back

Whitehorse, Yukon

Tuesday, May 17, 1988 - 1:30 p.m.

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

Prayers

DAILY ROUTINE

Speaker: We will proceed with the Order Paper.

Introductions of Visitors?

Returns or Documents for Tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: I have three returns.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I have several returns, plus the Report on Regulations for tabling.

Speaker: Reports of Committees?

Petitions?

Introduction of Bills?

Notices of Motion for the Production of Papers?

Notices of Motion?

Statements by Ministers?

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Visitor Radio Station CKYN - “Yukon Gold”

Hon. Mr. Porter: As the Minister responsible for tourism, I would like to report that Radio Station CKYN “Yukon Gold” is officially going to be launched on air as of May 20, 1988.

CKYN, Ninety-six point one (96.1) on the FM dial, will officially go on air at 3:00 p.m. May 20, 1988 to coincide with the opening of our six visitor reception centres for the 1988 summer season. To celebrate this special occasion, opening ceremonies will be held simultaneously in Whitehorse, Watson Lake, Carcross, Haines Junction, Beaver Creek and Dawson City. Each of the communities will be broadcasting CKYN over low-powered transmitters from the visitor reception centres.

Commencement of the new service will mark a new era in the department’s tourism promotional efforts in the Yukon. Never before has the travel industry applied the radio medium so broadly to deliver information and entertainment geared specifically toward increasing visitors’ enjoyment and length of stay.

From May 20 to September 25, local broadcasts will be heard daily from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. The programming consists of 12 one-hour cassettes, containing information on local attractions, points of historic and natural interest and interviews with Yukon  personalities.

Yukoners, past and present, tell their stories about northern life in 150 interviews collected for the radio programs. Archival tapes were utilized to present Yukon’s past through the lives of Martha Louise Black and Robert Service. A great Yukoner, Johnny Johns, is featured in one of his last interviews before his recent death.

The prepackaged programming will be augmented by local, live on-air announcements. Once every 28 minutes the VRC staff will be able to announce upcoming community events, road conditions and other information of interest to our travelers.

I am sure that you will join me in congratulating the department on instituting this innovative marketing concept, and I hope that you will take the opportunity to tune in to FM 96.1 for this new radio service and will attend the official inauguration of the service here in Whitehorse at 2:45 p.m. on May 20 at the T.C. Richards Building.

Speaker: This then brings us to Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Question re: Territorial Court Act

Mr. Phelps: I have some questions about something known around the territory as the Territorial Court Act problem regarding the Thomson affair, the firing of the justice of the peace, and the question being who fired Mr. Thomson.

As Members here may recall, last November the Justice Minister hastily called a press conference in order to save his political skin. He called into question the integrity of the chief judge of the Territorial Court. We know as well that the Judicial Council cannot find out who is telling the truth in this matter because it was not given the power to cross-examine witnesses under oath.

Has Cabinet made a decision yet about proceeding on this matter and ensuring that the taxpayers of the Yukon will know the truth about this matter?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: I was asked that question yesterday. The phraseology of the preamble contains inaccuracies; however, the essence of it is: is there a decision by Cabinet? As of yet, the answer is no.

Mr. Phelps: When are we going to get a decision on this matter?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: I have been asked that question repeatedly, and I have answered, as has the Government Leader, that the agendas of Cabinet are not public; the matter is in the hands of the Cabinet, and the Cabinet will conclude its deliberations and decide. When the decision is made, the Members opposite and the public will know the decision at that time.

Mr. Phelps: If the Minister of Justice is not pulling a Richard Nixon and stonewalling, hoping this thing will go away so the truth will not come out, will he give us a commitment that this issue will be resolved in Cabinet next Thursday?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: That is essentially the same question as before. It is not within my power to give such a commitment. The deliberations of Cabinet are collective, as the Member knows, and the Cabinet will decide. When the Cabinet has decided, the decision will be known.

Question re: Territorial Court Act

Mr. Phelps: The public is not so concerned with what the deliberations of Cabinet will be but of the Judicial Council or a justice appointed under the Public Inquiries Act, because people want to know who was lying. That is what they want to know.

Yesterday, in response to a question that I asked about the same sordid affair, the Minister of Justice responded as follows, “It is not accurate to say that the Cabinet knew the situation would not be adequate. Our expectation was entirely the other way, and that is simply not an accurate statement. The position of Cabinet was, and is, that we wished to ascertain the facts, and the particular way that the Judicial Council chose to go about that was their decision.”

Is the Justice Minister now saying that the Judicial Council was lying, when they informed him that they had concerns about not being empowered to cross-examine witnesses under oath back in December?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: No.

Mr. Phelps: Then how on earth could the good Minister of Justice stand in his place yesterday and tell us that he and his fellow Cabinet colleagues were confident that the Judicial Council could get to the bottom of this matter and get to the truth of this matter, when they had already said that they needed the power to cross-examine witnesses?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: Because the statement was true.

Mr. Phelps: I do not know if the Justice Minister has something in his ear most of the time, but maybe he did not hear the question. Is he telling this House that he did not believe the Judicial Council when they told him that they required the power to cross-examine witnesses under oath in order to get to the truth of the matter?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: The Member opposite is being willfully blind to the options and the possibilities here. The position of the Cabinet was, and is, that we would like to get to the bottom of this matter and ascertain the facts, and not, as is the position of the other side, that of being obviously unconcerned about the facts, and wishing only to attack the Minister.

Question re: Territorial Court Act

Mr. Phelps: I would like to ask the Government Leader if he was forewarned by the Minister of Justice of that before he scurried out to have his press conference and called into question the integrity of the chief judge of the Territorial Court. Did the Minister of Justice forewarn the Government Leader that he was going to do this unconscionable thing?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I do not necessarily share the characterization of the Leader of the Official Opposition of the event described by him and the description in terms of defaming the character of a Member of the front bench. In any case, a communication of that kind between the Ministers, I do not believe, is something that would be subject to questions in the House.

Mr. Phelps: Does he now approve of what the Minister of Justice did, because what he did serves only to debase the entire judicial system of the territory?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: The Minister of Justice has the confidence of his Cabinet colleagues; otherwise, he still would not be Minister of Justice.

Question re: Rental accommodation in Whitehorse

Mr. McLachlan: As the Minister  for Economic Development is well aware, the situation regarding rental accommodation in the City of Whitehorse is becoming more and more critical. Each day there is less available as more and more people who work in the Yukon’s tourism industry move into the city and attempt to secure rental accommodation. How will the strategic investments section of the Joint Venture Program, for which this Minister is responsible, succeed in getting more apartments or more apartment buildings built in the City of Whitehorse?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: Firstly, the Minister  responsible for housing has already answered the question. We have made a decision to designate the rental market as a strategic area, for which the monies in the Joint Venture Program can be available. This program provides a financial incentive to investors to participate in certain kinds of projects. One of the categories in which venture capital money can be spent is in the area of strategic investment.

Having designated the area of rental accommodation as strategic, that permits applications under this program to go forward and to provide significant financial incentives from this government to the investors to participate in such projects.

Mr. McLachlan: The payback for the investors is when the unit is built and is 100 percent occupied. Getting the funding to build it is the problem.  Why has the government not addressed the shortfall in the funding deficiency in the same way that it has addressed the shortfall in funding in the rural mortgage program?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: The Member is referring to the necessity of providing bridge financing to make up the difference between what could be available for the private market and what is necessary to initiate a project. As has been indicated by the Minister for Economic Development and myself, there are programs, one in Economic Development and one in the Housing Corporation, that do deal with bridge financing.

In the case of Economic Development, the bridge financing is provided through the Joint Venture Program for rental accommodation per se. In the Home Owner Initiative Program, projects that include both rental and units for sale can be funded under the Joint Venture Program in terms of the provision of bridge financing.

Mr. McLachlan: What is the rationale behind tying up the $10,000 contribution for a period of two years after the project is built and fully occupied?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: The Venture Capital Program was not designed specifically for the housing market. The Venture Capital Program was designed to encourage investors to invest in Yukon projects. The general reason for the requirement cited by the Member is to provide some protection for the public investment, so the money provided in this way will achieve the objectives for which it has been budgeted.

Question re: Education Council membership

Mrs. Firth: The school committees conference was held some time ago now, and I have a question about the resolution that was presented at the conference. The resolution read that the Minister of Education appoint one delegate and an alternate from the l’Ecole Emilie Tremblay school committee to the Education Council. Has the Minister made the appointments yet?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: No. Any changes to the status of the Education Council, or to the governing or advisory structures under the School Act, or the policies pursuant to those structures, will be made in the context of the White Paper, which will be announced shortly and will deal with the matter the Member has mentioned, as well as others.

Mrs. Firth: When the school committee members make a resolution, it is sent to the department for input. Under the current policy, input to this particular resolution says that it is a ministerial decision at present. Does the Minister’s government agree with the principle of having these individuals appointed to the Education Council?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: It may be technically true that the Minister has the latitude to make these appointments; however, I have taken the position that changes of this nature should be made within the full context of the education White Paper, and any changes will not be made in an ad hoc way. Policy will not change until the paper is brought forward, which announces the government’s direction with respect to the education act and policies for the future.

Mrs. Firth: The Minister did not answer the question about whether the government agrees with that position. I would like him to answer that and, as my final supplementary question, I would like to ask if he has communicated that position to the l’Ecole Emilie Tremblay school committee, that they will not be getting their appointments until after that process.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I did answer the question by stating the decision on the make up of any advisory or governing structures of the territory will be made within the context of the White Paper. The White Paper has not been tabled, so it is impossible at this stage for me to unilaterally or arbitrarily make a decision now, because of the guidelines I have mentioned.

The school committees around the territory know what is happening with respect to the process for developing the education act and the making public of a White Paper. The l’Ecole Emilie Tremblay school committee is well aware of the fact that the government will be making a decision with respect to their request in the context of the White Paper, and not before.

I have not personally written to the school committee to inform them of that fact, but I am positive it is well known to them.

Question re: Yukon Housing Corporation/appliances

Mr. Lang: I would like to turn back to the Yukon Housing Corporation. A couple of weeks ago I asked the Minister about the policy that had emanated from the Yukon Housing Corporation directing that appliances over two years old in staff housing would be replaced. Last evening, the Minister said that his investigations in the matter shows that there was a Yukon Housing Corporation employee who thought that was the case, but that was not the policy and it has changed back to what it was before.

How many appliances were replaced under the policy by that employee until it was caught and changed back to what it should have been?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I would not characterize it as changing back to an old policy. I would characterize it as a misinterpretation of an existing policy. I am not aware of the corporation surplusing any appliances simply for the fact that they were two years old or more.

Mr. Lang: The Minister investigated this matter. He must have gotten to the bottom of it. My understanding is that seven sets of fridges and stoves were replaced in Ross River. There was a number in Faro, and other communities could have been affected by the directive being sent out. How many fridges and stoves, two years and older, were replaced through this particular policy until it was discontinued?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I just answered the question. After the investigation, I am not aware of any fridges and stoves that were surplused simply because they were two or more years old. As I indicated yesterday, in Ross River there were some units taken out of staff housing to go into social units, but they were not taken out of the Housing Corporation’s inventory and they will not be taken out of the inventory simply because they are two years old or more.

Mr. Lang: In view of the fact that we know of one particular case where this happened, if not more, - I  understand this happened in Faro as well -appliances were replaced under this directive. What is the Minister going to do with the extra appliances? Are they going into storage.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: It is a revelation to me that it has happened. The Member makes the allegation that it has happened in Faro as well. I do not know that that is the case at all. In any case the units will be used in social housing units, staff housing units, new units and they will be used as replacement units in our inventory. Any units that are not currently in a staff or social housing unit that are still serviceable will be used in units in the future either new or as replacements.

Question re: Yukon Housing Corporation/appliances

Mr. Lang: Most members of the public have appliances that last for 10, 15 or maybe 20 years. My concern is that over the past year, or year and a half, there has been a policy in place where the Yukon Housing Corporation replaced appliances that were two years or older. I do not know why. My information is that as many as 15 appliances were purchased over this past year.

Could the Minister go back to the Yukon Housing Corporation and find out exactly how many appliances were bought under this particular policy and where they were distributed to?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Depending on how long the Session goes on, I will be disputing hotly that there was a Yukon Housing Corporation Board policy to replace all units after two years. I did indicate yesterday afternoon that there was an employee who took it upon himself to interpret existing policy and who allowed units in several cases to be replaced after two years. The situation was certainly caught very early and it is the case that no units at all, to my knowledge, whatsoever, were surplused from the inventory as a result of the misinterpretation by this one employee. There were no cases, that I am aware of, where the Yukon Housing Corporation sold units or destroyed units or threw units in the garbage that were two years old simply because they were two years old. The policy of the corporation is to surplus units that are beyond economic repair. That was the policy and that is the policy. Any units that are in the inventory right now, or projected to be in the inventory, will be used in units that either will be constructed, or in units that need to be replaced.

Mr. Lang: I know that the Minister does not have the information with him. I am just asking that he report back to the House. Could he find out how many appliances were bought under this misinterpretation of the policy because obviously the directive went out that any appliance two years old and over would be replaced. My question is: how many? Could the Minister just nod his head in agreement and get the information for the House?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: The Yukon Housing Corporation’s clear policy is that units will only be surplused after they have been determined to be beyond economic repair. All the units that are purchased will be used in new units that will be purchased for social housing or built for the purposes of staff housing. All the units in the inventory will be used in an economical way and will be placed where they are needed most. No units will be surplused simply because any particular person feels that they are getting just a little bit old.

Mr. Lang: I realize that the Minister has an expanding empire. I realize that all the new homes and the homes that they are purchasing and building will require appliances. I recognize that those particular appliances bought under that policy can be stored and put into these other homes as they are built. I wanted to know from the Minister how many appliances were purchased under this misinterpretation of the policy. I did not ask whether or not he could find some more houses to put them in. I know that the Minister is fully capable of that.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I know the government is more interested in ensuring there is an adequate supply of housing for Yukoners than the Member for Porter Creek East ever was. We are interested in meeting those real needs, both on the social housing side and on the home ownership side, and we have proved it.

With respect to the policies, I have indicated exactly what the policies are. With respect to the numbers of units that have been purchased, if the Member wants to know exactly how many stoves or fridges were purchased last and projected to be purchased this year, I can provide that information.

Question re: Lottery licensing regulations

Mrs. Firth: I have a question for the Minister who has the confidence of his colleagues, the Minister of Justice. Yesterday, I asked the Minister if he would meet with the Lottery Licensing Board and review the licensing rule for charitable organizations. At that time, he said he would.

When will the Minister be meeting with them to review this rule?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: That meeting is not yet scheduled, so I am unable to give a precise date.

Mrs. Firth: Yesterday, also in the Question Period, I asked the Minister a question, at which time he replied that I had misinformed the House, and that the Lions Club was always interested in sealed bids for the cottage, that no licence is required, and that the process was continuing now.

I have spoken to the president of the ...

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

Mrs. Firth: I spoke to the president of the Lions Club, and he said that statement was wrong. Is the Minister prepared to correct the record at this time, in light of the fact the statement was wrong?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: No, I do not believe the statement was wrong. The important piece of information here is the interaction that occurred between the person who spoke to the officials who were charged with administering the Lottery Licensing Act. A conversation occurred between two people there, and my information is as I have stated it.

Mrs. Firth: The position of the Lions Club, according to the president, is that the statement the Minister made in the House was incorrect, was wrong. I guess we will just have to stand by that position.

Will the Minister give us a commitment as to a time line when he will review this policy with the committee, and when we could expect it would be changed?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: I have already answered that three or four times, I believe.

Question re: Lottery licensing regulations

Mrs. Firth: Regarding the issue with the Minister of Justice and the Yukon Lottery Licensing Board, the Minister has said he will meet with the committee again and discuss it. We would like to have a more specific time line on when he is going to meet with them. He has given us no schedule date. We would also like to know when he expects to have this issue resolved. There are numerous charitable organizations out there waiting for a decision on this matter, so they can come and freely apply for the licences they want. They are looking for a time line as to when the Minister is going to meet, is going to review this and when it is going to be made public.

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: Organizations and individuals can apply at will at any date that they choose. I will continue to monitor this situation and continue to discuss, with the chairperson of the board, the situation as it practically exists. Because the information about the practical results and implications of the policies in place is not known today; it cannot be; it is impossible to predict a date.

Mrs. Firth: It is not impossible to predict a date. If the Minister’s intentions were as he likes to make them out to be, he would give that prediction. He says that...

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

Mrs. Firth: ...they are going to monitor it. How long are they going to monitor the situation? How many more organizations have to lose out on potential revenue-raising opportunities?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: The information contained in the preamble of the question, I believe, is inaccurate. I have already answered that question.

Mrs. Firth: Will the Minister give any commitment to the public that he will meet with the board within the next month?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: Yes.

Question re: Workers’ Compensation Board/accommodation

Mr. McLachlan: Can the Minister of Government Services confirm that the Workers’ Compensation Board recently purchased four lots behind the business known as Carcare Motors at about $16.00 per square foot. This will bring the holdings of the Workers’ Compensation Board to some 60,000 square feet of prime commercial space in downtown Whitehorse? Can the Minister confirm that?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: No. I cannot. I will check with the Workers’ Compensation Board and find out if that is accurate.

Mr. McLachlan: With the land that is being purchased, some of which the Minister is knowledgeable about, can he advise us if the board is planning to build anything other than office space? I ask the question because we talked about bringing people in from outlying communities who are ill in relation to the Department of Health and Human Resources. Some of the land assembly projects that are taking place look as if they are big enough to take a motel or a hotel beside an office tower.

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: No.

Mr. McLachlan: Can the Minister also confirm that the board has recently purchased as many as 10 or 11 separate housing units within the City of Whitehorse that are not on continuous lots?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: No, I cannot. I would certainly know of such an event if it occurred. I have no knowledge whatsoever of such an allegation. I simply do not believe it is credible.

Question re: Electrical rate policy

Mr. Nordling: I have a question to the Government Leader with respect to electrical rate policies.

We have been trying since last fall to get answers about the Yukon Utilities Board. In November we were told that appointments were imminent. No appointments were made. In April and May we were told that appointments would wait until after a rate policy was in place. The Minister of Justice said he expected a rate policy in April. The Government Leader said this announcement on his behalf was not authorized. It is now mid-May, and I would like to know if the Government Leader can tell us when we will have a new rate policy?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: As early as last fall in discussion on the department’s estimates, I indicated to the Member that I had requested from the Yukon Development Corporation, this May, its proposals for restructuring of subsidies and structuring of rates. At this point I have not received the proposals from the corporation. Once I have received the proposals from the corporation and my recommendations about the same have been forwarded to and passed by Cabinet, they will be made public. That, in any case, would take a matter of weeks. It will be forthcoming, but not this week or next. I would think late May or early June would be the earliest we could make a public announcement on that.

Mr. Nordling: The other outstanding issue in this area is the powers of the Yukon Utilities Board. On April 12 the Minister of Justice said that the prospect of changing the powers of the board and/or revising the Public Utilities Act was under review. I would like to know when the review will be complete and if there will be changes to the legislation?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: I am unable to say precisely. There will certainly not be changes to the legislation in the spring sitting of the Legislature. At the earliest possible it could be the fall sitting. The decisions are consequent on other decisions, which have previously been spoken about, which are not yet made.

Mr. Nordling: Could the Minister tell us if appointments to the Yukon Utilities Board will be made before this review is complete and before any possible changes to the legislation?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: Yes, I would expect that to occur.

Question re: Tourist reception ccentreWhitehorse

Mr. Phillips: With respect to the plans to locate a new tourism information centre in the City of Whitehorse, yesterday I tabled a petition with over 200 signatures of individuals and businesses who want the Government of Yukon to consider building a tourism information centre on the Alaska Highway. Many tourists bypass Whitehorse simply because they do not know it is here.

Has the Minister of Tourism reviewed the proposed location of the centre and considered the arguments made by the signatories to the petition?

Hon. Mr. Porter: We have not reviewed the specifics of the petition. It was only yesterday that the Member brought the petition to the attention of the House. However, I can tell the Member that no final decision has been made as to the location. As it appears to be an interest of the community that other site locations be identified and assessed, we will do that.

Mr. Phillips: I am asking the Minister if he will consider reopening the idea of a tourism information centre in Whitehorse and giving these people the opportunity to be heard, as well. There are a great many businesses that are downtown and feel the centre should be located up the hill. The suggestion I have heard many times is that up near the new Transportation Museum would be a great location. It would catch people going both north and south.

Would the Minister give those people the consideration and give them an opportunity to have some input into where it should be?

Hon. Mr. Porter: We would examine that particular question. You will recall earlier that the Member for Porter Creek East had raised the question of, prior to making a decision regarding the location of the visitor reception centre outside the downtown core, that we should check with other cities of similar size. We did do some checking with Prince George and some other cities in northern BC and Alberta. In some certain situations, where the visitor reception centre was located outside the downtown core, the communities ended up constructing another visitor reception centre downtown, and some places have moved from outside the city back to the downtown core. So, there seems to be a trend in those other areas that the downtown core is favoured.

Nevertheless, because of the seeming interest in looking at the Alaska Highway adjacent to Whitehorse proper, we would reexamine that site.

Mr. Phillips: The businessmen involved feel that, by the number of tourists who are bypassing Whitehorse each year, we are losing approximately $500,000 in revenue in the City of Whitehorse alone each year. When would we expect to build such a facility, and when would it be operational?

Hon. Mr. Porter: The Member will recall that in our capital allocation we set aside some money to do some preliminary architectural and engineering work this fiscal year. So, it would not be possible to do any construction this year. For construction to be anticipated, it would have to come in the budget of 1989-90. In order for the department to be able to get the necessary finances, we would have to go through the normal capital budgeting process.

So, it would be at least two years from now if a construction decision is going to be made.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Speaker: Government Bills.

GOVERNMENT BILLS

Bill No. 7: Second Reading

Clerk: Second reading, Bill No. 7, standing in the name of the hon. Mr. Penikett.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I would like to move the second reading of Bill No. 7, entitled Languages Act.

Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Government Leader that Bill No. 7, entitled Languages Act be now read a second time.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: It is my pleasure today to formally introduce the principles of this measure to the House. As Members are aware, this act is a consequence of the languages agreement that we recently signed with the Minister of Justice, Mr. Hnatyshyn. Included in that act were the substantial elements of the legislation that one sees before us today. The only additional provisions in this act from those that were tabled previously are measures that have been added to the act in response to concerns evidenced by Members of this House. It should be noted that the agreement was signed after almost two years of very delicate, and at times very difficult, negotiations.

The agreement and the legislation here today serve a number of important purposes. In the first instance, they provide for a recognition, by both levels of government, of the importance of our aboriginal languages, and of the need to provide additional language services to our francophone minority. The agreement, as all Members know, provides for a quarter of a million dollars for the enhancement and preservation of aboriginal languages of the Yukon, and for the development and delivery of services to aboriginal language speakers in the Yukon in the next five years. It also provides for continuing federal funding for the implementation of French language services, where they are needed.

In the second instance, the agreement removes the Yukon from the provisions of the Official Languages Act. The implementation of this act in its current form would, in my opinion, have been a serious constitutional step backwards for the Yukon, and would have resulted in official bilingualism being imposed on Yukoners by the Parliament of Canada.

As well, an existing court challenge to the Yukon’s constitutional status has been put on hold pending the introduction of a territorial act and the implementation of this agreement.

The federal-territorial Languages Act before us today represents this government’s commitment to the terms of that agreement. Essentially it provides the recognition of our aboriginal and French languages and guarantees certain rights for the use of those languages. Specific services to be provided to our aboriginal and francophone communities are not detailed in this act, because they will be the subject of further consultations with Yukon aboriginal people and Yukon francophones.

Although this act will allow the creation of many useful language services, it does not establish official bilingualism in the Yukon. It is very much the contrary. The services to be implemented will be practical and will be limited to specifically defined areas where there is a clear need and demand. I must reiterate that this act should not be construed as an indication that this government embraces the concept of official bilingualism for the Yukon.

In many areas, such as in the provision for the use of French or aboriginal languages in the Legislature, in the provision of the right to use English or French in the courts, the act simply confirms our acceptance of existing situations and practices. The act does not provide for, nor does it contemplate, the written translation of Hansard or simultaneous oral translation of the business of the Legislature except where prescribed. It does provide for the translation, in an orderly fashion, of the legislation of this House, and for the recognition that each version of that legislation shall have equal force and effect.

As Members are aware, the translation of the Yukon’s statutes has been an ongoing effort of the federal government for many years. The acts and regulations of this House are required to be tabled in the Parliament of Canada in both official languages. This new act provides deadlines for completing and bringing up to date this translation effort that will be funded by the federal government.

The act also provides the right for Yukon francophones to receive services in their language at the head or central office in the Yukon government and from any other office where there is significant demand for those services. These services, and the way in which they are delivered, and the identification of those offices which should provide these services, will again be the subject of consultation with Yukon francophones and may be confirmed by regulation. There will be practical agreements where there is significant demand and which can be justified expenditures in the Legislature.

This act represents a real advance in our efforts to ensure the cultural integrity of the Yukon’s aboriginal people.

We believe it will do much to preserve the linguistic heritage of the Yukon while at the same time recognizing the language rights of our francophone minority.

It is an act that does not in any way impose unreasonable demands upon this government, and it does not imply any degradation of our constitutional status.

I am confident that this act is good for the Yukon aboriginal people, good for Yukon francophones, good for the legal standing and good for the future of the territory.

The consequences of the alternative situation, the imposition of Bill C-72, an act that is now before the federal parliament, are considerable. Should that act pass unamended, official bilingualism would be the rule in Yukon. If that were the result, not only would simultaneous translation of our debates in this House be required, but we would require the recruitment of many, many bilingual public servants. All documents produced by this government would have to be in both official languages. Francophones would be entitled to demand bilingual services from any and all offices of this government. Costs would be enormous, the practical consequences considerable, the arrangements that would result would be entirely unnecessary in my view and inappropriate for this territory in this day and age.

Passage of this bill will, according to the agreement with the federal government, permit them to amend Bill C-72 in order that official bilingualism will not be the rule in the Yukon. Instead, practical arrangements for services to linguistic minorities in this territory will be the order of the day. Practical arrangements funded by the federal government will be the rule rather than a devicive and frustrating and debilitating debate about the status of languages, we will have sensible arrangements for the provision of services to linguistic minorities.

In closing, I want to say something about the nature of the debate between the Government of the Yukon and the Government of Canada. I want to put clearly on the record the positions of these two governments throughout these negotiations.

I can do that best by quoting briefly from two letters addressed to me by the Minister of Justice, the Attorney General of Canada, Mr. Raymond Hnatyshyn. I would quote the first one as follows: “As you know, the position of the federal government in these negotiations is that any agreement should parallel the essential provisions of the 1984 Canada-Northwest Territories Language Agreement.

“In particular, since the inception of these discussions with your government, we have sought an agreement that would confirm French and English as the official languages of the Yukon. You have, on a number of occasions, made it clear to me that the Government of Yukon will not accept our proposals on the status of the two languages. I understand that continues to be the position of your government at this time.

“The Government of Canada acknowledges that in its present form the agreement represents a very important advance towards the full recognition and use of Canada’s official languages. This agreement has been firmly endorsed by the minority communities concerned. We, therefore, accept that the interests of the francophone community of the Yukon and of its aboriginal people will be enhanced and protected very substantially under the agreement. We also recognize the very positive spirit which you and your government have brought to the discussions of these issues.”

I want to say one other thing about the timing of this legislation. I want to say that we are under considerable pressure from the federal government to pass this legislation as soon as we can. I understand it is the wish of the federal government to appear before the parliamentary committee later this week to indicate to the committee the wishes of the Yukon Legislature in regard to this legislation and this agreement, so the federal government can recommend to that parliamentary committee particular amendments to Bill C-72 that arise out of our agreement. I am sure all Members know the Prime Minister has indicated this bill is legislation that must pass Parliament this summer, before July.

I would quote again from a letter from Mr. Hnatyshyn, as follows: “The purpose of this letter is to confirm the steps that we have agreed to undertake to give effect to today’s agreement. Your government will present the necessary legislation to the Assembly of Yukon for enactment as soon as conveniently practical.”

We are bringing this legislation here today because the federal government wishes to be perfectly clear about the intentions of this House, this Parliament, with respect to this agreement and this law. The text of this law has been the subject of not only consultation with the federal government and the groups affected but, also, the Government of Yukon has attempted to listen to concerns of Members in this House communicated in Question Period and privately, and adjust the text accordingly to deal with the concerns. We have also had to have those particular drafting changes okayed by the people in Ottawa.

I believe the agreement we have, the agreement that is reflected in this bill, is a good one for the Yukon. I believe the only alternative to this bill - the only alternative to the passage of this legislation - is the imposition by the Parliament of Canada of official bilingualism of the Yukon Territory. Given the choice between the two, given that these are the only two choices for us, I have no hesitation whatsoever in recommending approval of Bill No. 7, in principle.

Mr. Phelps: With regard to the principle of the bill, there is of course no question where this party stands on Bill C-72. In fact, as all here will recall, it was a motion put forward by me and debated several months, and passed unanimously, that was forwarded to the Parliament of Canada. That motion spoke, in no uncertain terms, about the displeasure of Yukoners with regard to Bill C-72 and what it would attempt to do to the Yukon in future. When it was announced in this House that an agreement had been reached between this government and the Government of Canada, an agreement whereby Bill C-72 would be amended, an agreement whereby there would be certain rights entrenched in the Yukon, falling far short of official bilingualism, an agreement whereby it was said that all expenses would be borne by the Government of Canada, an agreement that placed, we are told, a great deal of emphasis upon the protection and preservation of aboriginal languages in the Yukon, our first reaction was very straightforward and very clear. It was one of some joy and some satisfaction. I have listened to the explanation of the principles of this bill, just given by the Government Leader, and the principles, as communicated by him to this House, would be entirely satisfactory to this party.

Since the first announcement of the deal, however, we have had an opportunity to read what was in fact negotiated, and not for the first time when we have actually looked at the package as negotiated, we felt extremely let down indeed by the language in the agreement, and the language in the bill. Once we had read the proposed bill in some detail, as the Government Leader has said, we raised some of our concerns in Question Period in this House.

Those concerns remain. We would be seeking clarification and quite probably amendments to the bill in Committee of the Whole. Our concerns can be broadly summarized as follows:

First is the issue of clause 6 in the bill. That clause raises all kinds of questions in our minds. We will want a full debate on this clause in Committee of the Whole, and we will be asking that we have a legislative counsel appear before this committee as a witness. I give notice now. Right now I really do not see much difference between the practical implications of this bill and official bilingualism insofar as the services that will be required in the Yukon and, in all probability, in this House. So I have very grave concerns about clause 6. My colleagues and I do not feel that it does what the Government Leader feels it will do.

The second concern, in broad terms, are those regarding the financial implications of what we are getting ourselves into. The provisions of this act, once passed, will be enshrined in the Yukon Act, and the Yukon Act is the constitution of this territory. Yet, the financial agreement for the aboriginal language rights extends only until 1993-94 and the obligations of the federal government end at that point, except to discuss what they might do from that time on. With regard to the obligations of the federal government at that time, and after that, under the provisions of this bill taken with the provisions of this agreement - well, we are going to want a little clarification on that too, because we have some concerns. We will discuss those particulars in Committee of the Whole.

The third issue has to do with the privileges of the House and the independence of the Legislature. We are concerned with clause 12.(b), which seems to degrade that principle by allowing government to make regulations regarding the translation of debates in this House and other proceedings in the Legislative Assembly.

In the brief time that we have had since we have seen the provisions of the bill that was tabled yesterday, we have checked with three provinces. In those provinces, the principles of House privileges are not debased, so we will have some questions about that. I look at Beauchesne, Control over Publications, page 17, under the chapter, Privileges of the House, it states: “The control of the House over its publications is absolute”, a fundamental principle that, at this point, seems to be violated and debased by language in the bill.

There has been a lot of lip service paid to the aboriginal language rights that are supposedly protected in this legislation. There definitely are some modest gains in that regard, but in no way are aboriginal language rights placed on an equal footing to French language rights. That ought to be disclosed in an open, forthright and honest fashion so that people are not confused about that aspect of the bill.

We are looking forward to debate in Committee of the Whole. We are looking forward to asking questions of a legal expert about certain clauses. If it turns out that this bill is really a bootlegged official bilingualism act,  then it certainly will not receive our support.

Mr. McLachlan: On the whole,  I do not have as many concerns as the Leader of the Official Opposition at the moment. I have been lobbied by some constituents from eastern Canada about some advantages of the bill. I have to admit though that more of that lobbying is carried on by the French language people than by the aboriginal language people in Faro.

On the whole, I see the bill as one with constructive measures. There is no doubt in my mind that there is going to be a period of grinding for about three or four years to move forward on this. On the principle, my party supports the bill and the agreement that was signed in Ottawa at the end of April.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I want to thank both Members who participated in this debate for their very constructive observations. I would like to say to the Leader of the Official Opposition that if I believed for a minute that this bill amounted to the imposition of official bilingualism in the Yukon, I too would vote against it.

I am absolutely convinced it does not do that. I am absolutely convinced it is a long way from that. I could be in a situation like Premier Devine was, where you admit, as we do in the agreement, this is movement in that direction. I concede that. It is movement in that direction, in that it improves the services and the situation for francophones. I say that unashamedly, but it is not official bilingualism, nor is it even close to it. I will say a little bit more about that in closing.

The Member says he has some concern about the language in the bill. I believe we can deal with the questions of the history of the language. Much of the language in the bill comes out of other legislation or other agreements. As he will know from his experience, Ottawa likes to build on a foundation of previous agreements, a foundation of phrases and forms and linguistic constructs in making arrangements like this. That is, perhaps, not surprising.

He indicated the nature of his concerns would require a legal counsel as a witness. I have not had the chance to discuss this with my colleagues, but rather than having Ministers answer questions with advisors beside them, we could have witnesses come before the bar of the House to answer questions if that would expedite passage of this bill. I think my colleague and I, the Minister of Justice, will be prepared to consider, with a very open mind, making whatever arrangements necessary to do that.

He expressed he had some concerns. We heard some concerns expressed in the House. One of the concerns I heard him express in connection with official bilingualism was whether we would have to have simultaneous translation in the House. Clause 12(b) was added, to which he may appropriately object, to deal with the question of the services in this House, the regulation-making power, as a result of his concern that there would be some unfettered right to demand simultaneous translation.

He is quite right that it is an inappropriate power to ascribe to Cabinet. We would have no objection whatsoever to bringing forward an amendment giving the power to the House to deal with its own procedures. The reason that is in there is because of his concern. We are told by everybody involved in drafting there is no such right implied by the clause in the bill that talks about the right to address the House, a right that has not been previously challenged here.

I want to talk about those rights. It seems to me that the arrangements about those things will be practical arrangements and will be made by this House, as will be the arrangements for the French language services and the aboriginal language services. There will be practical arrangements limited by real demand, limited by budgetary considerations and defined in regulations.

He raises the question about the aboriginal rights, and he did that in both directions. He raised it in terms of expenses, that we are having rights and services put into this act that will be ongoing, but the funding is not ongoing. The federal government is absolutely clear that their commitment to this is ongoing. We have a specific amount provided for for five years. We will renegotiate the amount in 1992. Let me be also clear that, if there is not funding provided, the capacity of this government to provide those services is limited. That is obvious.

At the same time, we cannot talk about the lack of parity in terms of status, because, as I already explained to the House, the position of the federal government is that this territory should become - not officially multilingual, not officially trilingual, not officially septilingual, but - officially bilingual.

What we have done in this agreement is to escape that consequence, escape the irreconcilable difference this government and the federal government as to the status of languages, by concentrating on the provision of services where they are needed by the minority groups. That is what we have done. We have avoided the question of status and, as a matter of constitutional fact, I am told that, at this moment, because of the peculiarity of how the Yukon Act was created, Yukon has no official languages. That was something that I did not realize until I got into discussions about this. Unlike the Northwest Territories and Saskatchewan, which inherited the old provision of the old Northwest Territories Act, which made them officially bilingual - or the nineteenth century equivalent of official bilingualism - that section was completely expunged from the Yukon Act when it was introduced into Parliament.

I want to say, in speaking to the Member’s concerns and the clarifications that he wants, we will try to deal with them specifically. I want to try to deal, very frankly and very directly, with the language in clause 6, which is language that comes to us from other agreements and other legislation. It is not, however, official bilingualism. I repeat, official bilingualism would mean that signs, services, publications, debates, Hansard - the entire complexion of this government - would change from top to bottom, instead of a few departments, perhaps such as Education or the Executive Council office, having to provide services in French where there is significant demand, services that we believe we may be able to provide through a central translation service. In other words, perhaps Education may have a bilingual officer to itself to provide service - and that is probably appropriate when you are providing French language programs. Another department may have translation that is heavily in demand, such as the Department of Health and Human Resources and may have some person who has a bilingual capability. Where there is no demand, say the Yukon Liquor Corporation, we would not have to provide the service. Under the federal system of official bilingualism, however, every office, every agency has to provide those services. We are talking about where there is significant demand. People who are considerably more expert than the Leader of the Official Opposition or I on this question have reiterated and emphasized to us - such as M. Roger Tasse, who is a gentleman whose legal learning he would respect and who was the Deputy Attorney General of Canada and who was a consultant for us in this legislation - has reaffirmed again that we do not have, and will not have, as a result of this legislation, official bilingualism, or anything close to it.

The Member is saying that the Franco-Yukonnais do not agree. I do not know how many meetings that he has had with them, but they understand perfectly that we do not have official bilingualism. At least in the conversation that I had with them as recently as last week, that was perfectly clear. I wonder if the dialogue that the Conservative caucus had was in French or in English. There may have been a translation problem.

I want to emphasize again that the services we are talking about in clause 6 are practical services where there is a significant demand, services that can be provided where there are a number of people, and we will decide these in consultation with the Association des Franco-Yukonnais. They will be funded by the federal government and will mean that a few people will have to be hired in our public service who have a bilingual capacity. We will probably have to have some translation facility, and we will provide the services where there is real significant demand.

It will mean a few people will have to have these skills, as opposed to many. There will be services that will be defined by regulation, by consultation - the Member is nodding his head, but everybody who has had any agreement with this bill says that the Member is wrong, dead wrong - and I hope when we provide people, perhaps whose opinions he respects more than he respects mine, to the House to provide him this information - in fact I am quite prepared to arrange a conversation between he and Mr. Hnatyshyn, he and M. Tasse, he and the people who put together the bill, and they will tell him that Tony Penikett and the Government of the Yukon have not agreed to official bilingualism.

The Member suggests that perhaps we get Mr. Hnatyshyn here, and if I could I would. I have a lingering suspicion that perhaps Mr. Hnatyshyn could not sway some people on the other side on what this bill means.

The services will be practical ones. They will be where there is real demand, limited by sensible arrangements, it will be as a result of consultation with a group, there will not be official bilingualism.

The Member has mentioned a couple of things where there may be arguments for amendments. I have already indicated that on clause 12(b) I think the point the Member makes is a reasonable one. I do not think we are quite prepared to suggest an amendment in that area, but there may be others. Because the particular agreements we have have been the subject of a lot of consultation with a lot of different people, including the federal government, if there are major amendments proposed we would obviously have to take our counsel on these, but I want to say I believe we can deal with the concerns of the Member opposite. I hope we can, and I hope that I yet can persuade him to take the position he first took when this agreement was taken - because nothing has changed since then - that this is a sensible practical arrangement for the good of the territory, for the good of the aboriginal people in the territory, for the good of the francophone community in the territory, and yes, for the majority of the people in the territory, the English speaking majority in this territory. In fact, it is an agreement that is good for the territory as a whole. It is in the public interest.

Speaker: Are you prepared for the question?

Some Hon. Members: Division.

Speaker: Division has been called.

Order, please. It has been moved by the hon. Government Leader that Bill No. 7, entitled the Languages Act be now read a second time.

Mr. Clerk, would you please poll the House?

Division

Hon. Mr. Penikett: Agreed.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Porter: Agreed.

Hon. Mrs. Joe: Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: Agreed.

Mr. Joe: Agreed.

Ms. Kassi: Agreed.

Mr. Webster: Agreed.

Mr. Phelps: Agreed.

Mr. Brewster: Agreed.

Mr. Lang: Agreed.

Mr. Nordling: Agreed.

Mrs. Firth: Agreed.

Mr. Phillips: Agreed.

Mr. McLachlan: Agreed.

Clerk: The results are 15 yea, nil nay.

Bill No. 81: Second Reading

Clerk: Second reading, Bill No. 81, standing in the name of the hon. Mr. Kimmerly.

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: I move that Bill No. 81, entitled, Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 1988 be now read a second time.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister of Justice that Bill No. 81, entitled Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 1988 be now read a second time.

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: This act provides for amendments to various other acts, as is characteristic of miscellaneous statute law amendment acts. Those acts are the Distress Act, the Elections Act, the Electrical Protection Act, the Insurance Premium Tax Act, the Legislative Assembly Act, the Mediation Board Act, the Motor Vehicles Act, the Municipal and Community Infrastructure Grants Act, the Personal Property and Securities Act, and the Workers Compensation Act.

In each case, the act corrects inaccuracies, typographical errors or situations where the law, as it is printed in the revised statutes, does not accurately reflect the law as it was passed and intended by the Legislature. I trust that it will be considered carefully by all Members. I will stand ready to answer any questions in Committee of the Whole or elsewhere about the specific provisions.

Some Hon. Members: Division.

Speaker: Division has been called.

It has been moved by the Minister of Justice that Bill No. 81, entitled Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 1988, be now read a second time.

Mr. Clerk, would you please poll the House?

Division

Hon. Mr. Penikett: D’accord

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Porter: Agreed.

Hon. Mrs. Joe: Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: Agreed.

Mr. Joe: Agreed.

Ms. Kassi: Agreed.

Mr. Webster: Agreed.

Mr. Brewster: Agreed.

Mr. Lang: Agreed.

Mr. Nordling: Agreed.

Mrs. Firth: Agreed.

Mr. Phillips: Agreed.

Mr. McLachlan: Agreed.

Clerk: Mr. Speaker, the results are 14 yea, nil nay.

Motion agreed to

Speaker: Motions respecting Committee Reports?

MOTIONS RESPECTING COMMITTEE REPORTS

Motion Respecting Committee Reports No. 1

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

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

Mr. Phelps: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts

THAT the Ninth Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, presented to the House on May 2, 1988, be concurred in.

Mr. Phelps: It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak to this, the Ninth Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. I would like to begin by saying that we have enjoyed a lot of cooperation and hard work from all Members on the committee and from all those who have assisted us throughout the course of the year.

Because of obvious concerns among members of the public, and because of the obvious and very significant increase in recent years of the capital side of the government’s budget, we decided to depart from the usual format of the committee, which has normally been to review in depth two departments of government. We departed from that and embarked upon an intensive examination of capital project management.

It is quite true that capital project management has been the source of some concern of previous committees, and we certainly noted that concern in the report.

From time to time, in our follow up of recommendations of previous committees and of this committee, we have attempted to find out what procedures and processes were in place but never really did receive adequate answers.

We began our hearings this year with a general overview of the process and then moved to specific projects. Once again, all committee members are very conscientious in their work and all recognize the ongoing problems of project management. They unanimously had, as their goal, the ultimate improvement of the system. That has been the hallmark of the Public Accounts Committee since its inception. The fact that it has had, as a committee, a very significant impact on this government throughout the 1980s is something that is recognized as being unique by the other provincial governments and by the federal government in Canada as well as by the Auditor General.

The committee would like to thank all of the officials from the departments who appeared before it. There were some rather tense moments during the hearings. Of course, there would be when we were talking about millions of dollars, overruns, under estimations and that kind of thing. The committee felt that the witnesses were, for the most part, very straight forward even when they knew that their testimony may not be music to the ears of their Minister.

We appreciated this directness and felt that it provided the base for a very strong report. We have made 17 recommendations regarding Capital Project management, and we believe that if these recommendations are accepted and followed, that project management will improve dramatically and that ultimately taxpayers’ dollars will be spent with more economy, efficiency and effectiveness.

The report speaks for itself. I am not going to dwell on the details, but there are a couple of points that bear emphasizing. Firstly, the committee has placed particular significance on front-end planning. While recognizing that there is already some money allocated for pre-engineering studies, the committee strongly urges that much more emphasis be placed on this. Throughout the hearings, it became very evident that problems experienced during the life of a project were the direct result of inadequate information and analysis at the very beginning of the job.

Although it may take longer to get a project to the implementation phase if our recommendations are followed, if the preliminary work is carefully done, we believe the end result will be a better facility that should come in without major scope changes, on time and on budget.

Secondly, the committee is convinced that if the roles and responsibilities of the various players, the roles of the various people and various departments involved are clearly defined, the whole system should run more smoothly. Poor communication and lack of accountability have been a major factor contributing to the project problems of the past. If the committee’s recommendations in this area are implemented without delay, the committee feels confident that great strides can quickly be made in the improvement of project management.

I again want to emphasize the fact that the findings and the 17 recommendations were unanimously supported by all Members of the committee, Members from all parties of this House. I trust Members will keep that fact in mind during the debate and not get into a political point-getting, partisan debate.

As usual, this committee has worked hard and consistently throughout the year on follow up to try to ensure that recommendations of the past were being implemented and accepted by the departments. Once again, I think that all members of the committee as well as the clerk, Missy Follwell, are to be commended for their hard work. This meant meetings throughout the year, a lot of correspondence, a lot of time spent trying to ensure that the bureaucratic machine creaked and groaned towards goals that we felt desirable for the government and for the taxpayer.

Again, as has been the practice with previous committees, we ask questions and investigated the Auditor General’s Report on “any other matter” and our finding in that regard are to be found in this report.

We would like to thank Raymond Dubois, Don Young and Vincent Poon from the office of the Auditor General’s Department of Canada. As well, I would mention that for the first time this committee did hire an expert assistant, a person who teaches project management and that sort of thing, on a consulting basis through the hearings, Mr. Walter Wawruck, and we certainly want to thank him for his contribution in giving us insights into rather technical areas. We  perhaps might not have found our way without that kind of assistance.

I feel that this report is perhaps a more exciting report than others that I have had the honour to chair the creation of. I think that the subject matter is certainly sensitive, but it is an area that would make much better bedtime reading than would previous reports dealing with all those issues and areas that only accountants find exciting - and we all know how exciting accountants can be in daily life. Once again, I thank the Members and all those who helped, and commend this report to the House.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I am not sure whether the Member for Hootalinqua is going to be attacked by a plague of accountants on his way out of the building or not, but as Minister of Economic Development, I have the pleasure of hanging around with economists a bit more than I used to. I do know that at the first staff meeting with them, they took offence to me passing on the old saw about an economist being a person who was good with numbers but did not have the personality to be an accountant.

I am pleased to join the debate on the report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, and Members will all be aware of my interest and my past involvement in the activities of this fine committee. Needless to say, the committee provides an invaluable service to the Legislature and to the government. It is a very important non-partisan function providing for debate between the Legislature and the administration, which does not happen either in this House or in the working of the government on a day to day basis. The committee enables the Legislature to examine the government’s accounts and financial procedures fairly informally with the input of officials, rather than doing so in a full-blown Legislative sitting. Even though the issues before the Public Accounts Committee are issues of administration, rather than policy, it does not mean, of course, that Ministers are not ultimately responsible for issues raised by the committee and that have occurred under their stewardship.

I think that what was most interesting about this year’s report is that it did the unusual thing of looking at a function, an activity as opposed to a department, and this function was examined in detail. There is no question in my mind that capital project management is an item worthy of special attention; it has been, and will be, inside this government, and I think that it should be in the Legislature and its committees.

I think that it is important for no other reason than that the growth in capital expenditures by the Government of Yukon since 1981 has been quite substantial. The greatest growth ever has occurred in the last few years, and I think that that has had some consequences that have been good in the public, but that have also tested the limits of our system, internally.

We have spoken in this House a number of times about the reasons for the increase in capital expenditures. I will not repeat them now, except to remind Members of the severely deteriorated condition of our capital infrastructure. In some cases, this deterioration had reached crisis proportions by 1985, the year in which we concluded the formula financing agreement with the federal government, which gave us the means to do something about the state of our capital plant.

Something had to be done about the situation. It was very apparent to all Members of the House. I say this in a non-partisan way, and I say this to the Leader of the Official Opposition, being mindful of his caution on that score a moment ago. As long as I can remember, and as long as I have been a Member of this House, there have been problems, to one degree or another, with project management in this government.

It may be that any organization expending large sums on capital will have similar problems on occasion. When one looks at the numbers on page 3 of the committee’s report showing the increase in capital expenditures over the years to the present level, it is not surprising that we would experience, from time to time, some problems with particular capital projects.

Excluding the extraordinary grant in 1987-88 to the Yukon Development Corporation, capital expenditures before that year show more than a four-fold increase over the fiscal year 1980-81. It is plain that an expansion of this magnitude cannot be accommodated without some dislocation in the system, and dislocations inevitably cause problems. If I could divert my attention a little bit, when Keynes talked about pump priming and stimulating demand and dealing with a cyclical problem of employment with counter-cyclical measures by government, he perhaps did not understand well the limits, both in the private sector and in the public sector, to increasing the capacity in an area like public works or construction, as much as we have done in the last few years. Some day, some graduate student will want to take a look at our experience here, because I think it is an interesting experiment in the limits in growth in public works, even in response to a recessionary situation.

I make the preceding comments only by way of background, because I believe the matter should be put into its proper context. Having said this, I would be the first to admit that this government is aware and concerned about the problems that have been experienced with capital project management. We have been able to solve some problems that were in existence when we took office, but others have not been solved. With the expansion of the government’s capital programs, I think it is true to say that new ones have surfaced.

The committee’s report may paint a picture that is somewhat more pessimistic than I would be. That may be a reflection of my present role in this House as opposed to my former role, and I am quite prepared to admit to some subjectivity when we get into these situations.

We have been addressing some of these shortfalls. As officials from the Department of Government Services testified before the committee, work is currently in progress to put in place systems to rectify some of the shortcomings identified by the committee.

The committee’s report correctly identifies the Procedures Manual and project management as the key issue in the whole matter. The responsible Minister will be able to speak to this far better than I in a few minutes, but I can offer a few comments on the subject.

It is fair to say that the existing manual is far from perfect. It would operate quite effectively if it were followed in every case. The report of the committee confirms this impression. However, it has apparently not always been followed, and this a led to a number of difficulties on some projects. It is likely that most of the problems identified by the committee flow from this particular problem.

I speculate, but the reasons that the manual has not always been followed in all cases is perhaps due to pressures on limited staff time available. The project management organization has not been able to expand its capacity as rapidly as our capital expenditures, and the number of capital projects has expanded. This is arguably an unfortunate occurrence, but not an uncommon one if my limited knowledge of other organizations that have been in a similar position is any guide.

We are now near to attaining an adequate level of organizational capacity to handle our projects, and this fact alone should make a significant difference in the future. I expect the interim and long-term measures that we are now undertaking, combined with the increase in our administrative capacity, will go a long way towards rectifying the problems that we have encountered in the past.

Of more importance in the long run is the view of the entire project management system that is currently underway in the department. This will involve a review of, among other things, the Procedures Manual, and will address all of the concerns and recommendations in the report before us today. The committee’s recommendations are very useful and very interesting. They will invaluable to the individuals involved in this review. My colleague, the Minister of Government Services, will speak to these measures in more detail. Suffice it to say, we expect the product of this review to be a far better and tighter project management system than we presently have or have ever had.

I would like to turn, for a minute, to comments in the report about matters other than project management. I am pleased to see that a large number of past recommendations are now considered to be fully implemented by the committee. There are some recommendations not considered implemented, but progress is being made on these, and I want to assure the House that their completion is a priority of the government. I would like to take several moments to speak more specifically to the status report on outstanding committee recommendations as they relate to the Department of Finance.

One outstanding matter relates to the department ensuring that financial agreements entered into by the government are adhered to. I spent some minutes talking about this during the Main Estimates with the Leader of the Official Opposition, but I would like to add to what I said then.

The Department of Finance has obtained a copy of every agreement that this government has entered into that results in an inflow of funds to the government. These agreements will, on a test basis, be checked to ensure that they are being adhered to, most notably to see if billings are being made under them. This process began on a limited basis in the last fiscal year but will be more fully implemented this year. We especially want to ensure that year end billings are being made under the agreements.

Test basis auditing will have to be the norm until the new person years approved for this year are hired, at which time we hope to go onto a more comprehensive monitoring system.

The revision of the financial administration manual is mentioned in the report. A plan for the revision has been established and discussed with the departmental administrators liaison committee and a manual review working group comprised of members of that committee has been established. The rewrite has already begun and will be complete by the end of this fiscal year. It is worthwhile noting that this rewrite is being done in-house for a very significant saving in consultant fee and, we feel, a better end product.

The ongoing review of all contribution agreements is a matter that is still on hold. We do not perceive there to be a significant problem here since the department already sees all such major agreements. We are, therefore, giving priority to items of a more pressing nature. This matter will be looked at again later in the year when the more important issues we are currently dealing with us are behind us.

I have already spoken in this House on the commitment control system, and we have provided the committee with a written update on its current status. As indicated, the system will be phased in over the first three months of the fiscal year with a target date of June 30 for full implementation. There is currently no reason to think that the target will not be achieved. It is expected the system will help prevent unauthorized over expenditures, a matter that was of some concern to the committee during this year’s sittings.

With that I would like to resume my place and thank the members of the committee, the staff, the Auditor General’s staff for their work and thank the Leader of the Official Opposition, the chairman of the committee, for bringing the motion before the House today.

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: I want to say in introduction that I appreciated the fact that the Leader of the Official Opposition centered on two general issues in his speech, which to reiterate, are firstly front-end planning and secondly, the clarification of roles and responsibilities, or accountability. I would like to say that it was exactly those two issues that I also chose to emphasize in my speech, however, I will not do so in exactly the same way because it has already been done.

I should say for the record that I certainly agreed with those comments that were made about those two central issues and the government also agrees with those central issue comments.

It was appropriate to centre on public works management this year, as has already been mentioned by the Government Leader. The very rapid growth in expenditures and activity in this area makes that appropriate.

During the January hearings, the public officials who testified readily identified to the committee areas of project management requiring improvement. For this I would like to publicly thank those public officials for their openness and for their professionalism in this regard. With this attitude, on behalf of the officials, and, I might add, the elected politicians in this House, we will overcome the difficulties and the transitions that are occurring and will continue to occur, I am sure, to some degree, in the future.

Improved project status and financial status reporting is called for by the report. With the amalgamation of the property management and public works functions into a single branch, which has already been announced and has already occurred, a more comprehensive and integrated approach to these issues is now being taken. I will comment, albeit briefly, on each of the recommendations in the report.

The first two referred to the need for a policy and procedures manual on capital project management. The committee states that this manual should be developed by a cross-departmental task force reporting to Management Board. The Government Services department presently has two such manuals. They are titled “Procedures Manual on Project Management”, which is being used and “Draft Procedures Manual, Design and Construction Section”, which is still under review.

The government certainly agrees that a revised manual, one that will apply government-wide, should be developed. It is, in fact, presently being prepared and will go through the normal review and approval processes before being fully implemented. The procedures manual, or the procedures document, cannot stand alone. There must also be the commitment to develop the organization and the resources that can effectively carry out the procedures contained within the manual. It is our present belief that such implementation will have implications for both Government Services and the other departments in the government, for staff and resources to fully implement the recommendations.

The third recommendation ties in with the fourth. The committee is talking of a two-step budget process for capital projects. This is around the general issue of front-end planning, or pre-planning, or pre-engineering. The Department of Government Services and the government are in complete agreement with these initiatives. It would make our lives much easier. It is imperative that projects are developed early and planned well enough to establish firm requirements and not, incidentally, the development of alternative solutions for consideration in the final decisions to proceed.

I have long felt that it is closer to an ideal situation that we do the pre-planning, or the pre-engineering, or the pre-design work in one year and the construction in the next. A practical way to achieve this is that Management Board approvals might be received first as approval in principle and, again, later as specific approval for projects that are well defined and the engineering work and similar work is already done.

An option that might be considered here, and is a related question, is the securing of multi-year project funding for major projects. I raise that as an aside, as improved project management procedures may well be a result of project approval for multi-year funding for large projects.

If the capital program remains at a high level, which we fully expect it will in the immediate future and beyond, more technical expertise will be required for this additional planning. Good planning is cost-effective. However, it has a price tag as well. To reduce the cost at the back end, more will have to be spent at the front end.

This principle leads right into recommendation five, which is about the life cycle costing of projects, and value for money considerations and costed options. It is appropriate that life cycle costing capability be improved, and we totally agree, as a government, that Management Board decisions should be based on the life cycle costing for projects.

I am sure that all Members will agree with this principle. The ability to set standards, do the research and identify and solve the problems in both the new and the existing facilities will ultimately develop better technology that in turn will lead to improved building quality and improved value for money in the long term.

The present resources within the Property Management Branch are not today sufficient to fully and completely implement this recommendation. The planning and estimating components of this recommendation are extremely significant and will require consideration of Management Board, not only the Department of Government Services.

The sixth recommendation calls for verifying the reliability of capital project estimates by consulting with the private sector and/or other governments. Unfortunately, there is not a good discussion in the committee report as to how this could be achieved practically. There is no identification of the issues of differing public and private sector standards. Perhaps that is one of the major issues in this area that is identifying, coordinating or bringing together the public and the private sector building standards.

We recognize the obvious intent and comment that the recommendation will receive further analysis, so that some of the questions that I have briefly identified can be answered.

The seventh recommendation calls for changing the current system used to engage architects and the consultants around the issue of an allegation of inducements to over design. The Yukon is not so large as we can change industry and professional standards in the country or in the western world, although there is some reason for this kind of a recommendation.

I should comment that the present system of establishing clear terms of reference for consultants, and hiring consultants on a quoted fixed fee basis, based on the scope of the work and the budget, largely eliminates over design due to this factor. However, after saying that, we will continue to further investigate this particular recommendation.

Historically, most of the changes to the established budgets for capital projects originate with the client department and come, generally, as a result of increasing size of the project, or changing in some way the original design.

The eighth recommendation is around the roles and responsibilities and accountability of the key players, and we have already addressed that in the general comments. The government agrees, and I would suggest that this recommendation is largely common sense and should be uncontroversial.

The ninth recommendation is that a project manager be appointed for each capital project. This is already the case. According to the committee, the project manager would act as an agent for and report directly to the client department. If it is intended to place the project manager under the direct control of the client department, that very well may encourage duplication within the government.

I should say that it is my personal opinion that if this were to be the case I would predict greater expenditures for projects, as opposed to lesser expenditures, as historically and practically the pressures for greater expenditures come from the line department rather than the central agency.

Project managers cannot function in isolation. They are part of the engineering team from the beginning. They are part of the conceptual design process, and they take the lead in the preparation and evaluation of design concepts, of final designs and the tender documents. Using the project status reports, the project manager keeps both the senior review committee and the building department informed of the project’s status. A monthly financial statement is prepared and is reviewed by the project manager, the project team and the senior review committee.

The tenth recommendation is that a project team be appointed for each project and remain for the life of the project. Composition of teams depends on the nature of the project. For example, an energy management specialist expertise is needed only at certain stages of a project. The specialist rotates in and out of several ongoing projects as required. This is the most cost efficient and effective use of limited resources. The general intent of that recommendation is obvious and is sound. I would be remiss if I did not mention that slight improvement.

Eleven recommends that the project team should deal with all major issues related to the project and document its decisions. This, the government believes, is perfectly sound and should be uncontroversial. I will mention that when pressed for time it is easier to pick up a phone than write a memo. In the past, written documentation has not been complete as perhaps it might be and action has been taken to now ensure that minutes of project team meetings are taken, that discussions are logged and properly documented and recorded in the project file. Major issues not resolved by the project team go to the senior review committee. That recommendation then is well taken and is in the process of implementation.

The twelfth recommendation is that the project manager should report to the client department and the project team on the progress of the project in relation to “milestone dates” established in the project brief. We totally agree. A monthly project status reporting system to client departments has now been instituted. This report includes the financial status of the project, details of any problems that may be foreseen and, of course, it clearly states the present status.

The thirteenth recommendations is that project briefs be prepared for all capital projects prior to the implementation phase. This is a good recommendation. The committee is correct in its observation that a project brief, as detailed in the committee’s report, is not being prepared for a majority of projects today. Project briefs are prepared for the consultant selected to undertake the conceptual and detailed design.

The project briefs are not as comprehensive as the committee would like to see. It is realized that more detailed project briefs are desirable, in order to provide more effective and more accountable decision making. I would also add that, in addition to the points that were raised by the committee, I would also add considerations such as energy conservation, the use of alternative energy sources, and the use of the local materials and labour. These issues should be clearly identified and incorporated into the project brief, and we will do that as well.

The fourteenth recommendation calls for comprehensive, timely financial reports, on an ongoing basis, for review by the building, the line or the client department, and for Management Board. This issue was resolved long before it was raised, in fact, and monthly financial reports on capital reports were being submitted to client departments before the committee’s hearings, and that practice is continuing now.

The next recommendation, which is the fifteenth, is that a senior review board be established for each capital project. The review board would resolve any interdepartmental disputes about project decisions that cannot be resolved by the project team. Senior review committees have been established for the Departments of Education, Community and Transportation Services, Health and Human Resources, and Government Services. Government Services’ representatives on these committees include the deputy and assistant deputy ministers, the director of public works, the manager of design and construction, and the project manager. The client department is represented by its deputy minister and the appropriate staff. Meetings are held on a monthly basis, and senior review committees for other departments will be established, as required.

Recommendation 16 calls for a review of the work order system. This is to ensure that a clear mandate that reflects the intent of the legislative appropriation is given to the performing department by the client department. It should be noted that prior to this recommendation in fact the work order system was under review and a new, simplified form was put into place on May 1. It very well may be that further refinements will occur as part of the revision of the manual that I spoke about earlier.

The last recommendation is that all significant project cost increases, or scope changes, should be reported to Management Board.

I would indicate that Management Board Directive No. 6/84 already lays down approval levels for cost increases to contracts for projects under construction. This final recommendation appears to be addressed to departments other than the central agency, and it appears to be addressed to the practice of robbing Peter to pay Paul or reallocating funds among projects approved for the current year.

The committee’s hearings and the resulting recommendations contained in the report cover four main areas. They are the need for improved and documented communications between Government Services and the other departments of the government, refined decision-making capabilities in the project management area, specifically the front-end planning or pre-planning, and a review of the government’s budgeting process for capital projects. I emphasize the need for more front-end planning or an increased capability in the pre-engineering phase.

The Department of Government Services acknowledges the work of the committee. We will seriously consider every single point, as I have indicated. Many of the issues are on their way to being resolved or improved. Some have already been solved.

We continue, as do all large organizations, to improve the accountability and the efficiency of this capability of building and maintaining public works. I thank the officials in Government Services specifically, who, in a most professional and forthright way, gave evidence before the committee. I am especially appreciative of the attitude of the public servants of being open to improving the system, which I am sure will occur as a result of the committee’s work.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I will be considerably more brief. The body of the report deals primarily with capital project management as opposed to reviewing specific departments. As the Minister of Education and Community and Transportation Services, both client departments, in capital project development lingo, I was particularly pleased to see the committee address this area. This is largely because the government had significantly increased its commitment to infrastructure development.

I generally concur with the official recommendations of the committee and welcome them. I will endeavour to ensure that Education and Community and Transportation Services implement them. However, before commenting further, I would like to respond to one issue that I think is unfairly represented in the report, that being the implications of unreasonable increases in the construction costs of Yukon College.

For the record, the Yukon College construction project was first introduced in 1985-86 Capital Estimates tabled by the government in November 1984 at a total estimated cost of approximately $40 million. In a press release from March 1985, the Minister of Education is quoted as announcing the approval of a design concept for a cost of $24,599,000. This is a misleading number, in that it does not include the other costs associated with this major capital project, such as site work, architect fees, project management fees and Government Services administrative costs and, therefore, does not reflect what were even then known to be the estimated total costs of $40 million for the college construction project.

A cost estimate of $49,477,000 applies to the larger complex we are temporarily call Yukon Place, which includes the Yukon art galleries and Yukon art centre, and a larger student residence. The cost estimate now accounts for actual inflation costs not previously considered and an extended construction time table. This information is essential in acquiring an understanding of the actual costs of college construction.

I agree that there is much value in government departments working together to establish a clearly written and clearly defined policy and accompanying procedures manual on capital project management to guide project planning and implementation. In fact, the Department of Community and Transportation Services has, for its own purposes, published a project management manual in the last year. It is desirable to provide adequate time to develop a detailed plan and estimate of major projects that can generally occur through budgeting for project design in year one and construction in subsequent years - the practice that has been followed for a number of projects to this point.

Life cycle costing, value for money considerations and costed options should be presented to Management Board when requesting a decision on a capital project. At the same time, we should remember the government is committed to working with communities to address their priorities, and that this may mean that the lowest cost project may not always be selected in the end as the most suitable project, although cost effectiveness will always be a very important consideration.

With respect to establishing the reliability of project cost estimates, I and the departments agree that it is appropriate to verify estimates by consulting with and comparing with other governments and the private sector. In so doing, we must keep in mind, as the Government Services Minister pointed out, those differences in circumstances that influence costs. Through careful and knowledgeable in-house preparation and tracking of various costs included in the overall estimate, we can continually improve our ability to accurately cost out various project components, and to better monitor and manage the projects underway.

It is important to define document and adhere to roles, responsibilities and relationships of key players and projects, and consideration should be given to assigning a project manager reporting to the client department, in certain cases. A project team responsible for a project, from beginning to end, is a good approach, though its use and effectiveness can be compromised by staff turn-over.

Improvements are needed in the provision of financial status reports to client departments, and I know the departments have been working with the Department of Government Services to make such improvements.

The Yukon Housing Corporation has reviewed the recommendations on any other matter and steps have been taken to implement them. An outstanding issue is the establishment of market rents for staff housing. The board is initiating a review process in consultation with user departments to develop a comprehensive policy regarding staff housing. This must incorporate staffing recruitment as well as housing issues and rental rates cannot be changed until the review is complete.

My remarks are brief. I know that Members will expect me to comment briefly on the celebrated dispute that briefly punctuated the hearings between the chairperson of the committee and me. I would like to say on the record that I do support the committee process. I have always counted myself as one of the defenders of the faith in supporting the Public Accounts Committee. I do believe that the non-partisan nature of the committee is essential to good public administration and wish that the conduct of its business maintains the traditional non-partisan character. Clearly I would like to thank all the members of the committee, and also especially the staff of the committee, including Missy “Trojan” Follwell, for the efforts that they have put into putting forward this report. I look forward to reports of future public accounts committees and will support their endeavours to seek from the public administration the information they require to ensure the processes of operating the government at the administrative level are done efficiently, effectively and in accordance with political directions.

Hon. Mrs. Joe: As always, I look forward to reading the reports from the Public Accounts Committee. It is a constructive forum for members of all parties to explore matters of interest to them about the effectiveness of government. I continue to believe that there is still room for: one, improvements in the level, quality and cultural appropriateness of health and social services in rural Yukon; two, more community involvement in the planning and delivery of health and social services; three,  greater management effectiveness overall including aspects of local hiring and training and development activities within the department of Health and Human Resources.

I also continue to believe that we are making considerable progress. My department provided information to the committee on activities during the year prior to the committee hearings this winter. Each year we will demonstrate further accomplishments in these areas.

Community social services delivered in rural Yukon are part of the Community and Family Services Branch. However, effective May 16, 1988 an acting director of regional services has been appointed, given regional services branch status and a direct presence in the department’s senior management group.

Together with this change, the position of supervisor for the southern region will be relocated to Watson Lake. I have already advised the House of our plans to relocate a social worker position to Carmacks this summer. These changes will strengthen our community social services. We have been working actively with the federal Department of National Health and Welfare to promote better coordination of services at the community level.

I look forward to continuing improvements in this area. The 1988-89 Operation and Maintenance Budget includes additional funding to support training of our staff, including specific provisions for rural personnel.

I am hopeful we will be able to build on the positive relationships with Yukoners gained through the young offender consultations, the current child care consultations, the Champagne Aishihik Child Welfare Pilot Project, interagency committees in Watson Lake and other communities, the Ministerial Advisory Committee on Substance Abuse and our day to day business of working with Yukoners to achieve continuing and meaningful participation in the planning and delivery of health and social services.

I would like to thank the Members of the Public Accounts Committee for their work on behalf of all of the Members of this House and the people of the Yukon. Thank you.

Mr. McLachlan: This year’s Public Accounts Committee process was indeed a learning experience and a tremendous experience of tremendous proportions for me. Nobody in this Legislature or in the public of the Yukon stands to benefit politically or financially from capital projects that are delayed or that run seriously over budget. Everyone here has a sense of the cost of real estate, whether we are building it, operating it, or buying it. Inefficiency, neglect, and mismanagement in any one of these three areas can only lead to a wasteful expenditure of government funds.

I want to turn to two critical areas that I will refer to in the report continually and that I think are critical to the whole process: the manual and the man - if in fact that is the process in the latter, with all due respect to the Women’s Directorate. The key element in making the whole process work lies in the procedures manual and the project management. To develop the procedures manual in theory is one thing but to implement it, practically, is quite another thing, and often a horse of a very different colour. Without the procedures outlined in the manual in place, understood and followed to the letter by both officials and Government Services and the client departments, the whole exercise sometimes becomes so much window dressing.

One of the funniest things that often came out of the perceived errors in the process was the original starting point for the capital project, to which they refer to, of course, as the front-end planning. Once one had determined the need for a project that could be financing within the capabilities of the capital budget, it should automatically kick in a process that establishes some degree of reliability for the public that the project would be completed on time, on budget, and within the original scope of the perceived design and need for which it was created in the first place. There were instances when this simply did not seem to be happening. The fact that this has to happen is simply based on the time-honoured and age-old adage that any job worth doing is worth doing well.

Reference has been made in many instances to the critical role of the project manager in the overall project, and I agree 100 percent, but it is clear that the project manager’s role, and his interplay, in the whole process must be clearly stated in the manual. To do otherwise would simply allow the process to break down again. The Minister of Government Services has referred to hurried telephone conversations without notes. I want to simply say to the Minister that there is another age old saying that if you did not write it down, you did not say it. Telephone conversations are too often forgotten and often the agreements over the telephone fall through the cracks two or three days later. There has to be a procedure whereby the agreements are noted, understood and passed on to others.

The Leader of the Official Opposition has indicated that thanks are due to the witnesses who appeared before the committee. Under intense cross examination by all Members of this committee, they sometimes had to ‘fess up to what they often knew were uncomfortable situations. It was not from any ill-perceived direction of questioning; it was for the betterment of the Yukon government and capital expenditures, in general.

I am looking forward to this summer’s meetings of the Canadian Public Accounts Committees in Halifax, so that we can assess the weight and the recommendations and the impact our work over the past winter has had with other committee members, and to discuss what I hope will be similar improvements that they can pass on to us for capital expenditure projects in future.

Mrs. Firth: I have been listening this afternoon and making some notes. I am very interested in the comments that have been made. I was almost beginning to wonder if there were any problems. It sounds like everything is under control, everything is being addressed, the project management system is alive and well and the government is agreeing with all the recommendations and saying what a tremendous job the committee has done. It almost makes it sound as if there is no problem here.

Well, I do not think that we should lose sight of the fact that what the committee, in spending all its energy, time and long hours debating issues and raising points, was trying to assess was the government’s ability to manage the money that they have. The report that is before us today for debate confirms what members of the public have brought to the attention of committee Members. The concern of many Yukoners is that all is not well when it comes to managing many of the capital projects in the government. That reflects on the government’s ability to manage the public purse. It also reflects on the performance of the government in managing the public purse.

When the report talks about the fact that there is management by omission and management by dilemma, I cannot honestly say that everything is well with the system and that the projects are being managed in an efficient and effective way. They are not being managed in a way that is of benefit to the taxpayer and in a way that is not causing increased costs for the taxpayer. This was always foremost in the minds of the committee Members. We were there to serve in the capacity and to serve the functions, protecting the taxpayers and their public purse. We were there to see how the government was spending the money and what the taxpayer was getting for that expenditure.

We talk about government spending and careful spending. The former chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee, who is now the Government Leader, talks about the cornerstone of good government being careful spending. We have to take a look at the spending record of the government. Because of concerns that had been brought to the attention of all of the committee Members, we decided to examine the management of capital projects and the capital budgets of the government over the last three years with the increase in allocations of capital budgets.

A couple of Members have mentioned how capital expenditures have increased over the last seven years. Some have referred to it quadrupling. The report points out very specifically that the capital budget has increased from $42.9 million in 1985 to $52.7 million in 1986, $91 million in 1987 and up to $143.1 million in 1988. For people to recognize the impact and the significance of the amount of dollars we are talking about, the numbers of dollars have to be stated. That is why I have done that.

When we began the Public Accounts Committee process this time and were having the hearings and receiving the testimony from the various departments, the officials were always very cooperative and straight forward in the comments they made to the committee, and they were very open and honest. The report reflects that. When one of the officials was asked whether or not he felt there was a system in place, and he responded that no, he did not.

We were suspicious of that, as committee Members, and the confirmation was presented at the committee hearings. I say again, we are speaking in the House this afternoon like there were no problems. When we started asking questions as committee Members, we found there were many problems. Aside from the technical difficulties of the whole project management system, which the committee determined was not alive and well - and I am talking about all the technical recommendations regarding the process of having a more efficient and effective system of spending money - those technical issues have to be addressed.

Also, what has to be addressed is the direction that is being given not only at the central agency level, when you come to communications between the central agency and client departments but, also, the direction that is being given at the political level. The government Members are ultimately responsible for the management of the funding and the spending.

The Government Leader made a reference to the Public Accounts process and, because of the non-partisanship atmosphere of the committee, that we dealt simply with issues of administration. That is not entirely true, because the administration has to be given some direction. The Government Leader was well aware, after having been the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and the Leader of the Official Opposition, that there were some difficulties with the whole project management system, and that there had been some incidents in the past where the projects had not turned out as they should have.

With the tremendous increase in funding, it would be interesting to know what priorities were set immediately to see that the money was going to be spent in an efficient and effective way.

That would be very interesting information because the administration arm of government will only be as flexible as the political arm of government encourages or allows it to be. I have said before that all of us as members count on the Public Accounts Committee to protect all of us when it comes to justifying the expenditure of public funds to the public, the voters, as well as the taxpayers. The committee often identifies issues that enable a Minister or a private Member to go back to the department and say that this is an issue that has to be addressed, and addressed right away.

A perfect example of that is the problem that the committee discovered with the work orders being out of order because there were interpretive problems regarding the Financial Administration Act, or whether the work orders were even sound. I feel very strongly that at the ministerial level it is the Minister who has to say we are not prepared to have the system working with these work orders not up to par. The Minister has to give some direction to his officials to say that it is a priority, that we cannot continue spending taxpayers money with a deficient work order. This should be addressed immediately. That is the kind of direction I am talking about at the political level. I am not trying to politicize in any way the committee’s functions or recommendations.

It is interesting to know whether that kind of direction is being given. I was looking more for comments from the Ministers whose budgets were under scrutiny as to whether they thought that the committee had made recommendations that were of a priority and would be addressed. In some instances we have received that kind of reassurance.

This addresses the issue of long time outstanding recommendations and whether or not there was direction given that those issues be addressed as a priority and be addressed as soon as possible.

Some of the problems identified regarding the capital project management was the concern that the projects were out of control, that there did not seem to be any control mechanism, particularly when it came to user groups having input later on in the construction of the project, at the time when all the decisions about allocation of space, scope changes and modifications should have all been addressed. Every time there is a change it costs the taxpayer more money because it involves restructuring and redesign.

We were very concerned about an issue that the Minister of Government Services touched on this afternoon, which I referred to as a juggling of the books, and I believe one of the officials referred to it as a juggling of the books. The Minister of Government Services called it “robbing Peter to pay Paul”. I think that is something again where some direction has to be given as to how much flexibility the administrative wing of government is going to have when it comes to juggling the books and robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Sometimes it is impossible to follow. Even when we had the work orders, it was impossible to determine where the officials had taken money to pay overruns on one project. They had an excess of money in other projects - projects that were delayed, that were not going ahead, and it just became a maze of trying to track money  and follow it around. I do not think that the public would perceive that as tight fiscal management.

The decision-making process is in a crisis situation. We found quite often that when there was a decision to be made, it was not made in a controlled situation. It would quite often be at a time when there would be conflicts between the departments, usually the central agency and the client department. Quite often the client department would be burdened with choosing among unpalatable options, which would be either that the project go ahead, or that it not go ahead. Ultimately, those decisions reflect upon the Minister, and the Ministers or Government Members are put in a position where they have to publicly take the criticism for projects either being delayed or not going ahead.

I emphasize again that the function of the Public Accounts Committee is a protection mechanism for the Minister, so that projects are running smoothly, and so that the public impression of the way that the government is managing their money is one that is positive. I do not think that we have been able to give that impression; definitely not from the results of the Public Accounts Committee report, this time.

The intentions of the committee were to come forward with reasonable recommendations that could be implemented, that were not impossible to implement, that were not going to be extremely costly to implement. The Minister for Government Services has already indicated that some were going to be implemented and that some were already the policy and were taking place. We will have to see if that is going to be the case.

I just want to finish up by saying that we will be following the commitments that have been made by the Ministers on the side opposite regarding their identification of problems and their commitment to resolve the problems. We will have to wait until the Public Accounts Committee sits the next time, in order to see if those recommendations have been addressed and implemented, and if the system is indeed operating and is alive and well then.

Mr. Webster: I too have to agree with the Member for Riverdale South that there are indeed problems as were identified by the Public Accounts Committee. These are incorporated into our report in the form of 17 recommendations for various government departments to follow. This should not be surprising because this is the nature of the Public Accounts Committee, to interrogate people to find out how their departments are operated and to raise some oversights, to bring to their attention that some things could be done more efficiently or in a more effective manner in the spending of public funds.

These problems are not new. They are ongoing, and they arise every year as new departments are being scrutinized, as programs are being looked at, and this year, several capital projects are being looked at very closely. The Public Accounts Committee has tended to dwell on the problems of the administration of government and not so much on the successes. We do not see a lot of praise in these reports. We see a running total of a number of problems. Recommendations are made on how to correct them, and these recommendations are followed up on. The follow up is where some good news is reported in saying that a recommendations has been fully implemented.

When this Legislature began and the new Public Accounts Committee was established, there were many outstanding recommendations from the previous Public Account Committee reports that had not been acted upon. I would like to go back to a couple of speeches that were made by members of the Public Accounts Committee on April 17, 1986 when we debated the first Public Accounts Committee report.

Beginning with the chairman, in his introduction, he said that, “We, as a committee, are concerned about the number of recommendations outstanding from Public Account Committee reports from previous years. Prior to the 1986 hearings, there were 25 outstanding recommendations. After hearing testimony, two were deemed to be fully implemented, one was revised to reflect partial implementation and one was withdrawn. The committee therefore intends to and has started to take a more active role, through an ongoing review process to ensure that its recommendations are either implemented or that there are sound reasons for a lack of implementation, in which case the committee will withdraw or revise its recommendations.”

That was a very important point for the chairman to make and a wise course of action for the committee, as a whole, to follow. Over the next couple of years, the recommendations were taken seriously in many areas. They were followed up, and as a result, some progress was made. For example, in that first debate on April 17, 1986, the chairman raised the concern about the general lack of progress made by many departments in developing and utilizing performance management indicators as a basic tool in managing the day-to-day operations of the various departments. Most of these departments now have come a long way to introduce and to use these performance indicators to get maximum efficiency from its workers and the maximum use from the dollars spent by those departments.

The Member for Faro, the vice-chairperson of the committee, was concerned about the Department of Economic Development: Mines and Small Business. He wanted to see it reorganized and restructured in such a way as to make better use of its personnel and all the funding that it had for its various programs.

I think we would all agree that much has been done in this case to ensure that has occurred. I raised concern over the Department of Tourism, the Heritage Branch. I said the committee was somewhat surprised that the operational plan of the Heritage Branch is determined by our budgets, to a large extent. Additional evidence indicated the branch did not appear to have any fundamental planning tools in place to assist in establishing priorities. The committee concluded that, generally speaking, the branch lacks a clear focus on where it is going and how it plans to get there. Given the ever-increasing level of funding, the committee is concerned the branch does not have a more comprehensive plan for the future of Yukon’s heritage and, consequently, made the following recommendation: “The Heritage Branch should develop an operational plan with clearly defined priorities.’

Within the last year, the Heritage Branch has done this, and that recommendation has been fully implemented. Having said that, I went on further in my speech on that particular day to talk about the Department of Government Services, which was also called before us as witnesses in our Public Accounts hearings held in January 1986. We were acting on an outstanding recommendation going back as far as 1983 to continue with the formalization of procedures, stating that the department should formalize the duties and responsibilities of client departments and the Public Works Branch, as well as all management procedures to be followed during the project and have them incorporated in the policy manual. It is the same policy manual we are looking at this year in the Public Accounts Committee, looking at its imperfections, looking at the fact that in many cases it has not been followed, in many cases.

I went on to say that, based on written communication and on testimony before the committee, this recommendation is considered to be fully implemented. However, because of the far-reaching nature of the procedures manual on project management, and the impact it has on extensive resources being used efficiently, the committee will, in future, check to ensure that the manual is being used properly and all the steps in planning, construction and operation of a building project are followed as they should be.

That was said in 1986. The purpose of this round of public hearings was to investigate the management of capital works and large projects because, as has already been mentioned by previous Members, of the large number of capital dollars we are now spending. In the course of doing so, the whole question of the manual being used properly, the effectiveness of the manual itself, its completeness, was raised.

It was raised to the extent that we made 17 recommendations, many of them applying to improving the procedure for government to follow in looking over the management of capital works projects. I am very pleased today to hear from the Minister of Government Services and some other ministers on the front bench that they do plan to incorporate and act on some of the recommendations that have been suggested. There has been general agreement here that the whole notion of front-end planning is an excellent idea, and the funding of a project should be made in two steps.

There are obviously two good, sound recommendations that I feel, if properly followed, will go a long way to ensuring we get maximum efficiency from our staff and maximum use of the public dollars in the construction of capital projects.

I would like to look at my own riding of Klondike. There have been a variety of projects that have been undertaken since my coming to the Legislature in 1985. Some very diverse in nature, like the construction of the dike, and the restoration of the Old Territorial Administration Building. These have gone off well. I think they have gone off well because they were well planned in the initial stages. They were well designed, had good engineering, good budgetary planning and as a consequence, as I say, they have gone off very well.

There were others that did not enjoy the same fate such as the Dawson train roof, which was a subject of the Public Accounts Committee. That was an excellent example of the work in the very first stage, that is assessing the needs and completing the design, that was