88 space shuffle. Last night, during Committee of the Whole, I laid out at least ten major moves from one building to another of various government departments. Can the Minister confirm today that the total cost of this great government shuffle of 1987-88 will exceed $200,000 in relocation expenses alone?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: Not specifically. I do not have at my fingertips a specific figure of cost. In fact, yesterday I made a commitment to table the specific numbers for each move which has not already been tabled, and I again make the same commitment.

Mr. Phillips: I wonder then when the Minister is finding that information if he can tell us whether the renovations to be carried out with respect to this office shuffle have been done, or will be done, in house, or by contract?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: Yes.

Mr. Phillips: More and more people are coming to me and asking where various office departments are. The offices are moving so fast these days that no one can keep track. Can the Government Leader tell this House if all these moves to various government buildings in Whitehorse are to honour their campaign promises to decentralize government?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: No, I am sorry that our effort to house the public service and serve the public well and provide accessible accommodations for government employees is confusing the Member. It is not necessary nor sufficient for decentralization. We hope to be taking other initiatives to achieve that worthy end. I appreciate the Member’s support in the initiative.

Question re: Yukon Housing Corporation

Mr. Lang: When the announcement was made that the government was going to proceed with a $70 million housing program in the Yukon the Minister of Housing on December 10, 1986 stated the following, and I quote from the Whitehorse Star: “The new Yukon Housing Corporation will be lean and small and aggressive in its bid to more than quadruple subsidized housing stocks in the territory over the next five years.” Is that still the policy of the Minister and the government?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Given the task that the Government of the Yukon has provided to the Yukon Housing Corporation in order to meet the needs of the low income people in the territory, the policy of the government is to keep the Housing Corporation administration as lean and as effective as possible.

Mr. Lang: I cannot argue with the principle. I do have a problem with that being a policy of the government in view of the information that was provided to this House last night, in that it is the intention of the Yukon Housing Corporation to go from 2,100 square feet in 1986 to, I believe, well over 5,000 square feet. If the Corporation is to stay lean, mean and aggressive could the Minister explain to us why it is now necessary to more than double the space requirements for this lean, mean and tough Corporation?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: The answer is relatively obvious. When the government assumed responsibility for the Corporation it was not only lean but it was starving. The Corporation required office space in order to house its operations and do an effective job.

Mr. Lang: My information is that in 1986 the Housing Corporation had 18 person years. My understanding is that today the estimates are for 18 person years for the same lean, mean and aggressive Corporation. Could the Minister explain to this House why it is necessary, in view of the fact that the person years are the same as they were two years ago, to double the size of the administration from approximately 2,100 square feet to well over 5,000 or almost 6,000 square feet of office space requirements?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: When the government assumed responsibility for the Housing Corporation, many of the person years in the Corporation were not filled and, subsequently, space was not required for them. At the same time, the conditions in which they were housed were rather cramped. They were housed quite illegally, sandwiched in amongst the various persons in the Department of Community and Transportation Services. So, the task was large for the government. The answer was relatively simple. The government chose to do the legal and civilized thing and separate the Corporation from the Department of Community and Transportation Services and give the employees in the Yukon Housing Corporation adequate space to do a good job.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS

Mr. Lang: I move that, as a result of the discussion of the House Leaders, that the motions be called in the following order: Motion No. 26, Motion No. 28, Motion No. 23, Motion No. 27, Motion No. 24, Motion No. 5, Motion No. 6, Motion No. 21, Motion No. 15, and I ask for unanimous consent.

Some Members: Agreed.

Speaker: There is unanimous consent.

Motion No. 26

Clerk: Item No. 9, standing in the name of Mr. Phelps.

Speaker: Is the hon. Member prepared to proceed with item No. 9?

Mr. Phelps: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House that sections 3 and 4 of The Garage Solid Fuel Fired Appliances Regulations, O.I.C. 1987/39, made pursuant to the Building Standards Act, impose an excessive financial burden on Yukoners who wish to install a solid fuel fired appliance in a garage; and

THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to develop less rigorous and more reasonable regulations to govern the installation of solid fuel fired appliances in garages that will meet acceptable and appropriate safety standards.

Mr. Phelps: I am pleased to rise at this time in support of this motion, one which reflects the anger and frustration of a growing number Yukoners in regard to the red tape and unnecessary kinds of regulations that are emanating from this government and this Cabinet.

Of course, I am referring to the regulations cited in the motion and passed on the ninth day of February, last year. This is an Order-In-Council, a set of regulations that imposes ridiculous standards upon Yukoners who have garages and garages that are heated by solid fuels, primarily, of course, and almost exclusively, wood. It is a set of regulations that will have the effect of raising the insurance rates on numerous taxpayers, citizens of the Yukon, who own garages or businesses that have garages that have been relying for some time on wood heat. We have a whole number of reasons - and in this we are reflecting the views of a huge number of Yukoners - for opposing these regulations and insisting that the government develop less rigorous and more reasonable regulations in the of these.

I guess the first self-evident point, to anyone who has any knowledge at all about wood heat and construction, is that these regulations are prohibitively expensive for a person to comply with.

Look at the kind of burdens that these regulations impose upon Yukon citizens that have garages. Section 3 in the Act states that no one can install a solid fuel fired appliance - normally a wood stove or heater in a garage - unless it is installed in a service room. Then it goes on, 3(2): “A service room shall have a non-combustible floor and shall be separated from all other areas of the garage by a fire separation, having a fire resistance rating of no less than two hours.” Then 3(3): “A service room in which a solid fuel fire appliance is to be installed shall consist of the floor, walls, and a floor to ceiling system designed to prevent contaminated air from the garage from entering into the service room.” Then it goes on to say that there should be no openings in the floor, walls or ceiling between the service room and the garage, except for heating pipes, ducts, and chimneys. Then it goes on to say that all openings for ducts shall be located not less than eight feet above the floor of the service room. Then it goes on to say that all hot air and return air ducts shall terminate at least eight feet above the garage floor.

A door to the service room has to be from the outside of the building and not from within the garage space. That is in these regulations, too. There is a prohibitive capital cost that is being put upon Yukoners in order to comply with these regulations. The actual creation of this fireproof separate room with duct work eight feet above the floor is terribly expensive and is beyond the means of many Yukoners that I have spoken to over the last number of weeks.

The second point that I would like to make is that these regulations make the use of wood heat cost prohibitive. Not only is it so expensive to create this separate room in accordance with the regulations that I have already read, but it makes the wood heater virtually inefficient. A person would be foolish to try to comply with these rules and use wood heat when there are other methods of heat available in the Yukon. Many Yukoners have looked at this and have just shook their heads and said that they would not bother with wood heat in a garage with these kinds of regulations.

The third point is one that leaps to the minds of virtually every person who has had a chance to look at these regulations, and many, many Yukoners have. It is a silly regulation because for some reason this government wants to discriminate against wood heaters. If a person has oil heat in their garage, as many people do, there is a flame, and most oil burners - as in my place, and many like it - draw the air in from the room that is being heated. There is a flame there. Why is there this discrimination against wood heat, particularly when one considers the pledges made by this government to stop leakage to the south? This government has gone to considerable expense to encourage people to use the renewable resource for heating, namely wood. Why do they then discriminate against wood in favour of an oil heater when an oil heater has the same potential for an explosion in a garage as a wood heater?

I am not making this up, and it is not something that was lost on the people who read the regulations. These are arguments that have been put forth by engineers, by business people and by long time Yukoners who have lived with wood heat for years and years and years.

The fourth point raised by many is that there is no history of wood stove fires despite the fact that there are all kinds of garages that are heated by wood stoves throughout the Yukon.

Why suddenly come forward with these Big Brother regulations? The outrage of virtually everyone approached who looks at the regulations was well expressed by a letter to the Minister dated November 17 from a Mr. R.B. Cameron, a long time Yukoner. I will briefly quote from that letter.

“Most of us know the dangers of allowing combustible fumes, liquids or solids to come in contact of an open flame, just as we are aware of countless other hazards: sticking your hand against the blade of a power saw, jamming your finger in a light socket, or running a combustion engine in a closed room. So, what is the purpose of a new regulation? To prevent stupid people from blowing themselves up? If you are attempting to protect people from their own stupidity, then should you not also legislate that no garages should be enclosed, lest people asphyxiate themselves, and no private work shop should have power tools, lest somebody cuts his hand off? What about gas barbecues? They, too, have their dangers if mishandled. Should they not be outlawed?

“My point is that you should not attempt to insulate people from their own stupidity or lack of common sense with regulation such as this. We are already practically regulated to death, with three levels of government constantly imposing more and more restrictions on our daily lives. Any sensible person can operate a wood stove perfectly safely in a garage or workshop, exercising the same kind of common sense precautions needed when working with any potentially hazardous machine or situation.” The tone of this letter reflects the feelings of many Yukoners, once they have become aware of these regulations.

As the Minister for Community and Transportation Services is well aware, I attended a meeting at the Golden Horn Subdivision on a separate issue. The meeting was called to deal with zoning problems and regulations proposed in the Golden Horn Subdivision area. That was held on the evening of December 7. Twenty-two people at that meeting signed a hastily drawn up petition that one of the people there drew up opposing these regulations. It was something that was brought up by one of the residents out there. So, on December 8, I sent a letter to the Minister, enclosing the petition signed by 22 people. Virtually no one there looked at all favourably upon these regulations.

Since then, petitions have been circulating around the Yukon and the people who are asking people to sign this petition have been saying that virtually no one, or very few people - less than one percent - asked to sign the petition have refused to sign it. I have received a large number of petitions and am told that there are a lot more out and a lot more to come, but because this is the last opportunity for us to bring our motions forward, I will present the petitions that I have received. As, and if, I receive petitions from outlying areas, I will forward them to the Minister as I receive them.

I have here now with me a petition holding an additional 68 names from people who live in the Hootalinqua area. The petition is to Piers McDonald and it reads: “Re: Order-in-Council 1987/391 - Building Standards Act Petition. The undersigned hereby petition to have this Order-in-Council dealing with garage wood stoves repealed.” So that is one set of petitions that I have received. Along with the other 68 from Hootalinqua, this brings the total to 90 from my riding that I have received and forwarded so far. I would ask that these be tabled.

Today, I also received some more petitions from Dawson. In this case the total that I now want to table are 95 signatures from residents in the Klondike riding.

I think it is very clear that people in the Yukon are fed up with rules, regulations and red tape. We know that this set of regulations has already had an impact on insurance rates for a number of people who have been paying rates at one level and are now facing an increase because of these regulations. That is only one of the problems that I have already stated. It is certainly a set of regulations that has put wood heat in workshops and garages beyond the means of many Yukoners, and made wood heat an impractical heating alternative for Yukoners who are now building shops or are planning to build shops in the future. I would state that the motion, as worded, is reasonable. It is intended to be reasonable; it is intended to reflect the views of all these people. I would urge each and every Member to support the motion, and I would urge the government, in a gesture of goodwill, to do something to ameliorate the situation.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I am pleased to speak to this item brought forward today with respect to the insulation of woodstoves in garages, and I will respond primarily to the character of the wording of the motion rather than the innuendo in the speech, because I found that rather unfortunate. I will say, too, that as Minister I have been giving this matter some considerable thought for a couple of months now as to what could be done to make the safety rules that we have put in place more accommodating to the people who wish to have woodstoves in private garages.

As I said, I have already given it considerable thought, and I have actually decided to make a move on this matter, though I must say - and I will make it clear -  not for the reasons that the Member for Hootalinqua has brought forward. I found many of those reasons disturbing, and I will just explain why.

One of the reasons the Member raised for softening or eliminating the regulation is to ensure that insurance rates do not increase. As I will explain in a few moments, insurance companies are shy about insuring something that is considered across this country to be unsafe. So, rather than a matter of worrying about whether or not insurance rates are going increase, in fact we were concerned that people would not be getting any insurance at all if we were simply to permit unsafe conditions to continue. The Member made the allegation as well that the government had intentionally decided to make the use of wood heat cost prohibitive and that the government intentionally wanted to discriminate against wood heaters and, to prove his point, there was no discrimination against oil heaters. That is, in fact, not the case. The government is not discriminating against people who heat with wood. It is the case that the current National Building Code does refer to oil fired furnaces and explicitly prohibits the use of oil fired furnaces. They are silent, unfortunately, in some respects, on the use of wood heaters because it has never been an issue for the nation as a whole which would allow it to come to the attention of the designers of the National Building Code.

The National Building Code does make explicit reference to oil fired furnaces because of the concern about the open flame. The Member makes the spurious point that the fact that has never been, in recent history, a wood stove fire, is in itself sufficient justification for not trying to ensure that safe conditions will exist, when the expert opinion is reasonably sure that unsafe conditions and an unsafe environment exist. So, basically, the premise, the bottom line of that position is that, presumably, a fire must happen first, accidents should happen first, and perhaps a death should take place first before the Legislature should take notice of this particular situation. I do not think that is right and I do not think that that is responsible, and that is not the way this Legislature has acted in the past with respect to making reasonable rules and regulations about what is safe and not safe for building construction standards. That is not the rule in this Legislature; that has not been past practice.

The Member also made a point inappropriately. I would like the Member to think the point he made through a little bit. The Member read from a letter from a person who suggested that it was wrong to save people from - as he puts it - their own stupidity. He does not use the word ignorance; he uses the word stupidity. This gentleman obviously presumes that all people are not only aware of safe and unsafe conditions, in great detail, but, through their own conscious actions are going to ignore safe practices.

I believe the point of the matter is that safety standards - Canadian Standards Association standards - are put in place to save people from their own ignorance, and many of us are ignorant about many things. The Member referred to gas barbecues, and I recall looking at my own gas barbecue and looking down at the tank and seeing a sticker on it: “CSA approved”. This is a gas barbecue whose construction has been regulated by the Canadian Standards Association, to save people like me who do not know the first thing about gas barbecue construction from our own ignorance, not our stupidity, but our own ignorance. The same is true in terms of many appliances that are common in people’s kitchens, the television set, the video recorder, wood stoves, wood stove construction.

The Canadian Standards Association does provide standards for people who construct these units to save the public from their ignorance. That is what, very often, the Legislature does when it passes rules on building standards, adopts building codes and makes reference to the Canadian Standards Association. We do this for a purpose. We do this to protect the consumer. Not every consumer has the experience of a fire marshall or a construction contractor combined. They do not all have that. For that reason, there are codes and guidelines. The point of the matter is to make them reasonable, and that is what I am going to respond to here. I am not going to respond to the rhetoric that the Member referred to in his words  “saving people from their own stupidity”.

I am trying to save the Member from his own stupidity. I have an innuendo about the concern on rules and regulations in Golden Horn. I would like to remind the Members who created those regulations that have to be improved.

The sole purpose of the regulations as conceived by the government was to save people’s lives, to ensure that unsafe conditions did not exist, and in essence to allow for the safe installation of wood stoves in what were considered to be dangerous environments.

One aspect of the regulations that the Member did not read out was the definition of “garage”. I realize that many people who have complained to me indicated that they signed a petition. They have said that the regulations are to prevent them from putting wood stoves in carpentry shops, upholstery shops or all shops. They use the word “garage” in the common sense of garage as a big area where people do almost anything.

The Member for Riverdale South says, “That is what it says with respect to garages”. That is not what it says with respect to garages. I will read the definition into the record to save the Member for Riverdale South from her ignorance as well. “Garage” means a building used to park, store or repair motor vehicles and includes single family dwelling, residential garages and aircraft hangars.

The point of the matter is that you have to be storing vehicles in the garage for it to be a garage for the purposes of these regulations. I will explain it for a moment.

The reason the government originally chose to provide for the safe installation of wood stoves was to allow wood stoves to be installed in an environment that was, by all accounts, unsafe.

The National Building Code is silent on wood stoves. The Canadian Standards Association is not silent on wood stoves. The Canadian Standards Association is rather explicit in preventing the use of wood stoves as space heaters.

The reason for the concern about wood stoves, and the reason why people are concerned that wood stoves might be more unsafe than oil fired furnaces, is that wood stoves have a couple of characteristics that are unique to wood stoves. First of all, it is an open flame that cannot be turned off like an oil fired furnace can be turned off. Secondly, they have the uncommon characteristic that, when the door is opened for stoking, the air hanging low to the ground where gaseous materials congregate is sucked into the open fire. The Member for Riverdale South finds this hysterical. The air is sucked into the open fire and there is an explosion. That is hysterically funny. We should all find this the most enjoyable experience.

Mrs. Firth: Point of Order.

Speaker: Point of Order to the Member for Whitehorse Riverdale South.

Mrs. Firth: It is the Minister whom I find hysterically funny. It is not the comment the Minister made.

Speaker: Order, please. I find there is no Point of Order. Does the Minister wish to continue?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: The Member for Riverdale South has been so incredibly rude in this Legislature, it is hard to countenance.

The reasons for showing concern in the first place about wood stoves was that they were considered to be very dangerous when combined in a place determined to be a dangerous environment, where combustible fluids are sharing the same air space. That is the general purpose of the regulation.

After having given this considerable thought over the last couple of months and listening to various people, the government and I have given thought to a variety of options to make the situation better for persons who wish to use wood stoves in their own garages, irrespective of whether or not there are motor vehicles stored for private purposes.

I thought of a number of things; the options were presented. There is the option of simply rescinding the regulation, completely. That is, in all good conscience, a situation that could leave unsafe conditions present, and is also a situation that would not prevent the fire marshall, under the Fire Prevention Act, from doing his duty when it came to determining whether or not there was, in all good conscience through expert opinion, a fire hazard in place.

There was the option of perhaps permitting the installation of the stove in the normal course of events but ignoring the environment completely. I believe that would have, essentially, the same consequences - permitting the installation of a woodstove under the Building Standards Act - as the first option.

There is the possibility of changing the Fire Prevention Act to force the fire marshall to ignore woodstoves, because there is a provision within which the fire marshall does have the discretion to order remedial action when he determines a situation to be unsafe or dangerous. There will always be unique cases where a fire marshall will require that discretion. That is the reason why it was put in the Fire Prevention Act in the first place, a long time ago.

There is also the option of changing the regulation. There is a good argument to make, and I am convinced of this after talking to a large number of people over the last couple of months that the government should review the regulation with respect to the use of woodstoves for all private family dwelling residential garages because there is low level activity, that there is less likelihood that dangerous conditions could exist in a situation like that, that there is recognition that it is very much part of the Yukon character to have wood space heaters in garages, that it is very much part of the rural character to have wood space heaters in garages and in various components of a person’s dwelling or group of buildings. In order to recognise that reality and the desirability of allowing wood heat to reasonably heat people’s dwellings, especially in situations where there is next to no or very low activity with respect to people working on motor vehicles, making use of combustible liquids, which could be considered dangerous, the government should amend the regulations to account for people in those circumstances.

What I would propose to do with respect to this motion is move an amendment.

Amendment proposed

I move: THAT Motion No. 26 be amended by deleting all the words after the expression “Building Standards Act” and substituting the following:

“may impose an undue financial burden on Yukon people who wish to install solid fuel fired appliance in a private residential garage, and

that this House urges the Government of Yukon to review the regulations to determine if alternative requirements could be adopted which would make it easier and less expensive to install wood stoves in private residential garages while still maintaining a satisfactory level of safety."

Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister of Community and Transportation Services: THAT Motion No. 26 be amended by deleting all the words after the expression “Building Standards Act” and substituting the following:

“may impose and undue financial burden on Yukon people who wish to install solid fuel fired appliance in a private residential garage, and

that this House urges the Government of Yukon  to review the regulations to determine if alternative requirements could be adopted which would make it easier and less expensive to install wood stoves in private residential garages while still maintaining a satisfactory level of safety."

Hon. Mr. McDonald: In this regard the government is going to request that a group of officials from the department, especially the fire marshall’s Office, the Federal Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, and the City of Whitehorse, who have expressed an interest in the matter, and the private sector, the Yukon Contractors Association, and hopefully the Yukon Homebuilders Association, to carry out a review of the  regulations. Basically, they would do a number of things: review the present minimum building code requirements; develop and assess options to the present regulational requirements; make recommendations as to what changes, if any, the government should consider making to the existing regulations as they apply to private residential garage wood stove installations.

With respect to this, I will make it clear once again that the garages we are referring to are the garages where the environment is considered unsafe due to the heavy concentration of combustible gases and where work on vehicles is the predominant activity. In those commercial operations only would the regulation apply.

It is the government’s intention that in respect to private residential garages to make the situation safe as much as possible, but also to recognize the historic need and desire of people in the Yukon to heat with wood, to provide space heaters in various components of their living quarters and their garages, irrespective of whether or not they have their vehicles stored there.

I believe this is a responsible course of action. I believe that it recognizes both safety requirements, for which this Legislature is charged with developing, and ensuring that those are done efficiently and effectively. It also recognizes  the very clear character, the will, of the vast majority of Yukoners who would like to see reasonable change. The government is prepared to affect that change to the extent that it maintains safe requirements and still allows space heating in garages.

Mr. Phillips: It is interesting to see, when we read the amendment, that after a grand speech by the Minister, telling us that people out there are ignorant - then he clearly says that he feels in his mind that private owners are not ignorant, but that the commercial garage owners are ignorant.

I would suggest to you and everyone in this House - especially in the outlying areas where most commercial garages are heated with wood stoves -that they are no doubt more aware of the hazards than the private individual is.

I fail to understand why these stringent regulations are required at all. This Big Brother government, with its love for bureaucracy and red tape, has come up with another cure for a disease that does not exist. The Minister has come to this House today and has not brought one shred of evidence supporting the need for such regulation. How many fires in the Yukon have been caused by wood stoves in garages, and why just wood stoves? Would not an oil-fired furnace be just as unsafe as a wood stove, or perhaps even more dangerous? Is the poor, unsuspecting public going to be subjected to even more regulation in the future?

On December 16, 1987, the CBC, on its Insight talk show, featured these regulations as a topic for discussion. From the members of the public who phoned in, there was one consistent message for the government, and that was to scrap the current regulations. Sixteen people called in and 16 people were opposed to these regulations. These people are backed up by a petition that I have for tabling today, which asks the government to repeal the current regulations. On my petition that I will be tabling today I have 482 names. If you add the number of names on that petition to the number of names that was presented by the Member for Hootalinqua, I think that you will find that you will have about 667 Yukoners, from every Yukon community, who have signed this petition.

I have been advised by the people who took the petition around that everyone who was approached to sign this petition did so eagerly and did it with purpose. At least three of the petitioners who have signed this are long time veteran firemen. I have not heard any Yukoners actually speak out in favour of these regulations, other than the officials who drafted them. The officials claim that those regulations align us with outside standards. Oh happy day. Are they also going to align our heating costs and our energy requirements with outside standards, as well? Is this in their bureaucratic bag of magic tricks?

I do not think so. Let us have some common sense. The fact is that we need regulations that are appropriate to Yukon conditions and not to outside conditions. We do not need outside bureaucrats telling us how to live in Yukon. We do not need Big Brother government trying to protect us from ourselves. Give Yukoners some credit for being able to think for themselves and protect themselves.

I am convinced that, one of these days, I am going to wake up and I will not be able to get out of bed, because this government will have brought in legislation requiring bed belts. The side opposite will be able to prove statistically that if people were not able to get up in the morning, they would be less likely to come to some kind of harm.

The City of Whitehorse is in the process of drafting a resolution, which they will take to the Association of Yukon Communities at the end of the month, which falls very closely in line - and they have similar concerns to the motion put before you today.

I would also suggest to all Members opposite, when they get copies of this petition - which they will - to look and read of the people who have signed this petition. They will find that they are all good, longstanding Yukoners who care - and many of them in the Members’ own ridings.

Enough is enough. The Minister can take these regulations and stick them in the nearest burner.

Accordingly, I propose an amendment to the amendment, which would read as follows:

THAT the amendment to Motion No. 26 be amended in line one by deleting everything after the first “that” and by adding “it is the opinion of this House that sections 3 and 4 of the Garage Solid Fuel Fired Appliances Regulations, O.I.C. 1987/39, made pursuant to the Building Standards Act, be repealed.”

Speaker’s Ruling

Speaker: Order, please. An annotation says that this subamendment cannot be accepted as a subamendment and cannot be moved if it proposes to leave out all the words that are proposed in the amendment. In such a case, the first amendment will be negatized.

Mr. Lang: On the Point of Order.

Speaker: Point of Order to the Member from Whitehorse Porter Creek East.

Mr. Lang: May we have a brief recess then in order to put an amendment in the proper order, in view of the importance of the issue.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: On the same Point of Order. There is yet another procedural problem with this amendment. It is not permissible for a subamendment to amend the principle of the previous amendment. It must be consistent with the principle of the previous amendment, and I do not believe that this subamendment is. Therefore, it is also out of order on that score. If it was to be redrafted, it would have to be consistent with the principle that is already on the floor.

If the Members wish to propose a different principle by way of an amendment, they have to defeat this amendment and substitute another one. That is procedurally correct.

Mr. Lang: On the same Point of Order. We are in a procedural dilemma here unless all Members want to sit here until two Wednesdays from now and debate the bill. We have the option to adjourn it. I disagree with the previous speaker. The question is regulations, and the next question is what do we do. Do we, as per the first motion, develop less rigorous ones or do we repeal it? The principle that is being discussed is one of regulations and what should be done with them. I do not buy that position put forward by the previous speaker.

Obviously, it was not sought from the Chair because it was not brought forward. It was brought forward because it was written in an improper manner. Is it possible, and it is not unorthodox, to ask for a brief recess to take some time to bring forward an amendment to the amendment?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: While a recess while we are on the floor of the House may not be technically in order, I believe that the House can, by my favourite rule, do anything by unanimous consent - almost anything - and that may be the acceptable procedure. In response to the last procedural point made by our colleague from the other side, Mr. Speaker, of course, is not obliged to rule an amendment out of order on all the grounds on which it is procedurally correct; he only needs to find one ground which is procedurally correct. My only representation - I was trying to be constructive and helpful - was that, to save us time, if it was out of order in one respect, I claim it is also out of order in another respect and I believe, in redrafting, that should be addressed as well. If a 20 minute recess is, by unanimous consent, acceptable to the House, I would so move.

Mr. Lang: I would agree, except I would amend that to make it ten minutes as opposed to 20 minutes.

Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for a recess?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: We seem to have a dispute about time. Let me suggest there may be a more effective way to do this, based on a comment of the Minister of Justice. Sometimes drafting of amendments like this, to get correct wording or mutually agreeable wording, can take more time than we have allocated for ourselves. May I suggest that, if we did take a recess now, we either not set a time limit; or I will make an alternate proposal that we return to this matter at seven-thirty tonight, which the House Leaders have already agreed to do, and proceed with the other motions that are on the table at this time. We have those two options. I believe we can do either by unanimous consent.

Mr. Lang: I prefer that we move back to this at seven-thirty this evening. That solves our dilemma, and we can get on with the business of the House.

Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to move back to this Motion No. 26 at seven-thirty?

Some Members: Agreed.

Speaker: Unanimous consent has been granted.

Motion No. 28

Clerk: Item No. 11, standing in the name of Mr. Phelps.

Speaker: Is the hon. Member prepared to proceed with item No. 11?

Mr. Phelps: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House that Yukoners residing in rural areas should receive equal treatment with regard to Government services and utility services; and

THAT this House urges Northwestel to adopt a policy that rural areas with more than 25 telephone subscribers be considered a “locale” for the purpose of establishing telephone rates so that they may receive equal treatment with rural areas currently established as “locales”.

Mr. Phelps: At stake here is the issue of parity or equity, or the principle that people in similar circumstances ought to receive equal treatment in terms of services - not only from government, but from monopoly situations such as Northwestel, which is under the jurisdiction at the present time of the Canadian Radio Television Telecommunications Commission.

I am convinced that no one in this House is going to disagree with the opening principle that Yukoners residing in rural areas should receive equal treatment with regard to government and utility services. In fact, I know it has been a past principle accepted by the Minister of Community and Transportation Services in the past during debate on several occasions.

What we have in Yukon is a situation where some areas at present have been accepted and treated as locales when it comes to determining the monthly rates that those rural areas will pay. Two that spring to mind immediately are Tagish and Carcross, where the monthly rates do not have any imposition of a mileage or distance or line charge.

On the other hand, there are localities that have just received improved cable service from the operating telephone company. One such area in my riding is the old Alaska Highway area west of town; another is the Takhini Hot Springs area. As Members here are aware, the telephone company is committed to improving the service by way of laying this cable operation as far as Shallow Bay, Mile 10.5 on the Mayo Road.

The obvious concern that we have is that in these areas there are groups of residences fairly closely spaced in terms of proximity to each other, areas that could be considered similar in all respects to rural areas that are now treated as locales. Yet, these people are facing huge monthly charges, based on their distance from the nearest telephone exchange, which, in the case of both the Alaska Highway South and the Mayo Road, is determined in quarter mile distances from the exchange located at the McPherson Subdivision area.

People in that area, along with many others in Yukon, have received less than adequate service from the telephone company, and the issue of the quality of service was one raised by me when I intervened on behalf of Yukoners before the Canadian Radio Television and Telecommunications Commission a year ago, January 13, 1987.

The arguments I expressed and the cases I brought to the attention of that Commission were also used in an intervention by the Government of Yukon, which intervention was directed at ensuring that there would not be exorbitant rate increases by the telephone company while the quality of service was less than adequate in many areas of Yukon.

The way to ensure that many of these areas receive adequate service is to lay the cable and give them the quality of service that is presently enjoyed in such places as Tagish and Carcross and other small communities in Yukon. It seems most unfair that with the improvement in the service comes a huge monthly cost. A business person in Shallow Bay wanting a private line service, in addition to all other costs, would be paying a monthly charge on the mileage portion of the fee to the telephone company of $34 a month. That seems unfair and exorbitant, given that people along the Mayo Road who already have telephones have already paid a lot of money for communications service.

It is felt that there are several areas along the Mayo Road that could be treated as a locale, given the intent of the motion before the House, where 25 or more subscribers would constitute a locale. A gentleman resident on the Mayo Road, John Obstfeld, has gone to a great deal of time and trouble to discuss the issue with constituents in that part of the riding and to deliver a brief to the CRTC. Together with a follow up letter, the brief was sent to the CRTC. I received a copy of it in December. A follow up letter was sent as well. I am not going to read from the brief and letter, but suffice it to say that he makes a very compelling case, not only about the unsatisfactory service that many residents are receiving from Northwestel, but that there is definitely a growing demand for adequate telephone service, and in fact he could see four distinct locales being established for the purpose of setting rates.

I am told this position has been made not only to CRTC but to officers in the Northwestel company. He has been working with them and with the director of communications in the Department of Community and Transportation Services. In any event, I think it only fair that I table these documents, one dated December 18, to Mr. LR Sherman, vice chairman of CRTC, and a follow up letter to the same vice chairman of CRTC dated December 28, 1987.

The issue is one of interest to not only me as the MLA for the area, but to the Yukon Progressive Conservative Party, which passed a resolution very similar to this motion at its convention held in November of 1987.

At this time, I am asking for support for a very basic principle. I am sure that all Members are sympathetic to the principle. I hope that this support would possibly result in a more fair and equitable distribution of telephone communication costs throughout Yukon. I ask all Members to join with me in voting for this motion.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: The Member for Hootalinqua can count on the support of Members on this side of the House for this particular motion. As he stated in his opening remarks, this government’s record with respect to the provision of equal and fair treatment to all rural persons in the territory stands for itself. My commitment as a Member of this Legislature toward that principle has been perhaps the one singular theme in my political career so far.

The body of the motion is to deal with the issue of Northwestel’s adoption of a policy that, as the Member explained, where there is 25 telephone subscribers or more they should be considered, for the purposes of establishing rates, as a locale.

As the Member made reference to in his remarks, the Director of Communications has had discussions with Northwestel recently regarding the locality rate policy. He was informed that current company policy does allow for certain rural areas to be designated as locality rate areas in establishing telephone rates where there are 25 people or more.

Unfortunately, the difficulty comes when one interprets what a locality is. That is always dealt with with great subjectivity, and that is the unfortunate issue at hand. The company’s policy is that there should be a minimum of 25 telephone subscribers and that there should be a relatively highly concentrated telephone development in the area. That is left up to subjective opinion.

The policy also states that there are good prospects for future telephone expansion. That is obviously very subjective. There should also be an up front payment of the installation charges for the total area to be included in the locality rate area. They are saying that if they are to make an area a locality, they want the capital installation costs to come to them up front.

That has fairly severe consequences for rural telephone users. That is something that the government ought to be pressing for Northwestel not only to explain in full detail but to justify in cases where the up front costs would be considerable.

In some respects, the capital installation costs for various types of equipment can be borne through the expanded Rural Electrification Program. It is the government’s preference to have the telephone company live up to its own responsibilities and provide the necessary infrastructure to improve telephone service to rural residents without government assistance.

The policy is one that is very objective. On the face of it, it is consistent with what is requested in the motion. I am not convinced, however as a rural Member, that this is going to resolve problems for rural residents who consider themselves to be a conglomerate of people of 25 residents or more, especially when the very subjective elements are placed into the equation.

Certainly there will have to be some work done by government, but primarily by the telephone company, to determine what the character and the nature of the policy is in practice. What does it mean in practice for Tagish; what does it mean for areas such as Rock Creek near Dawson, which will probably have, if it does not already, 25 telephone subscribers in the very near future. Other areas in the territory will face very high mileage charges. There are people in this territory who face monthly mileage charges in the neighbourhood of better than $50.00 per month for a basic telephone service; whereas the rest of us, who may be paying the standard of $5.19, I think it is, pay an obviously much lower rate for the same service. It is a serious issue for rural people, and we do not want to allow the company to abrogate its responsibilities in any way with respect to the provision - upgrading and improvement of telephone service to rural people. We will support the motion. I believe the company’s policy, which superficially, at least, is consistent with the motion, is explained to the extent that we understand, in detail, the effects the motion might have on rural people - when there are situations where objectively 25 telephone subscribers or more exist in a particular area. We do support the motion and hope that services improve for rural people who may benefit from the policy.

Mr. McLachlan: I will be very brief in my remarks and I want to commend the Leader of the Opposition for bringing forward this motion on rural telephone service. I believe that when two dozen or more people congregate in one area for whatever reason, it is sufficient to justify the beginning of the costs for a communication link hookup under Northwestel’s definition of a locale. Frequently, when there are 25 or more, it often instigates more and more population for various reasons. The basis of my support for the motion is simply this: rural dwellers are often penalized by a higher cost of communication, or no communication at all, simply by reason of their decision to seek a rural way of life. I do not think that is fair. I believe that, as technology improves and costs come down, it should get easier for Northwestel to service these situations.

In closing, I would like to add that the only thing the Leader of the Opposition did not say in his remarks is that perhaps if the government owned the telephone system, it would be so much easier for him to make his case.

Mr. Brewster: I am not going to say very much about this and of course I will be supporting the motion, but of course it is only one step for mankind. There are an awful lot of places, including an awful lot of lodges and other places, that are paying, as the Minister mentioned, $50 a month - it is a long ways out and you could put $100 or $200 in front of that and you would still be stretching the facts a little bit. Since modern technology has come in, all the lodges, which used to all have good telephones and lines and pay the same rates as everybody else - they put all these additions up on the things. Nobody has had satisfactory business out there: the phones do not work half the time. I get telephone calls continually. Although I have to admit, after five years in this Legislature now, when I phone Northwestel and emit a roar, the last two times the dish was turned around within two days. I do not know whether they hope that I will leave here soon, so that they do not have to do that, or whether they are actually trying to improve this service.

It is very ironic that these lodges, which pay these fantastic rates, that the police use these for emergencies, the ambulance use these for emergencies, any wrecks from the roads - who pays for this? The lodge people. If they have a pay phone, who gets the money? The telephone company. Although I said that I will support this motion, I say that this is only one step for mankind and we have to turn around and start to be fair to these lodges that are performing public services. They get very poor service and I know, they telephone me at all hours of the night - some of them pretty mad - and I do not have any shares in NorthwesTel. I do not really know why they bawl me out like they do but some of them telephone me from as far away as Edmonton, at three o’clock in the morning, so that I will do something about Northwestel.

I do not really know what I am supposed to do. The Member from Faro mentioned that if the government took over it might be able to do something. Then I would really be in trouble, because I have been yelling at the government for 40 years and I have not got anywhere yet. Thank you.

Mr. Webster: With respect to the second part of this two part motion with Northwestel, to adopt a policy establishing locales for 25 subscribers or more: recent experience in the Klondike riding could shed some information on this. Residents out at Rock Creek organized themselves about a year and a half ago. They managed to get 25 names on a petition, requesting the extension of telephone service out to their area. They met with Northwestel officials and they did establish that area - Rock Creek as a locality for this purpose - and the monthly charge for residents in that area was $13.32. So what they did was they did not have to pay a monthly rate for these lines, which was mentioned by the Minister for Community and Transportation Services. That, of course, was after the residents paid a provisioning charge - a one time provisioning charge - of $875 for a multi-party service line, or $1,200 for an individual line. It also included a one time service charge of $40.19, so the Member of Faro was correct when he said that there is somewhat of a penalty attached to people living in rural areas who want to improve the amenities in their areas, to make life a little easier for them.

The first part of this motion deals with rural Yukoners, and says they should receive equal treatment to government services and utility services. I have some problem with the definition of “equal treatment”, but I assume this means an equal opportunity to access to these services. That is a principle we all support in this House, because it gives the individuals a choice. They can either take it or leave it. If they are willing to take it, they have to pay for it. What sometimes happens, and has been the history in the past with many individuals, that they do not want the comforts and amenities that are provided in a town situation, so they do move out to the rural areas and, gradually, to make life easier for themselves for one reason or another, they ask for water delivery from the local community authority, or sewer eduction or, eventually, they get power service. They even ask for their roads to be graded so the school bus can come in to pick up their kids and take them to school, et cetera.

They are either paying for this through taxes or directly, for example, for the extension of power lines to their property, and I am pleased to see there is something in place by this government to help them out in that regard with the Rural Electrification Program. Now, it has been extended to include telephone service as well.

I believe very strongly that, whenever it becomes financially viable to provide that opportunity for access to a service, it should be provided. We have a situation right now at Henderson’s Corners where 25 households out there want electrical power for a variety of reasons: for industrial, commercial and to bring power to their residences. Unfortunately, at this time, they do not have that choice of accessing the main line. The main line does not exist that far. They are quite willing to pay the cost incurred to bring electrical service within their subdivision using the Rural Electrification Program, but the cost to extend the main line from Rock Creek right out to Henderson’s Corners would be a prohibitive sum right now for these 25 residents out there. It is in the neighbourhood of $300,000.

That is why the residents at Henderson’s Corners have banded together to approach the Yukon Energy Corporation to see if they will be willing to extend that main line out to their area, enabling them to make a choice to pay for accessing their residences and businesses out there. This is currently being reviewed by the Yukon Energy Corporation, and I hope this request is being looked upon very favourably.

Naturally, I will support this Motion with all Members of the House.

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

Mr. Phelps: It appears that the Motion will be supported by all parties in this House, and I am thankful for that. I would like to congratulate the Minister of Community and Transportation Services for giving a fairly clear exposition about an extremely unclear policy area, that of the locale policy of Northwestel. The various permutations and combinations that officials of that company can come up with when you speak to them about the practical  problems of an area that ought to be a locale is frightening. They seem to be able to come up with all sorts of figures that would dazzle anyone.

I would like to thank the Member for Faro for his comments, and the Member for Klondike. I am sure he misspoke himself when he attributed the electrification program to this government; it was the previous government that put this policy in when dealing with the electrification of Judas Creek. Of course the extension of that policy to the issue of telephones was done by this government, but I would like to also mention that there was a motion in this House put forward by the Member for Porter Creek East on that score.

I am very thankful that this Motion will get support, and I look forward to the vote.

Motion No. 28 agreed to

Heading = Motion No. 23

Clerk: Item No. 7 standing in the name of Mr. McLachlan.

Speaker: Is the hon. Member prepared to proceed with Item No. 7?

Mr. McLachlan: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House that the Robert Campbell Highway is a transportation corridor which possesses significant tourism and economic development potential; and

THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to give a higher priority to the planning, development and upgrading of the highway.

Mr. McLachlan: There is no doubt that the accent on highway funding, upgrading and reconstruction by this government and the previous governments has been on the north Klondike Highway from Whitehorse to Dawson. An additional major funding and rebuilding has taken place on the north Alaska Highway, and the point of entry of Beaver Creek is part of another project. Additional monies for both capital equipment and road upgrading have been approved for both the south Klondike Highway, although these were necessary consequences of the concentrate haul to Skagway. Federal funding has also helped considerably with reconstruction of some portions of the Alaska Highway between Watson Lake and Whitehorse.

However, if you happen to live anywhere along the Robert Campbell Highway between Watson lake and Carmacks, you are probably wondering what you did to get the government brush off for highway improvement and upgrading funding.

This highway is a 600 kilometre stretch on the eastern side of the territory that links Watson Lake in the south with Carmacks in the north and provides access to Ross River and Faro enroute. It does offer tourists an alternate route into and out of the territory at Watson Lake and a variation in the tourist route north to Dawson City.

It has long been the hope of the people of Faro and Ross River that an aggressive tourism marketing department would be able to sell this route as a complementary route for tourist traffic to or from Dawson. That is, they would not traverse the same route twice from Carmacks to Watson Lake going via Whitehorse. To do that, we need some help with reconstruction of the road in some parts, which can be best described as narrow and winding and more than a little treacherous in winter driving conditions.

Requirements for improvements and funding would fall into three distinct segments, each with its different requirements and priorities. Watson Lake to Ross River is by the far the longest at 370 kilometres and would require, by far, the greatest amount of work. Ross River to Faro is the shortest stretch of road, but one that has taken the greatest amount of pounding recently with the movement of coal on a regular basis from the pit near Ross River to the mine site at Faro. The section from Faro to Carmacks is the busiest by reason of the truck and passenger traffic to and from Faro and Ross River.

The main concern for most of the residents of Faro and Ross River is that the stretch with which they are most familiar has had little or no improvement to its surface since it was originally built 19 years ago. One ten mile stretch of road had BST applied to it when Mr. Ken Baker was chief engineer for the territorial government and was applied on an experimental basis in 1973. It has had relatively good success since then. Dust, fly rock and mud in inclement weather are the greatest causes for alarm.

The section between Carmacks and Faro was built in 1968 with the knowledge that it would be used by heavy truck traffic. I am confident that it will not suffer as badly as some parts south of Carmacks have with the heavier truck loads if BST was applied. I would venture to challenge the Minister to put a counter on this road and prepare the results of any other stretch of main highway outside of Whitehorse, other than the Alaska Highway. I am certain that the department would find the number factor and the load factor comparable to any other major highway in the Yukon outside the Alaska Highway. Surely, the Minister would agree that the maintenance and the type of surface that the highway receives are related to its usage.

There are eight territorial campgrounds between Watson Lake and Carmacks, so a conscious effort is being made to cater to the travelling public. It would be so much more complimentary to this effort if a little more attention was paid to the condition of the road. In the past year, and indeed in the past few months, indications of significant mineral occurrences between Faro and Ross River are more than just a topic of idle conversation over a cup of coffee.

One new gold producer will begin operation south of Ross River in 1988. Within the next three years after that, there are very good indications that another two operations could be in production by 1991. The immediate area between Faro and Ross River could become one of Yukon’s newest gold producing areas. Does this possibility alone not warrant some attention by government in the area of road development and related infrastructure where required?

Truck traffic supplying the new Canamax Mine at Ketza River would much rather come the shorter route north from Watson Lake than coming the long way around through Whitehorse, Carmacks and Faro. There is sometimes a great reluctance to do this in the winter because of the condition of the road.

I brought this matter to the attention of all Members of the Legislature as a result of discussions held at the September meeting of the Association of Yukon Communities, between representatives of the four communities. The idea was further discussed at a joint meeting in Faro on October 8, 1987, between the four communities. Preliminary ideas were presented to the Minister in Dawson City on October 18. As yet, no formal response has been heard from the Department of Transportation Services.

Two of the municipalities involved, Carmacks and Watson Lake, would still receive a high volume of traffic through their communities if nothing happened to the Campbell Highway. That is because of their proximity to other major arteries at the north and south ends of the highway. Yet, through all this, they have continued to give support to the sister municipalities of Ross River and Faro in this concern. Carmacks, for example, has a particular concern when it is raining and the Yukon Alaska trucks going south drop mud for ten kilometres, after turning onto the Klondike Highway from the Campbell Highway. It is not a major safety problem, just an aggravating irritant of having no BST on the Campbell Highway.

I urge the Minister to immediately begin substantial planning with a detailed time table as to when improvements can be started on this highway. It has certainly been a poor cousin to almost every other highway in the territory when it came to handing out the funding for highway improvements.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I am pleased to speak to the motion today, although I should say at the outset that I would have felt the motion would have been more timely if it had been placed on the floor of the Legislature approximately a year ago. A great deal has happened in the last year to raise the profile of the Campbell Highway within the spheres of the government’s planning process to ensure that the Campbell Highway is upgraded to proper highway standards, including proper surfacing for a road that has the kind, the type, the density, of vehicular traffic that the road does.

The Member for Faro suggested that the government should make it a higher priority and suggested that the government should immediately begin substantial planning. The government has already made it a higher priority and has already begun substantial planning.

There was a reference to the suggestion or allegation that the government had not responded to the Association for Yukon Communities nor had it responded to the committee that met with AYC, a committee of municipalities, in Ross River - Carmacks, Faro, Ross River and Watson Lake to discuss the future of the Campbell Highway. I did respond to the spokesman for the committee in November and did respond to the president of the AYC early in November, detailing the government’s plans to upgrade the Campbell Highway in the future. I indicated not only had we thought about it, but we had decided at which areas to start first in the planning and the reconstruction of this project. This is not a minor decision to make; it is a major decision that this Legislature would be making, and would be making, of course, on an annual basis through capital  appropriations. Once made, we are well and truly into it, I suggest, and we will be talking expenditures probably ultimately over a number of years in the neighbourhood of $40-45 million, voted by this Legislature, in order to complete the project. It is no minor commitment of this Legislature and of this government to ensure that the Campbell Highway to Carmacks, through to Faro, through to Ross River and ultimately to Watson Lake is brought up to Klondike Highway standards.

In November, as I said, I wrote  - and I will table a copy once I have read it briefly into the record - to the spokesperson at the AYC meeting in Dawson. I also had a meeting with the group itself at the Yukon 2000 meeting in Dawson prior to that. It reads: “Further to our discussion in Dawson City during the Association of Yukon Communities’ annual meeting, I reviewed the Department of Community and Transportation Services’ plans for the Campbell Highway. The Campbell Highway is a high priority for this government and engineering work is currently being carried out on the Ross River to Faro section. Further work will continue in the 1988-89 fiscal year and $102,000 has been allocated in Capital Budget for this purpose. Major road reconstruction is planned to commence in the spring of 1989 and will continue until the Ross River to Carmacks section is fully reconstructed and BST has been applied.

“Let me assure you that the department will carry out the overall upgrading project to ensure that the maximum benefit is obtained as soon as possible with the available funding. It is also recognized that the eastern segment of the highway between Watson Lake and Ross River requires extensive work. Projects to upgrade this section beginning with engineering are planned to commence in 1989.

“The cost to upgrade the Campbell Highway from Watson Lake to Ross River is expected to be well in excess of $25 million. I am sure you can appreciate that work of this magnitude will have to be carefully phased within the Highway Reconstruction Budget that is available each year. The decision to initiate the engineering and reconstruction projects on the Ross River to Carmacks section of the highway is in response to the constant level of year round traffic along this road, heavy truck traffic that has caused deterioration of the road structure, and many complaints related to Yukon Alaska Transport’s activity.

“With respect to Yukon Alaska there has been some improvement in the situation since mid September due to mud flap height adjustments and changes to the style and position of the truck and trailer fenders. Nevertheless further improvements to the highway are necessary and will continue.

“The Yukon government is committed to upgrading and improvement of all the Yukon highways in view of their important role in the economic development and fulfillment of Yukon’s tourism potential. I assure you that the Campbell Highway upgrading will continue within the department’s overall transportation planning and development strategy as a high priority.

“I am looking forward to meeting the mayor and town council.” This is in reference to the swearing in ceremonies for the new Faro Town Council.

Much of the same message had been sent to Mr. Art Deer, president of the Association of Yukon Communities, prior to that in a letter dated November 6, that I can also table.

The reasons for the government’s desire to upgrade the Campbell Highway are that the heavy truck traffic from Yukon Alaska Transport, the industrial traffic between Ross River and Faro, and the tourist traffic along the highway have all been increasing in recent years. Perhaps more importantly in many respects there is a large measure of local traffic that is specific to the communities of Ross River, Faro, Carmacks and Watson Lake that has been travelling the roads over a number of years and have been waiting for their chance to have a major highway corridor in their area upgraded. The chance has come. This Legislature will be asked to appropriate funds to upgrade the Campbell Highway to a standard which will accept BST from Carmacks to Ross River as the first step, and Ross River to Watson Lake as the second stage.

There are many good reasons for making this decision, many of which have been elucidated already.

Let me say this: the government has not brushed off the Campbell Highway with respect to its entitlement for highway upgrading. This Legislature, many years ago, made the conscious decision to upgrade the Klondike Highway. That was the Klondike Highway from Carcross through to Dawson City. I believe that that decision was supported by all Members of this Legislature, handily, over the course of better than half a decade. It was a  major undertaking. Members of the Legislature who wanted to see work done on the highway, whose constituencies the highway ran through, were a little impatient at times. I was always a little impatient, because the Stewart Crossing section, the section that ran through my own riding, was scheduled last, but I always understood that there was a schedule, and that there was a time and place for the reconstruction to take place. The reconstruction happened, and the reconstruction will mean a paved highway now between Carcross and Dawson City, at the end of next year. I think that is something that Members of this Legislature should be proud of. It is a major achievement, and it is a very expensive achievement but a very necessary one.

This achievement is also beneficial to all the persons who travel the highway between the communities and including between Faro and Whitehorse, Ross River and Whitehorse, Carmacks and Whitehorse, or Faro and Dawson, or Ross River and Dawson or Carmacks and Dawson. The local traffic is heavy between those communities as shown by the vehicle per day standards. The work that is to be done this coming summer is going to include work on upgrading the portion between Carmacks pavement and Fox Lake. That is work that anyone who travels the road recognizes as being necessary, for all the reasons that this Legislature has gone through.

This Legislature has made significant contributions, over a long period of time, to highway development in this territory. This Legislature has made those commitments, but at the same time, it cannot do everything at once. If one were to ask a Minister of Highways ten years ago if they felt the Campbell Highway was going to be upgraded, they would have said that it would be upgraded. There are priorities and perhaps the Klondike Highway is the priority at this time. The Klondike Highway has obviously been a priority; the expenditures speak for themselves.

This government has made a commitment now to turn its sights on the Campbell Highway. I hope this will be the beginning of a major reconstruction program that will include all the communities along the Campbell Highway and make the Campbell Highway a corridor that is quite respectable in terms of its quality and engineering standard.

The expenditures to be made are going to be considerable. They will be made annually starting this year, and will be made over the course of the next five years or more. I am hoping that Members of the Legislature are going to give it the same kind of support that those same Members and their predecessors gave to the Klondike Highway.

The government is not restricting its work with respect to the improvements to the highway on Capital upgrading alone. Since last summer, this government has improved the road maintenance on the Campbell Highway and will be improving the road maintenance again this coming summer.

There have been a number of actions taken by the government, all recorded on public record, with respect to attempts to reduce the rock spraying that has historically existed with Yukon Alaska Transport trucks. If the Members wish, I can detail the very long list of activities that the department has engaged to try to resolve the rock spraying problem.

The government is committed to the Campbell Highway because it is the right thing to do. I am hoping that all of us will be in the territory to see this major reconstruction project come to a satisfactory conclusion in the near future.

I do want to point out that the government has made significant attempts over the course of the past year to make the Campbell Highway a higher priority and to begin the reconstruction of the Campbell Highway. Given the heavy level of activity and the understanding of this issue with persons along the corridor of the highway, it should be made clear that the government has already made this project a higher priority, and that the work we have announced will continue over the course of the next few years and will begin this summer.

If we were to leave them with the impression that now we are going to make it an even higher priority, which is difficult to fathom given the high priority that we have given it at this point, it would be misleading to people along that corridor. For that reason, I move an amendment,

THAT Motion No. 23 be amended by deleting all the words after the expression “Government of Yukon” and substituting the following, “to continue the systematic development and upgrading of the Highway”.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister of Community and Transportation Services

THAT Motion No. 23 be amended by deleting all the words after the expression “Government of Yukon” and substituting the following, “to continue the systematic development and upgrading of the Highway ”.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I have explained at length the reason - I am sure the Members do not want to hear it again - why the government feels that it has given the Campbell Highway the highest priority. It has made the ultimate commitment, much similar in character to the commitment made to the Klondike Highway, to upgrade the Campbell Highway to pavement standard.

Mr. McLachlan: I accept at face value most of the remarks that the Minister has made. There are a few things that are not 100 percent clear. One is the intention of when exactly the work is going to start. The Minister had previously indicated that the work on the Klondike Highway was in its final year. As we have seen by budget commitments, there are approximately  $1.1 million going into the Silver Trail this year. It seems to have a higher priority in 1988 than the Robert Campbell Highway.

It is also a little unclear that the figure that the Minister mentioned in his opening remarks of $40 million to $45 million  of continual upgrading and improvement work, is not specifically referred to as whether that is the entire stretch of the highway, if that is the highest usage stretch of the highway, or exactly what it refers to .

I will accept the amendment and voice my support for the amendment put forward by the Minister. In so doing, I would like to ensure him that we will be watching and continually monitoring that systematic development. That stretch of highway does pass through four ridings represented here in the Legislature, Tatchun, Faro, Campbell and Watson Lake. There is 25 percent of us here who are directly affected, and it is a very high economic development area of the territory.

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

Amendment agreed to

Speaker: Is there any further debate on the main motion, as amended?

Motion No, 23 agreed to as amended

Clerk: Item No. 10 standing in the name of Mr. Lang.

Speaker: Is the hon. Member prepared to proceed with item No. 10?

Mr. Lang: Yes.

Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Member for Porter Creek East: THAT it is the opinion of this House that the Yukon Housing Corporation should not proceed with the construction of the two duplexes on Bamboo Crescent designated as social housing.

Mr. Lang: Thank you very much. The issue before us is not a new issue. It was brought forward at the beginning of December, to the attention of the government, and I want to go through the historical steps that have taken place here.

First of all, the way the people in the area and the people of Whitehorse first heard or first knew there was going to be two duplexes built on Bamboo Crescent was when the Yukon Housing Corporation advertised for construction tender calls for those particular dwellings. Once that was brought to the attention of the people in the area, I took it upon myself to write a letter to the Minister of Housing to find out exactly what the intentions of the government were insofar as this type of housing going into the Crescent. Over the period of that time after the letter was written and sent, a number of startling revelations came forward to the general public. I refer specifically to the situation in Teslin, where a senior citizens’ complex was built for the purpose of housing seniors. We found, all of a sudden, there were no senior citizens and subsequently it was arbitrarily turned into social housing. The reason I use this as a further substantiation of concern by the residents in the area is that the initial response I received was that three of the units were going to be senior citizens’ units and the remaining unit would be used as social housing. Then we found out, after the furor over the vacant fourplex in Teslin, that the chairman of the Yukon Housing Corporation stated publicly that it would be their intention, if there were no senior citizens to move into those particular homes, that they would convert it into social housing.

I do not think there is any question that, in view of the obvious position taken by the government, if those homes do go ahead at the expense of the taxpayer, it is going to be social housing.

In that initial tender call, there was also a tender call for a single social home to be built on Redwood Street. You will note, in all the discussions in this House, I have not raised the question of whether or not that house should go ahead. The reason the people in my area have raised the legitimate concern of the construction of the two duplexes on Bamboo Crescent is the question of density and the question of how many social houses should be on one particular street. The reason that that question has been raised is because there is already three homes owned by Grey Mountain Housing Society that meet the social housing needs, and there is also another house on the next street owned by Grey Mountain Housing. In effect, on that particular street, there are already four homes that could be referred to as social housing.

The Minister was made aware of the concerns of the residents in that area by letter on December 10, 1987, where the chief concern was the number of social houses being built on the crescent. It was expressed clearly and succinctly. I quote from the letter: “My concern and objection is to Yukon Housing building two low cost housing duplexes on this crescent when we already have low cost housing on the street. This low cost housing I refer to is in the form of a duplex and a half owned by Grey Mountain Housing. These units are located at No. 6, No. 22 and No. 24 Bamboo Crescent - No. 6 having been purchased just over a year ago, and No. 22 and 24 having been purchased within the past.”

What I am doing here is establishing the fact that the government knew on December 10 that the chief concern of the residents of the area was the number of homes on this particular street in question. If we go ahead with the two duplexes, we are going to have almost 50 percent...

I may as well give this speech out on the street. Is the Minister of Housing listening?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: The Member was asking me a question. The answer is yes.

Mr. Lang: I want to state on the record that I object to the smug and arrogant manner that I am being listened to at the present time. I am speaking on behalf of 91 people out there who have a very legitimate concern, and I am speaking to the concern that the Minister raised in this House when he spoke to the petition, when we sat on Monday. The reason I am highlighting the question of density is because it is the issue that the Minister said was not of concern to the residents in that area.

The reality of the situation is that we are going to have 50 percent of a small crescent dedicated to social housing if these four homes proceed. The concern of the people in that area is very basically this: the number of homes dedicated to that purpose, as far as a local, suburban street is concerned. They recognize that there is a requirement for social housing. They have accepted the fact that there are three homes on the street that are dedicated to social housing, but they have a real problem accepting the principle that there should be another four units, dedicated to social housing, being built on a crescent of 20 homes.

I think it is a legitimate concern because what we are going to have - and I wish the Minister would pay attention to this - if they go ahead with the plans that they presented, is, effectively, row housing on the top of the crescent in question. There will be three duplexes, side by side, dedicated to social housing. I do not think it is good for the people who are living on the street, and, quite frankly, I do not think it is in the best interest of the people who are going to be housed in those homes. The reason I say that is - I go back to the words spoken by the Minister in the debate and in the Whitehorse Star and I agree with this principle - he was quoted as saying: “I believe the general process for approving more social housing units in a community is to first of all integrate within the existing subdivisions and not ghettoize social housing.”

Well, this is my point. Because of the lack of knowledge of the Housing Corporation, that is exactly what is taking place. It is going against the policy of the government and against, I believe, all sides of the House, as far as dedicating one area of town or one street, specifically for the purpose of social housing.

The Minister came in in response to the petition that I filed on December 15, 1987 and I spoke at that time to the petition - not loudly. I just presented it and I gave some very short, succinct reasons for the petition.

I felt that the Minister, in response to the questions I posed to him the following day, would seriously consider the very major concerns brought forward by the residents in the area. The chief point I made at that time was, and I quote from page 293 of Hansard, “I would like to say to the House that the question the people of the area have is how many public housing units should be permitted on a street. The street in question presently has four units within a block and a half and now the government is proposing to put another four social housing units on the same street.” That was the issue: how many government owned homes should be put on a suburban street, in this case Bamboo Crescent which is a very small street as far as streets are concerned. In reply to the petition, the Minister came back with a response two weeks later, when we reconvened, and stated the following in the House, “Similarly, the expressed concern does not relate to the density of the houses to be built, nor to their quality and design.” That, I think, is where the Housing Corporation, in what it feels is its mandate to accomplish, has for one reason or another chosen to overlook. It is the question of density that is the issue here, and it is a very serious issue to these people.

I want to go back to the question of what is going to happen to those people with property on that street. I think there is some question of what is going to happen to the values of the properties; that is an intangible. You just do not know.

The other question I think we have to ask is, does it conform to the policy of the Minister of Housing who stated, and I want to quote again, “I believe the general process for approving more social housing units in a community is to first of all integrate it within the existing subdivisions and not ghettoize  social housing.” Does it fit into that category? The point is that 50 percent of that street is going to be social housing if we permit it to go ahead.

In answer to the petition, the Minister made a very, very major statement in that he said the density in the whole Balsam/Cedar/Bamboo Crescent area has gone from seven percent to 15 percent. That is true if you take the whole area. I am surprised we did not include Redwood and Tamarack and Evergreen Crescent. If they were distributed right over to Balsam Street, maybe right over to Evergreen, we would quite frankly not be having this discussion. That is not correct. The reality of the situation is that the density is 50 percent on one street. Those are facts.

If the Minister goes ahead with the project, what we are going to get is a situation where we are basically going to have gone against government policy: we are going to ghettoize social housing. That is a tragedy.

The Minister of Housing, when talking some time ago about housing and how he wants to work together with the people of the territory, stated in an article in the newspaper: “As we work together with Yukon people on improving quality of life through better housing, my caucus colleagues and I welcome your comments. Please feel free to know your point of view.” We have been presented in this House from a Conservative riding - and that may have a bearing - 91 signatures put on that petition of all the people who live in the area. They have asked the Members of this House and, in particular, the Minister of Housing to seriously reconsider the decision to proceed with the duplex in question.

The Minister indicated to me that, once he had received the petition, he had also spoken to the City of Whitehorse. I spoke to the City of Whitehorse and contacted a number of counselors with respect to this issue. Those who were in town were asked about whether or not some social housing should go ahead in town. The interesting aspect of this is the question that was put, which is as follows, and I will read from a memorandum that was made available to the aldermen. They were to give their opinions to the mayor the following day so a decision could be made with respect to the city’s position. It reads as follows, “Yukon Housing has approached the City, advising us that they will be constructing duplex housing, one on Redwood Street, and one on Balsam, during the coming construction year.”

Maybe I have been misinformed. My understanding was that the one on Redwood Street was not a duplex. There is no multiple residential zoning for that street. I may stand to be corrected. Secondly, I believe the same applies to Balsam Crescent, and my understanding is that there are no more lots available.

So, the city councilors were asked to give some thoughts on two buildings to be constructed when there are no plans to build a duplex on Redwood or Balsam. Obviously, there is something wrong when you have information like this being disseminated throughout the various levels of government. It would seem to me that the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.

I will qualify my remarks. I do not blame the Minister of Housing with respect to that particular error. It is obviously an error by the city administration. The point I am making is nobody seems to know what is going on, yet at the same time you have people we all represent who are going to be very much affected by a decision of this kind. I feel very strongly that the government has a responsibility to review what they are doing in this area.

For the purpose of this debate, I have confined myself to the question of these houses being built on the crescent. I recognize that the government has a social problem that is being presented to them, but the Minister knows that this side differs philosophically and differs, therefore, on how one would go about meeting - at least in part - those obligations in terms of policy. I would expect that, during the Yukon Housing Corporation debate on the Mains, that we could go in depth on this.

I want to end by emphasizing again that the question is the number of social units on the street. We already have three, effectively four, on the street. With the government proceeding with an additional four, we will have eight homes out of 20. To me, that does not meet the policy objective neither of the side opposite, nor of this side.

I would therefore ask, on behalf of those people who have signed a petition - and I have reinforced that the purpose of that petition was the question of density - that the government go back to the Housing