Whitehorse, Yukon
Monday, November 20, 1989
Speaker: I will now call the House to order. At this time, we will proceed with Prayers.
Prayers
DAILY ROUTINE
Speaker: We will proceed with the Order Paper.
Are there any visitors?
BIRTHDAY GREETINGS
Hon. Mr. Penikett: On behalf of all Members of the House we would like to join you, sir, in celebrating a very important anniversary today and wish you happy birthday on behalf of all Members here.
Mr. Phillips: We, on this side, would like to join in the wish for a very happy birthday.
INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS
Mr. Phillips: I would like to take this opportunity to introduce to the House Lyle Fullerton. Lyle is in the Gallery today and he is the executive director of the Alberta Fish and Game Association. He came to the Yukon to partake in our festivities last weekend and also give some advice to the Yukon Fish and Game Association on some of our future endeavours. I would like all of us to welcome Lyle to the Yukon.
Speaker: Are there any Returns or Documents for Tabling?
TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS
Hon. Ms. Joe: I have for tabling the Yukon Public Service Staff Relations Board 19th Annual Report for 1989-90. Thank you.
Hon. Mr. Byblow: I have for tabling two documents: the Fire Marshal’s Annual Report for 1988 and the Motor Transport Board Annual Report for 1988-89.
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I have for tabling the Yukon Teachers Staff Relation Board Fifteenth Annual Report for 1988-89.
Speaker: Are there any Reports of Committees?
Petitions.
Introduction of Bills.
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
Bill No. 66: Introduction and First Reading
Hon. Mr. Webster: I move that Bill No. 66, entitled Pesticide Control Act, be now introduced and read a first time.
Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister of Renewable Resources that Bill No. 66, entitled Pesticide Control Act, be now introduced and read a first time.
Motion for introduction and first reading agreed to
Speaker: Are there any Notices of Motion for the Production of Papers?
Notices of Motion.
Statements by Ministers.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
Status of Draft Education Act
Hon. Mr. McDonald: It gives me great pleasure to rise today on behalf of the many Yukon organizations and individuals who have participated in the creation of a new education act, to inform this House on the status of this legislation.
For those who have taken part over the past three years, including community groups, professional associations, aboriginal representatives, school committees, parents, students, and other citizens, this has been a satisfying and productive process.
In 1986, the Department of Education began planning. In 1987 we appointed a public task force to consult all interests across the territory, as well as creating, with the Council for Yukon Indians, a special Joint Commission on Indian Education. And last year we circulated a White Paper on principles for a new education act.
Based on those principles and the comments we received, we have drafted an act for our children and for our communities. When I say “we”, I do not mean just the Department of Education, but also the Yukon Education Council, the Council for Yukon Indians, the Yukon Teachers Association, the Principals and Vice Principals Association, and many interested parents.
Meanwhile, this government has already acted on many concerns raised during the consultation process. These include the Native Teacher Education Program, Returning to Learning for those who have left the school system or need to seek alternatives to the classroom, a special education policy for those students with special needs, and courses and curriculum based on local knowledge.
I would like to describe the main elements of the new act that will be presented soon to this House and to the public.
Communities have unanimously asked for more control over their schools. We agree. The new act will offer three choices for elected school structures: school councils, with powers to select principals, review local school plans and budgets, develop local curriculum, and advise the Minister on local needs; school authorities, which could also own school property, control all employment decisions, and set local policies and budgets; school committees, to advise the Minister and the local school administration.
Our goal is to enable children to grow to their full potential: intellectually, physically, culturally, spiritually, and emotionally. They must have the fullest opportunity to become productive, responsible, self-reliant members of society.
Toward this end, the new education act will focus all educational activities on students, including their rights and responsibilities.
As well, the act will recognize the rights of parents to participate in their children’s education, including the choice of public, private, and home schooling.
We recognize the balance between community needs and individual rights.
The new education act will recognize the special interests of Yukon aboriginal people. It will, of course, respect all agreements reached in land claims negotiations. It will include guaranteed representation on local school councils, authorities and committees. It will ensure that school courses, materials and methods reflect local culture and history.
The work of the past three years is nearly finished now, and it is my intention to present a draft act to this House early next month. I must emphasize, however, that this draft act is a working document, and the door is open for public comment.
Over the winter, we will go to all communities and interest groups to discuss the act. If our work contains flaws, we want to correct them so that act fully reflects our Yukon community. The final word, of course, quite properly belongs to this House, and I look forward to that debate next spring.
I believe the new Yukon education act will reflect both the wisdom of our traditions and our willingness to build a better future for our children.
Mr. Devries: First of all I would like to thank the Minister of Education, the organizations and the interested members of the public on the work done on the new education act. However, as critic for the department it is my responsibility and desire to see that we get the best act possible for the people and, most importantly, the students of the Yukon.
My concern is that the act reflect the changes taking place in the Yukon now and in the future and also the fundamental responsibilities of the people involved. In my reading of the new proposed British Columbia education act, I notice 20 percent of the curriculum is designated as optional and the balance dedicated to the three “R”s; the 20 percent is reflecting local input, the 80 percent preparing the students for the educational challenges of the world at large. It is my hope that the Yukon act will reflect the same balance.
The other concern I have with the ministerial statement is the lack of clarity in the responsibility of the school committees and also the responsibility of parents to ensure the participation of their students in learning. I look forward to debating the new act in December.
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I was not entirely clear about the criticisms of the ministerial statement by the Member for Watson Lake; however, the draft education act will be put out for public discussion initially at an Education Council meeting in the first week of December, at which time they will have an opportunity to go over the draft act, consider changes and receive some explanations with respect to the details.
I, too, look very much forward to debate of this very important piece of legislation in the spring of 1990 and will welcome all Members’ comments with respect to the details that we will be presenting.
Process of consultation re new health act
Hon. Mr. Penikett: I rise today to advise Members that a process of consultation will begin this month to establish the principles for a new Yukon health act. This legislation will be the framework for improving health services in the Yukon.
Escalating health costs in every region of the country are causing governments to examine their health care system and to turn from a curative to a preventive approach. The Yukon must do the same. Although it may be several years before a financial pay off in terms of reduced costs is seen, this preventive system will also yield a healthier Yukon.
The World Health Organization defines health as “not merely an absence of disease but a state of complete physical, mental and social well being”. Our government endorses the World Health Organization’s position that promoting healthy behaviour and preventing disease will help to achieve healthier communities.
Some of the indicators of health used by other jurisdictions include:
- the ability to function well within our environment;
- the ability to work and hold a job;
- the ability to maintain social relationships;
- the ability to care for our families;
- the ability to cope with difficult and painful situations as life demands; and
- the state of being without disease.
It is our policy that a health care system must integrate services, treat the whole person and foster healthy communities rather than focus on disease.
To achieve a healthy Yukon, many aspects of our health care system must be examined. But we must also be prepared to look at public policies on poverty, housing, education, justice, mental health, public health, recreation, environment, substance abuse and child welfare.
Our policy is that health care must be affordable, equitable, accessible, culturally acceptable and accountable in terms of quality and costs. We believe that equality of access to high quality health care is essential. Special attention must be paid to community-based health care services including mental as well as physical health.
The role of culture and traditional medicine in contributing to community wellness should be explored to find its rightful place in the Yukon health care system.
Government philosophy, policies and initiatives must be examined to ensure that they promote good health for both individuals and communities. At the same time, we must recognize that as individuals we can and must take more responsibility for making healthy choices in our everyday lives.
Today, I am announcing the commencement of a consultation process that will result in the development of legislation which will provide a legal foundation for a more integrated, preventive approach to health in the Yukon.
The consultation will start with an invitation to all Yukon residents to comment on the principles I have just outlined.
In the coming months a position paper will be developed and distributed to those who have expressed their interest. In addition, interest groups, Indian bands, communities and individuals involved in health and social services will be consulted.
It is my intention that from the policy paper a bill will be developed and our objective is to table that legislation in this Assembly in the next calendar year.
Thank you.
Mr. Nordling: What we just heard was not just a short, factual statement of government policy. It was a crisis management speech by a Minister and a government that has given no political direction to the delivery of health services. What we have just heard is a typical stalling tactic. I am sure we will hear this same announcement four or five times before we see any substantial progress. We all recall the numerous announcements about the Mental Health Act and an extended-care facility. The Minister’s speech does not contain any new information or revelations. We cautioned this government four years ago that a preventative approach was needed to keep health costs down. What has happened is that nothing has been done and annual costs have risen from $37 million to $47 million a year.
When the MLA for Watson Lake and I travelled to the communities on the Suicide Task Force, Yukoners told us that they were concerned with the general health of their communities and did not believe the focus should be solely on addressing the symptoms and curing of disease. They said they had been trying to get their message across, but it did not seem to be getting through. Now the Minister stands up and makes a proud statement as if he is the first and only person in the Yukon to recognize the need for a preventive approach and that attention should be paid to mental as well as physical health.
Now that I have expressed my concerns, I would like to say clearly that I hope these concerns are unfounded and that in this instance we will see action and results in the near future. The announcement is certainly on the right track and I am looking forward to hearing exactly what the consultative process will be and how long it will last. As critic for Health and Human Resources I will do all I can to assist and speed the process of improving health services in the Yukon.
Speaker: This then brings us to Question Period.
QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Brewster: I rise on a question of privilege. On November 16, 1989, I debated with the Minister of Community and Transportation Services and it was quite apparent to me by my first supplementary that I had blown it. I was not too sure which Minister was to be blamed and I had several people, including the newspapers, who wanted to see the letter from this Minister and I would like to give him an apology now. It was not the Minister in this House; it was the Minister in Ottawa who wrote those letters. I hope he will accept my apology for it.
Also I might warn the Minister that he may irritate me in the next 20 minutes and he will not be getting an apology for that.
Hon. Mr. Byblow: Rising to the Member’s question of privilege, I want to thank him profusely for the clarification because it was a matter of some confusion at the time of Question Period. I look forward to his provocative question to come.
Question re: Yukon Pacific Forest Products
Mr. Phelps: I have a few questions that relate to the sale of Hyland Forest Products assets to Yukon Pacific Forest Products Limited in Watson Lake and the resulting problems that have been raised on numerous occasions since.
As you know, last March I asked this government to table the entire package of agreements relating to the sale. I have been stonewalled by the government ever since. Have the original agreements been amended, or have the government and Yukon Development Corporation any means of enforcing the original deal made between the parties?
Last spring, the Minister responsible told Yukoners that a brand new, state-of-the-art mill was to be constructed at a cost of at least $6 million, and this has not occurred. What we have is a second- hand mill made out of second-hand parts, circa 1970 vintage.
Has the original agreement been amended to allow for this fundamental change in what we understood were the terms of the original deal?
Hon. Mr. Penikett: I am not sure how much time you are going to permit me to respond to the preamble which was quite provocative, leading up to a question that was not. As a lawyer, I am sure the Leader of the Official Opposition knows I am not at liberty to provide private information from third parties, and he will know that no private investor contemplating doing business in this territory is going to want to come here if the political leaders in the territory demand they disclose all their private business to third parties.
On the question as to whether the agreement has been amended to provide for the particular equipment that has been put in place, I would have to take the question as notice. I do know that a very substantial investment in improved plant equipment has been made at the mill, and that the working conditions for the employees have been substantially improved as a result, and will be improved further. I am comfortably assured that the kind of capital that has been involved is in the millions of dollars, as originally indicated by the new owners.
Mr. Phelps: Last spring, as part of the government’s crisis management of a political embarrassment, these assets were suddenly sold, and Yukoners were told that certain fundamental conditions were to be met by the purchasing group. One of those fundamental conditions was that the mill was to cost a minimum of $6 million.
Speaker: Order, please. Would the Member please get to the supplementary question.
Mr. Phelps: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The mill was to be financed through debt financing arranged by Shieldings Inc. How much debt financing has been arranged for the new mill by Shieldings to date?
Hon. Mr. Penikett: Is the Member seriously asking me a question that should properly be put to Shieldings? If he is, I will pass on the inquiry for him, but this is not a question within the competence of this government to ask. The Member is asking me how much money a private company has borrowed to invest in the community of Watson Lake. If I had that information, I am not sure I would be at liberty to disclose it.
Mr. Phelps: These are assets that belong to the people of the Yukon. We were told that there was a certain arrangement entered into by this government and the Yukon Development Corporation. The public has a right to know what is happening to the assets. Is there an enforceable agreement between the Yukon Development Corporation and Shieldings that can be enforced so that the debt financing will be arranged, or is there not?
Hon. Mr. Penikett: The Member is quite correct. These were public assets that have been sold. I am certainly hopeful that the commitments that have been made by the purchasing company will all be met. The complete rebuilding and replacement of equipment at that plant is underway. I understand that with the third kiln, which will be in place in the spring, we will see substantially improved plant and equipment there, with the capacity to produce far more product and sell it successfully on the market.
If the Member is asking me about the particular financial arrangements that that company made to effect the sale I will take the question as notice. The Member will know — he is playing political games, but as a lawyer he will know — that the private business of a third party is not something that can be discussed in the House unless that party agrees.
Question re: Yukon Pacific Forest Products
Mr. Phelps: We are talking about assets that belong to the taxpayers of the Yukon. We are talking about an agreement that the Minister, himself, stood up and spoke to, and released information about.
My question has to do with whether or not these agreements have been lived up to. Can the Minister stand in his place and tell this House that a brand new, state-of-the-art mill costing $6 million has been financed and established at Watson Lake?
Hon. Mr. Penikett: The Member is asking me whether a brand new, state of the art, $6 million mill has been established in Watson Lake. I do not know the exact price of the mill in Watson Lake, or to the penny the exact investment made in the new plant and equipment at that facility, but I will ask the question of the new owners and see if they can provide that information.
The Member is asking me questions about the kind of investment made subsequent to the sale. I will ask the question as it relates to the agreement that we made. Subsequent decisions by that company are not ours to communicate nor ours to defend.
Mr. Phelps: That is not true at all. The Minister knows it. The Minister has an obligation, as does this government and the Yukon Development Corporation, to ensure that the agreements entered into on behalf of the taxpayers of the Yukon Territory are enforceable before we enter into them, and are enforced once they are entered into. That is the issue.
Last spring, as part of the verbiage we got from the Minister, we were told that Shieldings was ...
Speaker: Order, please. Would the Member please get to the supplementary question.
Mr. Phelps: ... to pay $2 million to Yukon Pacific for shares, “$400,000 right away and $1.6 million over the next several months”.
My question is whether Shieldings has paid the full $2 million to Yukon Pacific Forest Products for shares.
Hon. Mr. Penikett: I will obviously have to take a question like that as notice. If the Member would like me to provide that information in a timely way in the House perhaps in the future he could either give me notice of the question or provide a written question.
Mr. Phelps: When the Minister is examining this issue, which I am sure comes as a complete surprise to him, in view of all the publicity of the bad debts of the operating company, perhaps he could check to see whether the original deal was amended to allow them to not pay the $2 million over the next several months.
Hon. Mr. Penikett: He is asking me if I would check if something did not happen, or whether it did. How ever the question was worded, I will take that question as notice as well.
Question re: Yukon Pacific Forest Products
Mr. Phelps: I thank the Minister for taking time out of his busy schedule to check into such a picayune matter. Unfortunately, my next question is about the same small problem we have in Watson Lake, and it has to do with debt financing.
Last spring, the Minister told the people of Watson Lake and the people of the Yukon that Shieldings would arrange debt financing to cover the startup costs of the new mill. How much debt financing has been arranged for this purpose to date?
Hon. Mr. Penikett: This sounds remarkably similar to a question I answered earlier, and I will answer it the same way again. If that information is in the public domain, I will establish it for the hon. gentleman.
Mr. Phelps: While he is at it, perhaps he could inquire about the $1.65 million that was to be paid by Yukon Pacific to the Yukon Development Corporation for inventory. When he was trumpeting this fantastic agreement for sale about the territory, the Minister may recall that the terms were that the $1.65 million was to be paid as the lumber is sold and the log inventory used. How much of that $1.65 million has been paid by Yukon Pacific to the Yukon Development Corporation to date?
Hon. Mr. Penikett: Again, I will take notice of that question. The Member may not find it surprising that I do not have such information at my fingertips.
Mr. Phelps: The same package of information that was trumpeted about the territory by the Minister when he was so proud of this deal stated that the balance owing of the $1.65 million for the inventory in the yard at Watson Lake was to be paid by December 31, 1989. Does that term still stand, and is it enforceable?
Hon. Mr. Penikett: Since I am confident the company is intending to live up to its obligations to us, and since we have not yet reached December 31 of this year, I am sure we expect that obligation to be met.
Question re: Yukon Pacific Forest Products
Mr. Devries: I am concerned about the outstanding debts to creditors of the Yukon and, particularly, to creditors in Watson Lake. These creditors are owed a fair amount of money, dating back as far as last March. I want to know the reason for the poor performance by Yukon Pacific Forest Products, as it is having a devastating impact on Watson Lake small business.
My first question is for the Minister responsible for YDC. Has Shieldings arranged the debt financing for the construction of the new mill?
Hon. Mr. Penikett: I believe that is exactly the same question that was asked earlier by the Leader of the Official Opposition in slightly different words. I took notice of that question, reminding Members again that the financial arrangements between a private business and its banks are not ours to disclose. I am sure the Member opposite knows that.
Mr. Devries: We were told by the Minister that Shieldings would arrange financing for the new mill. Is it not true that the new mill improvements are being financed out of operating revenues, and not by loans arranged by Shieldings, as promised?
Hon. Mr. Penikett: As I just told the Member, I cannot give him precise information about the methods by which the company is financing the expansion of the improved plant and the equipment in the mill in his community. I will take the question and refer it to the appropriate source.
Mr. Devries: Is it the failure of Shieldings to obtain financing that has resulted in the local businessmen financing the operation by not being paid on time?
Hon. Mr. Penikett: It is quite possible that there has been a problem of obtaining interim financing for the operation but a problem of that kind would not be mine to discuss in public. I, as does this government, take very seriously the concern expressed by the Member in the preamble to his question about unmet obligations in that community and I have communicated those concerns directly to the chief executive officer of the company and received assurances that those obligations will be met and the bills will be paid.
Question re: Yukon Pacific Forest Products
Mr. Devries: I am sort of astonished that the Minister does not have answers to some of these questions, as this has been going on all summer. Obviously he was going around all summer with his head buried in the sand.
When the sale was announced last spring we were told that the $1.65 million for inventory would be paid to the Yukon Development Corporation, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition previously mentioned. Is the reason that we have all the outstanding amounts owed to small business in Watson Lake that Yukon Pacific has been paying money to the Yukon Development Corporation, rather than meeting its obligations to small business?
Hon. Mr. Penikett: I want to thank the Member for his extremely constructive and thoughtful and very positive, constructive preamble. I am sure that will help the people in Watson Lake get their bills paid.
The Member asks a question that is in some sense hypothetical, but he also asks if people in Watson Lake are not being paid because the Yukon Development Corporation is being paid. It seems to me that is an effort to set up a kind of scenario for scapegoating.
The Leader of the Opposition earlier asked if the obligations to the Yukon Development Corporation were being met. It is the position of this government that all the obligations of the new owners of that mill to the people of this territory, in the name of the Yukon government, and to individuals doing business or working in Watson Lake, should be met — that both sets of obligations should be respected — and it is our wish and our hope and our intention to help facilitate that.
Mr. Devries: Last spring we were also told by the Minister — and he may have already answered this question — that Shieldings would pay $1.6 million for shares to Yukon Pacific over the next few months. Is one of the reasons that Watson Lake businessmen have not been paid that this money has been paid by Shieldings to Yukon Pacific Forest Products?
Hon. Mr. Penikett: The question seems to me to very confusing. It says, if one of the reasons why something has not been paid is because something has been paid... Mr. Speaker, I will have to examine the text of the question to see if it makes any sense and if it makes any sense then I will try to answer it.
Mr. Devries: That should have been Yukon Development Corporation.
The Minister said that Shieldings would arrange debt financing for startup costs at the new mill and I want to know whether such additional debt financing was arranged, or whether this too has in fact been financed off the backs of the Watson Lake people.
Hon. Mr. Penikett: Apart from the appendix of the reference to the backs of the Watson Lake people, that is an identical question to the one asked earlier by the Leader of the Opposition, to which I took notice.
I am terribly sorry that the Members opposite are so negative about this project, as they have been from the beginning. There have been difficulties and startup problems at this mill. There have been problems at this mill throughout its history, I am sorry to say. I am hopeful that these problems will soon be behind us. This government is still determined to see this project succeed. I regret only that Members opposite seem to be determined to see it fail.
Question re: Yukon Pacific Forest Products
Mr. Phelps: I wonder if the Minister is also sorry that the debts have not been paid to small businesses in Watson Lake, that the town has suffered as a consequence, and it is apparent that the agreement has not been lived up to by the people to whom these assets have been sold including, of course, the shareholder, Yukon Development Corporation.
Hon. Mr. Penikett: I am not sure there was a question there. As I said earlier, we are of course concerned about bills that have not been paid and, as I said earlier, I have made representations to the head of the company to the effect that it is our very earnest wish that those obligations be met.
I think it is unfortunate that none of the Members opposite today have said a word about the new investment in Watson Lake, the improved plant and equipment or the working conditions of the workers, the 70 permanent jobs there, the business opportunities or what the injection of millions of dollars into the local economy will mean today and for the future for that town.
We are determined. We have taken considerable risks. We have made substantial investment and have suffered a lot of criticism. But we believe the decision we made to put that mill back on its feet and get that town up and running again, bringing in new investments, was still the right decision.
Question re: Yukon Pacific Forest Products/Watson Lake economy
Mr. Phillips: I have a question for the same Minister. Over the past several years I have had the opportunity to visit Watson Lake on many occasions. I have to say that I am extremely concerned about the current state of affairs in Watson Lake.
Most of the current problems are the result of poor management on behalf of the Yukon Development Corporation and the Minister opposite. I wonder if the Minister could tell us — after this government has pumped between $10 million and $20 million dollars into Watson Lake — why the Watson Lake economy is in such poor shape today?
Hon. Mr. Penikett: I am not sure that was a permissible question since it was basically argumentative. The Member will know — even though he would not want the public to know — that mill has been in private management even during the time we owned it. The effort of this government to bring in what we were advised were the best managers available was one to give the kind of confidence or to achieve the best prospects for the mill under private management.
As the Members know, when things did not improve under one manager, there was a change in private managers. The mill is under private management again and also under private ownership.
The Member comments on the economy of Watson Lake. I understand the problems we are talking about, but I can only say that there are 70 more people working in Watson Lake with permanent jobs than were when we got involved in this project. Seventy jobs are nothing to sneeze at in this territory anywhere.
Mr. Phillips: I think history is going to clearly show that it was not previous management that was the problem, it was the fact that the government did not follow the advice of the previous managers. That has led to the problem today. Many businesses in Watson Lake today are owed money by the mill and are experiencing severe financial difficulties because of the mill’s problems. Can the Minister tell this House if he is aware that one of the largest hotels in Watson Lake, the Belvedere Hotel, has recently gone into receivership because of the problems in Watson Lake?
Hon. Mr. Penikett: I will have to accept the Member’s version of one fact, but I am not sure I would accept the causal relationship between the operations of the mill and the conclusion he reached without further examination. Since he has made that accusation, I will look into it to the extent that I am able.
Mr. Phillips: I find it extremely interesting that the Government Leader, the Minister responsible for the problems in Watson Lake, does not know that the Belvedere Hotel has gone into receivership and that the Belvedere Hotel has received over $300,000 through economic development agreements. I wonder what the Government Leader or anyone in the government is doing to protect the taxpayers’ dollars that are invested in this hotel that has unfortunately gone under because of the conditions he created in Watson Lake.
Hon. Mr. Penikett: I certainly do not accept the Member’s presupposition that the government was either exclusively or even partially responsible for the significant problems that the Belvedere Hotel faces. I think if the Member had taken the time to do the necessary research into the troubled hotel business, he would have found out that the hotel was experiencing difficulty well over 18 months ago and consequently, because of those difficulties, has gone into receivership.
The Yukon government, as one participant in this enterprise through loan funding, has taken whatever steps it can to ensure that the taxpayers’ dollars invested in this particular project will be recovered.
Question re: Yukon Pacific Forest Products
Mr. Lang: I am a little confused about the lack of responses to questions put to the Minister responsible for the Yukon Development Corporation. Perhaps some major initiatives have taken place over this past summer that enable him to stand and talk in this House as if he has no interest whatsoever in the Yukon Pacific Forest Products organization.
Is it not true that the Yukon Development Corporation still holds shares in that organization?
Hon. Mr. Penikett: That is a question of public record. As the Member knows, I have told him in the House, and I am sure he has had it confirmed from other sources, the Yukon Development Corporation still holds 15 percent of the shares in that company. We are committed to selling those shares according to statements that we have previously made. As a 15 percent shareholder, our interest in the company is represented on the board of directors by Mr. Jim Holt, a resident of Watson Lake, who is the only representative on the board of the company. As a minority shareholder, we play no role whatsoever in the operation of the company.
Mr. Lang: Now it is somebody else’s fault. In order to function in today’s economy, any business has to maintain a good reputation that naturally follows a credible credit rating. As indicated earlier, it is no secret that many Yukon businesses, as well as out-of-territory businesses, are owed substantial amounts of money. My concern has to do with businesses outside the territory and whether or not they are being paid. It has come to my attention —
Speaker: Order, please. Would the Member get to the supplementary question.
Mr. Lang: It has come to my attention that outside businesses, at least one, have been told that they are not going to be paid, that only local organizations are going to be paid because of political pressures being raised in the territory over the really disgraceful situation that exists.
My question to the Minister of the Yukon Development Corporation, who admitted previously that the corporation does still hold a substantial share in this organization, is: is this true and is it the policy of Yukon Pacific Forest Products, and if so, does the Yukon Development Corporation agree with such a policy?
Hon. Mr. Penikett: The Member has made a charge without providing any facts, figures or information. He has alleged that there is a policy by someone to pay local accounts but not extra-territorial accounts. I have no knowledge of such a policy, and the government has made no position or endorsed such a policy.
I do find it peculiar that when the mill was in public ownership, the Members opposite were opposed to government involvement and wanted private ownership. Now that it is in private hands and private management, they are calling for active public intervention. It seems to me there is a fundamental contradiction in their position that they ought to look at.
We have said that we will make representations in the public interest on behalf of the people we serve in the Yukon in terms of getting their bills paid. I do not know what other accounts are due or what private remedies may be available to those people, but I have been given an assurance by the chief executive officer of the company that their bills will be paid and their obligations will be met.
Question re: Yukon Pacific Forest Products
Mr. Lang: I am very concerned about the reputation of this particular mill with outside organizations.
In order to function, we need suppliers and contractors, not only in the Yukon, but primarily from British Columbia and Alberta, to provide certain services. If their bills are not being paid, they are not going to get the necessary equipment to carry on as a successful organizations. This is my concern. There are bills outstanding to outside suppliers......
Speaker: I would like to remind the Member of Guideline 7, which permits a one-sentence preamble.
Mr. Lang: There are bills outstanding over 90 days, as far back as March of last year. Would the Minister make an undertaking to this House to contact the principals of this organization and seek assurance that these outstanding bills will be paid as quickly as possible in order that the mill’s reputation can be salvaged? If these bills are not paid, the mill is going to reap the long-term consequences.
Hon. Mr. Penikett: I understand the point the Member makes regarding the reputation of the mill. I am proud to say that when the mill was owned by Yukon Development Corporation, the bills were paid promptly and on time.
The Member asked if I would give an undertaking to make a make representation to the officers of Shieldings about the payment of certain accounts. I have made such representations and have received assurances from the company.
If the Member is making a representation on behalf of certain private interests outside the territory, perhaps he might communicate to me, privately, the names of those interests, and I will act on that information. I am not sure that I could do much more than I have already done in terms of the general question about the company meeting its commitments.
Question re: Yukon Pacific Forest Products
Mr. Phelps: It seems to me that the side opposite seems to misunderstand the representations and the intent of the questions being directed from this side. After all, it was the government that entered into the secret deal and refuses to make the terms and obligations public.
We are asking the government to look into whether or not the commitments made in this arrangement have been lived up to. Is Sheildings going to arrange the debt financing in excess of $6 million that was necessary to make this operation run smoothly without incurring debt on the back of small business? Is Sheildings going to pay the $2 million that was to have already been paid to the operating company for shares?
Will the Minister responsible look into this with a view to enforcing the agreement, if it is enforceable, to ensure the necessary working capital is put in place so that this operation has a chance? Does the Minister understand what I am saying?
Hon. Mr. Penikett: The same question is being asked, in one form or another, for the fourth or fifth time today. I will reiterate that this government has financial dealings with hundreds and hundreds of businesses. It would be a very sorry day if those companies with whom we have dealings felt that we would disclose their private business. The Member opposite well knows that, in response to his direct question some months ago, I asked those third parties if they were prepared to have their private, internal transactions disclosed, and they said no. They refused, so the Member’s reference to a secret deal is purely political posturing.
Let me deal with the serious and substantial point of this question, which is the concern about the obligations of the purchasers of that mill being met. It is our policy and our determination that those obligations are going to be met.
Some Hon. Member: (inaudible)
Hon. Mr. Penikett: The Members have asked this question half a dozen times today. Surely, they cannot object to me answering, again, for the half-dozenth time. Perhaps they only wish to put the questions on the record and are not interested in the answers.
We do intend that the obligations of the other party be met, inasmuch as we also intend to meet out own obligations.
Mr. Phelps: We were told last spring that the $2 million for equity would be paid before now. We were advised the debt financing would be arranged for the new mill, and that is in the past tense.
If these obligations have not been lived up to, will the Government Leader, the Minister responsible for the Yukon Development Corporation, take steps to ensure the agreement is enforced so that the money is forthcoming from the other parties?
Hon. Mr. Penikett: In a word, we expect the contractual obligations made by the third party to us and to other people to be met, in the same way that we intend to honour our own contractual obligations.
Question re: Tatshenshini River staking moritorium
Mr. Phillips: Last Thursday in this House, the Minister of Renewable Resources announced a placer mining freeze on a Yukon river. He announced that freeze prior to consultation with the area land use planning committee, and with no consultation with the Chamber of Mines. As well, he made remarks in this House and out of the House in the respect that his government did not have to consult with the mining community because, in his words, they do not consult with him when they do something.
I would like to direct my first question to the Minister of Economic Development. Did the Minister of Renewable Resources consult with you or your department on the placer mining ban prior to you meeting with the Chamber of Mines less than 24 hours before he came into this House and made the announcement of the ban?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: The conversations between government Ministers are not something that are normally disclosed in the House. All I can say is that the government policy the Minister of Renewable Resources stated in the ministerial statement Thursday was to express the desire that the federal government remove from future staking lands along the Tatshenshini River. It was not considered to be either a ban on placer mining forever, nor an attack on the placer mining industry, but merely a reflection of the government’s interest in the wilderness value of a particular river.
Mr. Phillips: I find that really surprising. This is the government that is the government of consultation. The Government Leader stood in front of Canada less than two weeks ago and talked about how well they consult with everybody. It appears the Minister of Renewable Resources did not consult with the Minister responsible for mines when they made this important announcement.
Cabinet business aside, did anyone in the Department of Renewable Resources consult with the department responsible for mining before they put the freeze on land?
Hon. Mr. Webster: I want to make it clear from the very beginning that we did not put a freeze on mining. We are requesting a moratorium from the federal government on future placer staking in that area until the recommendations of the Land Use Planning Commission have been announced. It is the role of the Land Use Planning Commission to do consultation and to seek views from all interested parties. It is not the role of the Government of Yukon to duplicate that process and consult with everybody before we come up with our own position to be sent to the commission. That is their role. I am quite certain that Yukoners want to hear what the Government of Yukon has to say about the use of the land resource in this area. Based on our own independent assessment, we have done so, and I am quite certain that other organizations, such as the Chamber of Mines and the Yukon Conservation Society, will do the same thing.
Mr. Phillips: Surely to goodness the Minister opposite would have realized that when he strikes a committee in the Kluane area for land use planning, their very job would be to see the decision he made last week preempting anything they would do.
Does the Minister not believe this lack of consultation is totally contrary to this government’s own policy with respect to the land use planning process?
Hon. Mr. Webster: I want to make another correction to the Member’s preamble. It was not this government that struck the committee; it was a joint decision of the federal and territorial governments to give this commission independent ability to hear from all Yukoners on the matter. All we are doing here in making this request of the federal government — which incidentally has the final decision on the matter — is to ask them to place a moratorium on future staking, so that we can preserve the Tatshenshini River until their final recommendations have been made. We are not in any way preempting the decisions or the recommendations of the Land Use Planning Commission, and I would suggest to you that this could be used the same way when you consider the federal government’s approval of developing the Wellgreen property in the same area. I would like to ask the Members opposite if they consider that to be preempting the recommendations of the commission?
Speaker: Time for Question Period has now lapsed. We will proceed to Orders of the Day.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Special adjournment motion
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I move that the House, at its rising on Tuesday, November 28, 1989, do stand adjourned until 1:30 p.m., Monday, December 4, 1989.
Speaker: It has been moved by the Hon. Government House Leader that the House at its rising on Tuesday, November 28, 1989, do stand adjourned until 1:30 p.m. Monday, December 4, 1989
Hon. Mr. McDonald: By way of clarification, this motion requesting adjournment of the House for the two days of November 29 and November 30 will permit a number of elected Members of this Assembly to attend a national leadership convention of the New Democratic Party of Canada.
As Members know, the Yukon’s MP, Audrey McLaughlin, is a candidate for leader and has sought the active support of the government MLAs and most other Yukoners and we on this side of the Legislature wish her success.
Mr. Phillips: Just so that it is on the record, none of the Members from this side will be taking time off to attend that convention.
Motion agreed to
GOVERNMENT BILLS
Bill No. 42: Second Reading
Clerk: Second Reading, Bill No. 42, standing in the name of the Hon. Mr. Penikett.
Hon. Mr. Penikett: I move that Bill No. 42, entitled Intergovernmental Agreements Act be now read a second time.
Speaker: It has been moved by the Hon. Premier that Bill No. 42, entitled Intergovernmental Agreements Act be now read a second time.
Hon. Mr. Penikett: As I believe most Members know, intergovernmental agreements of a contractual or political nature either fall under the requirements of section 20 of the Yukon Act or not, and they are referred to in the halls of power in Ottawa as section 20 or non-section 20 agreements. Section 20 agreements require that an agreement is similar to one entered into by Canada with other provincial jurisdictions under federal legislation, and such agreements require enabling territorial legislation.
It is our belief that the Commissioner is not legally required to sign intergovernmental agreements and that those agreements may be signed under the authority of the responsible Executive Council Member of this government. The federal government has maintained that because authority is delegated by the federal government to the territorial government, whose statutory head of government is the Commissioner, it is necessary for the Commissioner to sign such agreements.
We have made repeated representations to the federal government as to the non-necessity for the Commissioner’s signature. There is lengthy exchange of correspondence between ourselves and the federal government on this point.
Initially, the federal position was that program transfer agreements required the Commissioner’s signature. Clearly, that position was unacceptable for us and I am sure would be unacceptable to all Members of this House.
Recently there has been movement by the federal government and an indication that they would allow the program transfer agreements to be executed without the Commissioner’s signature provided we enact an intergovernmental agreements law such as the one before us today. We preferred not to bring in a law that dealt with program transfer agreements only — in other words, all intergovernmental agreements, other than those pursuant to section 20.
We have recently had correspondence from Mr. Cadieux, the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, who agrees to apply territorial legislation to Canada/Yukon agreements.
As you know there are program transfers under discussion all the time and agreements of all kinds that are being negotiated and signed between the two governments as a fairly regular occurrence. Our position is that the Commissioner’s signature is not required on any Canada/Yukon agreement. However, this legislation has been drafted in such a manner to ensure that non-section 20 agreements are covered and section 20 agreements are arguable at some future date.
Admittedly the introduction of this legislation represents a compromise with the federal government. The federal government has accordingly instructed the Commissioner to be bound by any non-section 20 agreement entered into between Canada and the Yukon pursuant to this enabling legislation once it is passed. The bill will authorize the appropriate responsible Minister to sign agreements and will legally make that signature sufficient to bind the Government of the Yukon.
Once in effect this legislation will eliminate the necessity to argue the need for the Commissioner’s signature on each agreement and opens the door for future discussion on the necessity for signature on section 20 agreements or, in other words, on agreements of any kind.
I would respectfully submit that this legislation and its recognition by the federal government represents a small but significant step towards more responsible and autonomous decision making in the Yukon government.
Mr. Phelps: We, on this side of the House, have no problem in endorsing the intent of the bill in principle. As I am sure everyone here is aware, this has been a continuing struggle for quite a considerable period of time. I can recall the previous administration getting into this argument in a fairly bitter way from time to time as memorandums of understanding and other such documents were entered into between the two levels of government.
I must confess that I am somewhat uneasy with regard to the legality of this bill and as to whether or not such agreements signed even with the enabling legislation would necessarily be enforceable. Section 20 of the Yukon Act reads as follows: “The Commissioner in Council” which of course is the Assembly, “may make ordinances authorizing the Commissioner to enter into an agreement with the Government of Canada under and for the purposes of any Act of Parliament that authorizes the Government of Canada to enter into agreements with the provinces, but no such agreement shall be entered into by the Commissioner without the approval of the Governor in Council.”
I simply want to say that I am a little uneasy about the legal background as set forth by the Minister and I would be more than interested in seeing some of the background material that he has addressed himself to. Having said that, we support the intent and the move forward if we are able to make such a move.
Speaker: The hon. Member will close debate if he now speaks. Does any other Member wish to be heard?
Hon. Mr. Penikett: I would just comment on the three points indicated by the Leader of the Official Opposition.
The first is I appreciate the support for the bill. It comes as no surprise, given that the matter before us is the product of a long struggle, as he indicates. I would even argue that it is a continuing struggle.
I would like to clarify the point about section 20. It is my understanding that the federal government would, for the time being, continue, as it requires, to have the Commissioner’s signature on section 20 agreements, but this legislation would give us the ability to continue to argue for that change.
In respect to the communications between myself and the federal Minister, if the Leader of the Official Opposition would accept it on an embargo basis, I would be quite happy for him to see the correspondence that details the understandings between us.
Motion for second reading of Bill No. 42 agreed to
Bill No. 45: Second Reading
Clerk: Second Reading, Bill No. 45, standing in the name of the Hon. Ms. Joe.
Hon. Ms. Joe: I move that Bill No. 45, entitled Act to Amend the Employment Standards Act, be now read a second time.
Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister of Justice that Bill No. 45, entitled Act to Amend the Employment Standards Act, be now read a second time.
Hon. Ms. Joe: This bill contains a number of amendments that affect the administration and enforcement of the Employment Standards Act. The changes proposed in Bill No. 45 do not affect the minimum standards set out in the act, such as overtime, general holiday pay and termination. The Employment Standards Act was proclaimed in effect January 1, 1985, and has received only minor amendments since that date. We recognize that minimum standards that were acceptable in 1985 may not meet the needs of employers and employees in the 1990s. The aim of legislation such as the Employment Standards Act is to set minimum standards for fair and equitable employment. Those standards must change with changing conditions and expectations in society.
I am pleased to announce that, as well as the changes being made in Bill No. 45, we will be starting a full review of the standards set out in the act in 1990. During this review, we will seek input from a broad range of Yukon society. We will be asking Yukoners what they like about the present act and what they do not like. Are there ways we can simplify it? Are there new standards that should be included? For example, maternity leave provisions were included in the act for the first time in 1985 and were on par with provisions across Canada. The trend now is to longer leave entitlement, such as those proposed in the amendments for the Unemployment Insurance Act. Other jurisdictions are looking closely at paternity and parental leave, as well.
Similarly, notice of termination provisions put in the act were acceptable in 1985. Minimum notice of termination in other jurisdictions now increases based on the number of years worked to a maximum of eight weeks. There are a broad range of options that can be considered in designing an employment standards act that will meet the needs of Yukon society in the 1990s. It will be a very exciting process.
One of the reasons this is exciting is the importance of this legislation. It is used on a daily basis by employers and employees throughout the Yukon Territory. During 1989, there were approximately 9,000 employees in the Yukon who fell under the Employment Standards Act, and probably 2,000 employers. Eighteen hundred, or 16 percent, of those individuals contacted the Labour Services Board in the Department of Justice to inquire about the act. Two hundred and ninety-four employees filed wage claims under the act. Employment standards officers were instrumental in collecting $180,000 on behalf of the employees.
The act establishes a framework of minimum standards over which employers and employees can negotiate conditions of work. Clearly, the efficient administration and enforcement of the act is necessary to ensure that all employees receive at least those minimum standards.
The majority of employers know the provisions of the legislation and the established conditions of work that comply with that legislation. They run their businesses in a responsible fashion and treat their employees fairly and equitably. The changes we are proposing in Bill No. 45 will not affect those employers. The changes will affect those employers who are not prepared to provide their employees with the minimum standards set out in the act.
The most important change in Bill No. 45 is the removal of the statutory declaration requirement. At present the Director of Employment Standards must obtain a statuary declaration signed by the employee and served on the employer before a certificate for wages can be issued. This requirement has been identified as a problem by labour groups and employers — particularly contractors — and by the departmental officials charged with the responsibility of administering the act.
The labour groups have perceived the statutory declaration as an unnecessary burden on the employee and one that impedes the enforcement of the act.
Employers, particularly contractors, recognize that the efficient enforcement of the Employment Standards Act is necessary. They want to know that all contractors comply with the law because they are at a significant disadvantage if they must bid against contractors who are prepared to ignore the requirement to pay overtime or other minimum standards set out in the act.
The departmental officials responsible for enforcing the act recognize that the present-day requirement provides a monetary reward for employers who refuse to voluntarily comply with the act. It makes their job more difficult. The statuary declaration requirements mean that in a situation where there is an infraction of the act involving a number of employees, the employer will end up paying approximately one-third of the wages actually owed pursuant to the act. Labour services officers have found that approximately one-third of the employees will complete a statutory declaration. The director must still be able to prove that each employee is owed wages and must notify the employer of the particulars of the complaint. The amendment will not affect those requirements, nor will it affect the right to appeal the certificate.
We are also proposing an amendment that will allow the director greater flexibility in issuing averaging orders. This change will allow an averaging order to be used in a non-union workplace where a majority of employees have indicated their agreement in writing.
The time to appeal a certificate is being increased to 21 days. Experience has shown that the 14-day time limit is too short. The appeal provisions are in the act to ensure that employers or employees who disagree with the amount of the certificate have the right to be heard by an independent board. We do not want to deprive the parties of the right by having an appeal period that is too short.
Section 14 of the bill dealing with associated corporations is a new provision. This amendment will allow the Director of Employment Standards to treat corporations, individuals, firms or syndicates operating under common control as one employer. This will solve the problem of wages being owed by one employer with the assets held by another corporation.
The maximum fine for a conviction under the act is also being increased from $1,000 to $10,000. When the maximum fine of $1,000 was first established in 1968, it was a significant amount of money. The value of $1,000 has changed since that time. The extent of the change in the maximum fine will send a strong signal to the courts that conviction of an offense under the Employment Standards Act is a serious matter.
The remaining changes are housekeeping changes. We have changed the wording of some sections where the legislation does not reflect the intention of the act and in other cases to eliminate inconsistencies in the act.
The changes will benefit all working people in Yukon and will have no effect on employers who are already complying with the legislation.
Mrs. Firth: The Minister has provided me and some groups with a large, comprehensive package regarding the proposed changes and amendments to this piece of legislation. Upon inquiring, I find that the Chamber of Commerce has received its package but has been unable to review it or examine the implications of the changes. The Contractors Association has not received any information yet from this government. Lodges and other business are also uninformed as to what the proposed changes are regarding the Employment Standards Act.
The representation came via the Federation of Labour and the Carpenters Union regarding some of the changes that the Minister is proposing. At the time, the Minister announced publicly that there were going to be some changes in the Employment Standards Act, she said that consultation on the proposed changes would be limited to those people who approached her office about the issue. I am sure that the government would not like to give the impression that this was some kind of selective consultative process that they had gone through.
In view of some of the concerns I have regarding the proposed changes and those of some of the people I have spoken to over the weekend, would the Minister delay proceeding with the debate in Committee of the Whole until those groups have had an opportunity to review the package that has accompanied the legislation so that they have an opportunity to raise whatever concerns they may have regarding the changes? I think it is fair to say that the removal of the statutory declaration provisions and the streamlining of the issuance of certificates may cause some concern with employers.
Upon first glance at the explanatory notes that the Minister provides, it looks quite acceptable, until one reads the exact working of the legislation, which is very concise and very immediate — there is no such streamlining. The complaint can be registered and then the issuance of the certificate for payment happens automatically.
Is the Minister prepared to commit to giving some time to the organizations? I would think they would need a minimum of two weeks to review the proposed changes before we move the bill into committee for a clause -by-clause examination of the impact of all the changes.
Speaker: The Hon. Member will close debate if she now speaks. Does any other Member wish to be heard?
Hon. Ms. Joe: In regard to some of the concerns that were told to this House by the Member for Riverdale South, the amendments are changes that individuals have been asking for over the past year and longer. There were commitments made in regard to such things as declarations that were being signed. The whole process of trying to put together these proposed changes was the result of meetings with many individuals and groups who have been lobbying for this for a long time. At the same time, because we felt that amendments only would not fulfill the need of many of those individuals, we decided we would proceed with a long review process. The process itself has not been identified. We will have a review process in place very shortly.
I would have no problem leaving this bill on the table for awhile — not for a long time — because I am very anxious to proceed with it. That would allow some of those people whom the Member for Riverdale South has mentioned time to see it. It is my intention to proceed with it. Certainly, if the Member feels that some other individuals out there might be interested in finding out what is in it, I can certainly do that.
Motion for second reading of Bill No. 45 agreed to
Bill No. 55: Second Reading
Clerk: Second Reading, Bill No. 55, standing in the name of the Hon. Ms. Joe.
Hon. Ms. Joe: I move that Bill No. 55, entitled Act to Amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act, be now read a second time.
Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister of Justice that Bill No. 55, entitled An Act to Amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act be now read a second time.
Hon. Ms. Joe: The amendments to the act are put forward to consolidate the functions of the health and safety representatives, to clarify the present section dealing with safety committee members’ wages, to standardize the accident investigation requirements and to allow the workplace parties some discretion in determining the types of accidents to be investigated.
You may recall that the Yukon’s first Occupational and Safety Act was assented to in 1984. Since that time there has been one amendment and that was enacted to accommodate the Pan Canadian Workplace Hazardous Material Information System.
Industry and labour, during the first five years, have expressed some confusion with the sections being put forward for amendment. After listening to the parties, this government has now responded.
It should be noted by Members that these are clearly not major changes; however, they are important in that they provide an accommodation of the workplace parties to continue moving forward and reducing risk within our Yukon community.
As an example, the change to the accident reporting requirements, while maintaining the present reporting criteria, will allow the individual work sites to broaden their scope in investigating and reporting accidents that may be unique to their particular establishment. This flexibility is important and obviously will play a part in ensuring that Yukon workers are protected from the potential of injury.
The remaining amendments simply make the act easier to read and in the case of the extension of the appeal filing timeframe, allow the work place parties more time to reflect on the potential success of any appeal.
Mrs. Firth: The general principles of the bill are not objectionable to this side. I will have some specific questions for the Minister when we go to clause-by-clause debate. I would like to point out that although the Minister says that there are no major changes, there is a subtle change in the fact that the employers have been paying committee members for their work when they were on their regular time of work and the employers will now be required to pay committee members if they are doing committee work on their time off as well.
That is a change and employers will be interested in that. I realize that it does not affect the small businesses, but those with 20 or more employees. That is a subtle change and I may have some specific questions for the Minister regarding that particular aspect of the amendments.
Motion for second reading of Bill No. 55 agreed to
Bill No. 95: Second Reading
Clerk: Second Reading, Bill No. 95, standing in the name of the Hon. Ms. Joe.
Hon. Ms. Joe: I move that Bill No. 95, entitled Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 1989, be now read a second time.
Speaker: It has been moved that Bill No. 95, entitled Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 1989, be now read a second time.
Hon. Ms. Joe: In most sessions the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act is passed to correct typographical and other technical defects in existing statute law. Over the past year or so, departments have reviewed the acts that they administer and have identified errors in various pieces of legislation that require correction.
Passing this legislation is purely a routine housekeeping matter for the House, as that act does not contain any policy items. There are 22 acts that are being amended by the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, and they are: Access To Information Act, Age of Majority Act, Agricultural Products Act, Animal Protection Act, Change of Name Act, Constitutional Questions Act, Court of Appeal Act, Fine Option Act, Housing Corporation Act, Income Tax Act, International Commercial Arbitration Act, Interpretation Act, Liquor Act, Lottery Licensing Act, Motor Vehicles Act, Municipal Act, Pharmacists Act, Public Services Staff Relations Act, Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act, Workers Compensation Act, The Young Persons Offences Act, The Yukon Development Corporation Act.
Mrs. Firth: I always find these miscellaneous statute law amendment acts very interesting. I find particularly interesting the phrase “routine housekeeping matter”, because I am going to be looking forward to hearing the Minister’s explanation, her justification, and her rational as to the wise use and wise expenditure of government money.
The first four amendments to acts that are being amended are to remove sexist linguistic uses. I do not regard that as a routine housekeeping matter when this government is either going to hire somebody or use the services of someone already in the department to go through all the bills, from A to Yukon, and change he to “he/she” and change “him” to “him/her”.
I think I am a practical person and do not see this as a great priority, and I have not, frankly, talked to anybody who finds this a major concern or issue. I could see the government, when they bring in new legislation, being cognizant of the fact that they should be using non-sexist language, but really, to now go through the two volumes of books of laws of the Yukon Territory and have someone sit down and pick out all the “he”s and all the “him”s and change them — I do not find this to be a priority or a constructive use of taxpayers’ dollars. I would like the Minister to take that concern very seriously, because they have obviously started at Access To Information Act and the intention is to go on through volumes and volumes of bills and change it.
I also am concerned about the changes that are made regarding the titles people have been given or the way we are going to address people within the Yukon Development Corporation or the Housing Corporation. We are not going to call people chief executive officers or executive directors anymore; we are going to call them presidents. Where is the big priority in this?
We sat here this afternoon and listened to Question Period. We listened to the Minister responsible for one of the major issues in the Yukon right now in Watson Lake. He could not answer any questions, yet a priority of this government is to change “he”s to “he/she”s, and “him”s to “him/her”s and titles of “executive directors” to “presidents”.
Frankly, I do not think that is going to do the public a lot of good, and I do not think it is going to improve the service the public is going to be receiving from this government.
I have some other concerns about some of the proposed housekeeping matters, and I will not go into all those now. I will wait until we get into the line-by-line items and raise them at those particular times. I am seeing there may be a couple of errors in the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 1989, and we will resolve those when we come to the clause-by-clause debate in Committee of the Whole.
I hope the Minister takes very seriously the issue I have raised and takes it in the constructive sense. I want to re-emphasize with her that I do not think this is a major issue with the Yukon public. I hope that before we get any further than the Animal Protection Act with the sexist language that we really examine what we are doing, and is it not enough the new legislation we write addresses this issue, instead of us spending the money and time for someone to go through all the bills making these changes.
Speaker: The hon. Member will close debate if she now speaks. Does any other Member wish to be heard?
Hon. Ms. Joe: I would like to let the Member know that I certainly have taken all the remarks she has made very seriously. I have noted them and, as we go through the legislation clause-by-clause, there will be an explanation for it. She has indicated it was not a real priority in regard to changing sexist language. I would like to tell this House it is a very serious issue and that there have been a lot of different individuals and groups lobbying on behalf of those changes. We are not living in the dark ages anymore, and those changes will be made. They will be made under this government when they can. We are starting in a small way by doing the first four under miscellaneous statutes. She has mentioned a few other areas of concerns, and I have taken her seriously, and I look forward to the debate.
Motion for second reading of Bill No. 95 agreed to
Bill No. 72: Second Reading
Clerk: Second Reading, Bill No. 72, standing in the name of the hon. Mr. Webster.
Hon. Mr. Webster: I move that Bill No. 72, entitled Mackenzie River Basin Agreements Act, be now read a second time.
Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Minister of Renewable Resources that Bill No. 72, entitled Mackenzie River Basin Agreements Act, be now read a second time.
Hon. Mr. Webster: Bill No. 72, Mackenzie River Basin Agreements Act, allows the Government of Yukon to enter into interjurisdictional agreements concerning the study and use of water resources in the Mackenzie River basin. This agreement will provide a formal mechanism for cooperation between several jurisdictions: Canada, the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia. There has been ongoing cooperation between these governments for several years. Many hon. Members will recall that, 12 years ago, this government signed a memorandum of understanding on the water resources of the Mackenzie River basin. Since then, the Mackenzie River Basin Committee has met regularly to share information on water issues, activities related to water management, and developments proposed for the Mackenzie River basin.
The Mackenzie River Basin Agreements Act will provide the legal authority for this cooperation to continue. This agreement has significant benefits for the Yukon. It will enhance the exchange of information between the jurisdictions involved. It will provide the Yukon with access to information on the management of these waters in other jurisdictions, and to the expertise available within other agencies. Under this agreement, we will have the opportunity to increase our understanding of the requirements of managing these resources. In this respect, our involvement will assist with negotiations on the devolution of water resources to this government.
I believe this agreement is of considerable benefit to this territory. It will also reflect the reality that the waters within the Mackenzie River basin are shared resources and that it is up to all the governments concerned to manage them responsibly. This agreement will assist us in managing these resources for the joint benefit of the provinces and territories concerned and help us to achieve our common goals.
I look forward to any questions hon. Members may have and to their support for this bill.
Mr. Lang: I want to clarify our position. We are not opposed to the act as presented, but I think there are a number of outstanding questions that are going to have to be answered by the government with respect to what exactly is taking place as far as the plans for the Mackenzie River are involved.
At the outset, the Minister outlined the fact that there has been a committee in place for, I believe he said, 12 years where information has been exchanged. I think it is important that we have an idea if there is anything major taking place there.
Just as importantly, what does the department project our financial contribution to such an agreement will be? These things are not free. They do cost money. I would like to know exactly what is planned for the studies over the next five years that the Minister has indicated are underway, what our contribution is and what is the end objective for these studies? When I look back at what has taken place in years past with some of the studies on some of the rivers, it seems to me that consultants have earned a great deal of money and the reports go on the shelves. There has to be an end objective for when all this is finished. When you take a look, not only in the Yukon but throughout Canada, at the responsibilities we are going to take on as taxpayers with the tax increases that are going to be coming in at the federal level — not even knowing what is going to happen at the territorial level — there is only so much money. I believe it is going to be a question of priorities. There is only so much money. I believe the Minister should have that information and should be able to provide it to the House. If he wants us to enter into a formal agreement, he should have an idea of where we are going.
Ms. Kassi: I have spoken in this House many times about how important it is for us to protect the environment in which we live. My remarks today will be short.
I support this act as another step taken by this government to meet the tough challenge of environmental action. Intergovernmental agreements lead to better resource management, but we must also establish a mechanism to guarantee clean-up funds when an environmental disaster does take place. Victims must be compensated, and we must consider ways to correct damage done to our land, water and air.
The Mackenzie River basin is a vulnerable area, receiving as it does water from many rivers in several different jurisdictions. This act makes it possible for the Yukon to set up research agreements and to work on conservation with the provinces and the federal government.
Fish and wildlife in the area are vulnerable to pollution and to interference in their natural cycles brought about by development. In turn, the aboriginal traditional way of life is also threatened. There is often a tendency to think that because large numbers of people are not affected, environmental changes are not significant. I believe attitudes are changing and more and more people are beginning to see that the smallest alteration in the environment can upset the precarious balance in the natural world.
Speaker: The hon. Member will close debate. Does any other Member wish to be heard?
Hon. Mr. Webster: I want to thank the Member opposite for raising his concerns; I can assure him I will bring those answers back to this House when we are debating this bill in Committee of the Whole.
I want to bring it to his attention that the end objective of the studies we will be able to enter under this agreement will be dealing with the proper response of management of the water resource in these areas. We all know that it does take money to conduct studies to determine the proper, responsible way to manage water resources. I will try to come back with an answer as to what our financial requirements will be over the next five years when we sign this agreement.
Motion for second reading of Bill No. 72 agreed to
Bill No. 73: Second Reading
Clerk: Second Reading, Bill No. 73, standing in the name of the Hon. Mr. Webster.
Hon. Mr. Webster: I move that Bill No. 73, entitled Yukon River and Alsek River Basin Agreements Act, be now read a second time.
Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Minister of Renewable Resources that Bill No. 73, entitled Yukon River and Alsek River Basin Agreements Act, be now read a second time.
Hon. Mr. Webster: The bill before hon. Members will authorize the Yukon government to enter into interjurisdictional agreements concerning the study and use of water resources in the Yukon River and Alsek River basins. This agreement will provide a formal mechanism for cooperation between three jurisdictions: Canada, the Yukon and British Columbia. There has been ongoing cooperation between these governments for several years. Hon. Members will remember the intergovernmental study on the Yukon River Basin. In 1984, this study recommended that the governments of Canada, the Yukon and British Columbia enter into a formal agreement to coordinate and cooperate on water management activities.
The Yukon-Alsek River basin agreements act on this recommendation. This act will provide to the Yukon the same significant benefits as the Mackenzie River Basin Agreement Act. I look forward to any questions hon. Members may have and to their support of this bill.
Mr. Lang: Just for the record, the same questions I asked about the previous agreement are applicable to this as well. I trust the Minister will bring us a proposal for the projections over the next five years as to what is expected of this agreement and what costs are going to be incurred by the taxpayer and what cost-sharing agreements we are going to have with the various governments involved.
Mr. Joe: I rise in support of this bill. Conservation has been practiced by my people for generations. This is not a new idea. An important part of conservation is knowledge. This act talks about research and collecting information about an important water resource. We are all aware of the serious threat of different kinds of pollution to our waters. Anything that we can do to protect our environment we should do. In the interest of conservation and protection of our resource for coming generations I support this bill.
Motion for second reading of Bill No. 73 agreed to
Bill No. 11: Second Reading
Clerk: Second Reading, Bill No. 11, standing in the name of the Hon. Mr. Byblow.
Hon. Mr. Byblow: I move that Bill No. 11, entitled Act to Amend the Municipal and Community Infrastructure Grants Act, be now read a second time.
Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister of Community and Transportation Services that Bill No. ll, entitled Act to Amend the Municipal and Community Infrastructure Grants Act, be now read a second time.
Hon. Mr. Byblow: Bill No. 11 before us proposes an amendment to the Municipal and Community Infrastructure Grants Act. Members will recall that the original act provided for a system of community infrastructure grants to municipalities. One of the more notable initiatives authorized by that act was the grants program contained within it. In that program, the Government of Yukon provides annual grants to each municipality for the construction of various infrastructure services, including water and sewer systems, roads, fire halls, recreation facilities and other infrastructure. I believe this to be one of the most progressive and devolved programs for municipalities in Canada today. I say that with some measure of personal knowledge, having dealt with the program at a recent municipal ministers conference in Calgary. The Yukon Infrastructure Grants Program was cited as a notable model of programs in Canada. With the proposed 1990-91 infrastructure grants, the Government of Yukon, since inception in 1986, will have provided $35 million to Yukon municipalities through the program. The act establishes a process for determining the annual municipal infrastructure grant fund and provides for the method of distributing the grant to each of the eight municipalities. The grants process was developed with the cooperation of the Association of Yukon Communities, and it is the product of considerable cooperation and a consensus from the mother organization.
The proposed amendment before us provides for an adjustment to the distribution formula in order to prevent an undesirable skewing of the grant distribution in future years. The amendment is more of a technical nature and may seem somewhat complex to people who are not familiar with the intricacies of municipal finance. At this point, I will speak to the general principle of the amendment without speaking to the complexities of the formula involved.
As I indicated, we are in the third year of the municipal infrastructure grants program. An undesirable trend has developed in the grant distribution, and particularly as it affects the City of Whitehorse.
In 1987, the City of Whitehorse received 43 percent of the total available grant. The Whitehorse percentage has increased each year to the point where in 1989 the City of Whitehorse received 50 percent of the total funds. This trend will continue should the existing formula be permitted to remain in place. The trend has been a consequence of the disproportionately large increase in the property assessment that takes place in Whitehorse. It is expected that it would continue if we permitted the formula to remain as is. This trend was brought to the attention of the Association of Yukon Communities. The association fully recognized the implications of this distribution trend that was occurring. They agreed to work together with the department to develop modifications to the formula. I am pleased to say that what we have developed here is the product of considerable discussions between the municipalities and a general consensus of agreement on a modification to the formula.
What has occurred in developing a new formula is, essentially, the incorporation of a consumer price index to the formula, and a new factor called municipal price index. The municipal price index was recommended by the smaller municipalities to recognize the different costs to operate municipalities throughout the Yukon. The proposed amendments will result in a Whitehorse grant equalling 51 percent of the grant fund. The result will slow down the broadening skewing in the formula that has been taking place.
Incorporating the consumer price index and the municipal price index is a credit to the municipalities. This organization has responded extremely well to a concern about the future distribution of the grants. I am very pleased with the recommendation that has come forward to redesign the formula slightly before a major problem developed. I believe this demonstrates a respect from AYC for the devolution principle that is inherent in the program. It is a compliment that a consensus has been reached.
In short, the bill will enshrine the amendments that have been recommended by the AYC, and I will be asking for the general support of the Assembly for the amendment.
Mr. Brewster: I have listened with a great deal of interest to what the Minister had to say. I polled all the municipalities today, and they all agree. However, I must point out to them I think the Minister realizes there is some reluctance in some of them of what was going on. However, nobody had a better answer so, as all these municipalities have agreed, it would not be for me to turn around and obstruct my peers that way.
There is one thing that bothers me, however, and it has a little bit to do with this. These municipalities, as they get this much more money, are getting more and more powerful, and are now taking liberties, as far as I am concerned. I would not be surprised if the Minister might agree with me, but they are now attempting to run things outside their municipality. They are making decisions for people who do not live in the municipalities. They are demanding they have these rights, and they were not elected for these things. They were elected to run their municipalities. I see more and more over the last eight to 10 years, since we started the municipalities, with these people going in, and I think it is about time this Legislature and government makes policies to instruct these people in just how far they can go. You will find examples in two or three places where the municipalities want to have a say on these that are completely outside the municipality and are actually trying to interfere with people who have no opportunity to vote these people in, and the people in the municipalities did not vote them in to do these things.
Speaker: The hon. Member will close debate if he now speaks. Does any other Member wish to be heard?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I am truly being treated to unusual and unkind punishment from the Members opposite. I only want to express a few thoughts on this bill, because I know what the Minister responsible has gone through to try and find a resolution to the funding formula of this nature. I think the Member for Kluane quite rightly points out that it may not be everybody’s first choice but, as a compromise solution, it is the best choice for all people concerned.
We have a motion on the Order Paper this afternoon with respect to the principle of block funding so perhaps I will reserve my comments for that point. I wanted to get on the record my full support for one other thing that the Member for Kluane had to say with respect to the role of municipal councils in rural Yukon.
It is occurring, and has been occurring for sometime, that municipal councils are taking the view that they are in essence a type of regional government, that they represent the interests of people outside the municipal boundaries. This is perhaps an inappropriate perspective on the part of some people who are either on councils or are supporters of councils. Whereas I do respect the right of municipal councils absolutely to take municipal decision making in their own community through the full range and breadth of the kind of decisions that they should take in order to encourage the good health of those municipalities, I feel strongly that those people who are rural residents but who are not voters for the municipal councils should not be subject to the view by this Legislature that the councils represent their views. If there is anything that a rural member wants to avoid, it is suggesting in rural Yukon that once the Government of Yukon has touched base with a municipal council they have touched base with everyone in a region. That is most vociferously and aggressively disputed by people who do not reside inside the municipalities.
I would like to put on record that I support the views suggested by the Member. I am not sure, either, whether they are germane to this particular act, but it is something worth stating in any case.
Mr. Lang: I would just like to make a few observations about the bill. A number of us have been involved in one manner or another in the proposing of legislation to this body in respect to how our dollars are going to be disposed of in the municipalities. I appreciate the problem that the present Minister has in coming up with a formula that is going to be satisfactory to all concerned. It is not an easy task and I was very pleased to see the Association for Yukon Communities coming up with a unanimous decision on how changes should be enacted in legislation.
For the record, I also notice the Minister did not make the point, but the City of Whitehorse did make the point that they were prepared to go with the changes under the understanding that there would be a further look and a further refinement of the formula within the next number of years. That has to be one of the caveats in the legislation because it is always evolving. No matter what formula you come up with and you think you have all the answers you will find down the road that there is a significant change, for example, in the assessment base or some other variable, and all of a sudden the whole formula comes into question. Obviously, if one municipality is getting more money, another is getting less. It is attempting to try to keep peace within the communities so they can conduct business, so that it is not a “them or us” situation.
I want to caution the Minister, because the City of Whitehorse was very cooperative when it said it would agree with the changes in the amendment. The Minister did not outline what the exact dollars would mean to the municipality of Whitehorse if the old formula had stayed in effect. I am led to believe that if the old formula was still in effect the additional dollars that would have accrued to the City of Whitehorse would be in the neighbourhood of $2 million, which is substantial. There is no question that the City of Whitehorse obviously saw that it was not fair to see that much money going to the capital city.
I agreed to the changes, but at the same time the point is being made, and I think some credence and some scrutiny as time goes on should be given to the disposition of other dollars from this government through various programs, whether it be the Local Employment Opportunities Program, whether it be water and sewer subsidies; for an example, the costs inspection services; for an example, the extra capital projects that are put in some communities where 10 percent is required, whereas in the City of Whitehorse, in some cases, 100 percent is required.
I am just saying that, for example, in the LEOP program, I know there have been some proposals requested by the City of Whitehorse that have, for one reason or another, been turned down, and maybe legitimately so. All I am saying, in trying to seek that area of fairness, is that there are other programs the City of Whitehorse should have good and easy access to in proportion to the people who are involved. When you are dealing with programs where unemployment is a major consideration, obviously the City of Whitehorse has got its fair share of the unemployed; unfortunately, that is a fact. There are a lot of people out there who have a tough time meeting their bills.
I just wanted to raise that as a caution to the Minister in attempting to reach that point of fairness to all communities. This is an area that has been raised to me by a number of city councillors privately and I think it is one that should be given some credence as time goes on because I do not think that anybody wants to get into a situation of “them or us” type of confrontation. I think there are enough finances to go around as long as it is done judiciously and fairly. I would like to think that all Members are striving to that end.
Speaker: The hon. Member will now close debate if he now speaks. Does any other Member wish to speak?
Hon. Mr. Byblow: I rise in appreciation of the support from the Members opposite and that of the former Minister. The Member for Kluane raised the issue of a growing tendency of municipalities to assume a sense of responsibility for neighbouring areas outside of municipalities. I want to tell the Member that that has been a subject of some discussion with Association of Yukon Communities members, and it is a matter that has precipitated some considerable debate.
The only expansion to the points made by previous Members on the subject that I would make is that in areas where there are no other parties or people who are available for consultation, quite often the municipality is used as a sounding board. This does not mean that municipalities have a jurisdiction or is there a suggestion that they have a jurisdiction, but certainly in the consultation process I have tended to use a very broad cross-section of area input on matters affecting municipalities and adjacent areas.
Often the case does arise where matters precisely outside a municipality overlap with matters within a municipality, so it is a matter that has to be treated cautiously, but I assure the Member that the issue of responsibility is more one of consultation than direct authority.
The Member for Porter Creek East raised the Whitehorse position that they accepted the formula for a one-year period, and that is correct. The consensus that was achieved from the eight municipalities was highlighted by Whitehorse’s position that they were not making a long-term commitment to the readjusted formula but were simply approving it for this next fiscal year and would like to see the issue reviewed. Certainly that will depend on circumstances a year from now.
The formula would appear to provide a basis for funding under municipal infrastructure grants for a number of years. I want the Member to recognize that part of the skewing problem has been the result of far greater construction, and thereby assessment, in Whitehorse than has been the pace in rural communities. It was creating a disparity of funding under the existing formula in favour of Whitehorse. The original intention under municipal infrastructure grants was that Whitehorse would achieve approximately 50 percent of the available funding, and that is what we have tried to restore.
The Member for Porter Creek East also mentioned the amount of money that Whitehorse would have got under the old formula and he used the figure of $2 million. I should point out to the Member that on an annual basis it is just under $300,000, and I suspect what the Member may have been referring to was the 10-year projection that we did.
Certainly, over a 10-year period there is a potential of a $2 million or $3 million variance. It only amounts to some $270,000 per year.
I am sure there will be a number of detailed questions in committee, and I will look forward to them.
Motion for second reading of Bill No. 11 agreed to
Bill No. 84: Second Reading
Clerk: Second Reading, Bill No. 84, standing in the name of the hon. Mr. Byblow.
Hon. Mr. Byblow: I move that Bill No. 84, entitled Municipal General Purposes Loans Act, be now read a second time.
Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister of Community and Transportation Services that Bill No. 84, entitled Municipal General Purposes Loans Act, be now read a second time.
Hon. Mr. Byblow: The intent of this act is to renew the Government of Yukon’s authority to lend money to municipalities. Monies are loaned to provide for or expand major municipal services such as water and sewer services, street paving, and similar type projects where municipalities do not have total funding available to them.
The act has traditionally been passed as required. It provided a limited aggregate amount of monies that could be lent. As the aggregate amount was reached, a new act would be passed to provide for renewed authority and a renewed total lending amount.
Municipalities are able to borrow monies from the Government of Yukon under provisions of this act at a lesser rate of interest than through normal lending institutions. It is also a more streamlined method of borrowing because it provides for much less paperwork to municipalities than would be required through banks or other institutions.
The last Municipal General Purposes Loans Act was passed in 1986. It provided for a lending limit of $5 million. Since that time, we have provided to municipalities approximately $3 million in debenture borrowing under provisions of the act. We have been advised by municipalities that there is an anticipated borrowing, next year alone, for an additional $2.5 million. That would exceed our current authority by $500,000.
With our current lending authority being limited, we must meet next year’s obligation. This act proposes a new limit of $5 million. This should be more than sufficient to meet the potential needs of the municipalities for a number of years. It would thereby eliminate the need for us to introduce an act each year.
Since 1972, when the first act came into being, a total aggregate lending authority of approximately $22 million has been extended by the various successive acts. Currently, the Government of Yukon has a total of $10,668,000 in actual debenture loans to municipalities. The rest has been paid back. This breaks out to approximately $7.5 million for the City of Whitehorse, just over $300,000 for the City of Dawson and just over $2.5 million to the Town of Faro.
Some examples of projects that have been funded through debenture loans under this act in the past include the Whitehorse Arena, the Klondike Visitors Association in Dawson to renovate Gertie’s, and the purchase and construction of a mobile home park in Faro.
I would just note that previous municipal general purposes loans acts contained a number of provisions respecting the criteria and guidelines that a municipality had to follow in undertaking the borrowing. All these are provisions that have since been incorporated into the Municipal Act and are found under section 227 of that act. They provide the guidelines of the extent to which each municipality can borrow under this loan agreement. There are limitations such that municipalities do not exceed their ability to repay.
At this time, we do not have any indication from municipalities as to what extent they might avail themselves to borrowings beyond next year. The Municipal General Purposes Loans Act now before us simply ensures that the Yukon government is in a position to lend money as may be required for the next several years.
In summary, this enables the government to provide an additional $5 million in debenture borrowing to municipalities. In turn, these loans enable the municipalities to effectively manage their local affairs by carrying out those public works they choose in a manner consistent with sound fiscal principles.
Mr. Brewster: I suppose the Minister thinks he is Santa Claus when he hands this much money out. I phoned the municipalities again this morning and, of course, they all jumped on this one. I think that is one of my problems in government and around government, is the government has been handing out money so long and so fast that every time you turn around, people want more money. Nobody stopped to think that some day it has to stop.
I have another concern on it, and I do not suppose it is a great concern because you are going to have to have this if we do get a few white elephants. Number one, we are putting people in there who are only in there for a few hours a month and things like this; they are trying to run this, and they trust a manager to go through and get this, so you are bound to get a few white elephants. I guess, if you looked at what bigger governments do, white elephants are not really that bad. It is closer to home, and some of these things can be slowed down. There are some cases of white elephants out there.
However, as long as they keep paying back and do not work the taxpayers over in the areas at the same time and do not start building utopias that we cannot live in, I do not really have a great deal of a problem with it.
Speaker: The hon. Member will close debate if he now speaks. Does any other Member wish to be heard?
Hon. Mr. Byblow: Briefly in response to the Member’s concern about the potential of white elephants and the issue of handing out money, I should repeat this is not money handed out. This is money that is provided in a standard debenture borrowing with appropriate security and appropriate repayment terms. As I indicated in my opening remarks, section 227 of the Municipal Act outlines those guidelines that govern the extent to which a municipality can get into debt under borrowings from this loan account.
For example, I note the total amount of debt any municipality can get into shall not exceed two percent of the current assessed value of all real property within the municipality that is subject to taxation. There are guidelines there, ceilings to which the municipality cannot borrow. Of course, they have to pass the appropriate bylaw and it receives the appropriate approvals, and it is governed by limits and ceilings of what the municipality is capable of carrying.
The Member can be reassured this is an account that provides for borrowing on legitimate projects the municipality can handle.
I am not aware of any white elephants, as such. I have indicated that under this program since its inception some time ago, $22 million dollars has been lent and obviously $12 million has been paid back. We are in the position of owing $10 million right now under debenture. I can give some reassurance to the Member that the loan account is not a handout and has got very strict guidelines for the municipalities ability to handle it.
Motion for second reading of Bill No. 84 agreed to
GOVERNMENT MOTIONS
Clerk: Item No. 1, standing in the name of the Hon. Mr. Byblow.
Motion No. 33
Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister of Community and Transportation Services
THAT this House supports the policy of devolving decision-making power to the municipal level; and
THAT this House reaffirms its support for the principle of devolving the authority and responsibility to make capital planning and spending decisions to the municipal level through the mechanism of block capital funding.
Hon. Mr. Byblow: I am going to be relatively brief with my opening remarks on this motion. It was originally brought forward in the spring, as Mr. Speaker is aware. I have chosen to bring it forward again.
The principal reason I wanted the motion to receive some debate is because I have received a number of representations from a number of municipalities that they have some question about the future of block funding. Block funding is essentially the Municipal and Community Infrastucture Grants Act which provides for a block of funds to be distributed to municipalities. The municipalities have assisted in establishing the formula by which that block fund has been developed.
The previous Minister was responsible for the introduction of that grant and it achieved a number of devolution principles when it was brought forward. Previous to the time of block funding, funding to the municipalities was on a project-by-project basis. A capital plan was produced by municipalities. It may or may not have been adopted by the territorial government. It was always a case of where municipalities had a difficulty in long-term planning. It did leave a lot of decision-making outside their hands. Certainly the philosophy and approach of this government has been to devolve spending authority to local communities where the decisions have the most impact and where decisions ought to be taking place.
The motion, as stated, essentially calls for this House to reaffirm the support for the policy of devolving that decision-making to communities, in this case municipal communities, and we are reaffirming our support that municipal infrastructure grants are important and that we will protect their continuation in the future.
I believe the concern raised since last spring and throughout the fall revolved around concerns that the principles enshrined in the legislation were going to work in some communities and not in others, that this House was creating additional funding opportunities for some municipalities outside block funding and, therefore, the integrity of the principle of block funding was at stake.
Block funding is an objective and goal of this government. Municipalities are questioning whether we indeed have that commitment. I would like those municipalities to feel reassured and comfortable that the rules and principles contained in block funding will be protected. We have it enshrined in legislation and we have no intention of abandoning the approach taken in 1987 by the previous Minister. Municipalities can look forward comfortably to a secure funding base for their infrastructure needs.
As you are aware, the block fund provides for a sum of money to be distributed on a formula basis to communities. This allows those communities to meet the infrastructure needs within those communities, whether it is requirements for building construction, road upgrading or municipal sewer and water projects. The act provides for that funding to be available each year and they can plan their administration accordingly.
At the same time, the act provides for extraordinary expenses that come up. Each municipality from time to time may be faced with extraordinary expenses relating to their infrastructure needs. The act respects that this may happen and provides thereby an opportunity, whenever any project proceeds two and one-half times the amount that the municipality gets, for a cost-sharing arrangement to be struck with the Yukon government to help fund it.
In part, this is a principle I would like this House to reaffirm its support for because municipalities have raised the concern that they are not sure that this House supports that principle. That principle has been applied on two occasions since the act has been put in place: once in Mayo and once in Haines Junction. In those communities projects that were deemed necessary exceeded two-and-one-half times the amount those municipalities got. So there was additional extraordinary funding for those special projects that those municipalities could not afford on their own, or within the capability of the grant itself.
In essence, the principle that extraordinary funding would be cost shared, that individual municipalities can rely and count on a base grant each year, and the policy that we, as the Legislature, support and approve municipalities making those decisions ought to be reaffirmed here today. I look forward to hearing that in debate.
Mr. Lang: It is safe to say that there has been unanimous support given to the concept of the grant system that was brought into place in 1987. It should be pointed out that legislation was put in place prior to 1987 for the purposes of a formula to transfer operating funds to the various municipalities. I understand that legislation is still in place and works successfully, although changes have to come about every now and then with changes in the various assessments and things of this nature, which happen on an ongoing basis. That is, in part, one of the roles of the Association of Yukon Communities on behalf of the government, as well as itself. The dollars are evenly and fairly distributed throughout the communities.
The principle of the motion is not objectionable to this side. It should be further clarified, in order to ensure that we are all speaking to the same issues. I am going to be proposing an amendment to the motion so that it is very clear that all members of the House recognize that there are extraordinary capital projects that may have to be undertaken at one time or another by the certain communities.
One that comes to mind is the costs that are going to be incurred by the City of Whitehorse for the sewage lagoon. We had a lively debate here last spring regarding the Whitehorse sewage lagoon. It was unanimously agreed by all sides that this project would be seen as an extraordinary financial expense on behalf of the municipality, and that subsequently an agreement would be worked out between YTG and the City of Whitehorse to see what type of financial arrangement can be made with the community.
If the position of the government is that if it is $10 million, and the bill has to be footed totally by the people of Whitehorse, it may be a long time before we ever see a sewage lagoon that is capable of meeting environmental standards ever put in place in Whitehorse.
I am here to tell you that that particular kind of financial expense could not be incurred by the City of Whitehorse without a significant and long-term increase in property taxes.
When you look at the property taxes in Porter Creek, they are significant. People are paying $2,000 and sometimes over $2,000 on an annual basis. That has to be remembered. It is out of your net income.
It is imperative that when we get a project of that kind, that the environment outside the municipal boundaries are taken into account. That is where the YTG has to assume some responsibility.
Members from the other side spoke to this particular case at great length. They have spoken of their commitment to work with the City of Whitehorse to arrest a very serious environmental problem facing the territory. It is one we can do collectively, between the Government of Yukon and the City of Whitehorse. The situation could get out of hand if we continue to ignore it. It is a shame when you hear the people residing in the Lake Lebarge area say they do not feel comfortable drinking the water. There is no reason, in this day and age, that this has to happen.
Amendment proposed
Mr. Lang: I think it is important that the commitment that was made last spring not be lost sight of. I would ask that the motion to be amended to read as follows:
THAT Motion No. 33 be amended by adding, after the second paragraph, the following new paragraph:
“THAT this House reaffirm its support for the principle that the Government of Yukon will enter into extraordinary financial agreements with municipalities for expensive capital projects such as sewage lagoons to meet acceptable environmental standards.”
Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Member for Porter Creek East
THAT Motion No. 33 be amended by adding, after the second paragraph, the following new paragraph:
“THAT this House reaffirm its support for the principle that the Government of Yukon will enter into extraordinary financial agreements with municipalities for expensive capital projects such as sewage lagoons to meet acceptable environmental standards.”
Mr. Lang: I have to remind some Members opposite that the wording of this amendment is basically taken from the motion that had unanimous support last spring, where all Members spoke to it at great length on their commitment to work out an arrangement with the City of Whitehorse that was acceptable.
You will note in the motion that I said “with municipalities”. I did not name the City of Whitehorse, because I think it is important we think of such communities as Mayo where, down the road here, some major significant environmental projects are going to have to be undertaken there in the area of sewage lagoons. You have other communities throughout the territory that may well have to be upgraded. The one that comes to mind where significant work is going to have to be done is the one in Teslin. It is not just confined to one community.
It is important we all recognize that these are projects that go well beyond the capital block funding. This is not to say the community does not have to put its fair share forward. If we are getting into the situation, like the City of Whitehorse and the sewage lagoon, where, after $10 million, the YTG will consider sitting down and talking with the City of Whitehorse, then I believe we are shirking our responsibilities here and would be going against the spirit and intent of the words that were spoken last spring.
I will stand in my place and say this right now, and I will probably be standing in my place four years from now, if the position is that the city taxpayer of Whitehorse has to come up with $10 million for a sewage lagoon, for example; the money is just not there. In fairness to those councillors, and the city council as a whole and the City of Whitehorse, which is facing a major problem, and the problems that are emanating from the environmentally unacceptable standards that are being applied today down river toward Lake Laberge, it is going to be a shame if it is going to have to continue, especially when you have a situation where various standards are being set, not by the City of Whitehorse but by other parties. That has to be taken into account as well.
When we talk about a project of this kind, I would like to think the YTG would be able to get some extra funding from the federal government on behalf of projects of that kind. They have the responsibility for environmental control. I am sure the amendment I brought forward, that I view as a friendly amendment, was an oversight by the Members opposite, and I look forward to their support. I think it just clarifies the position of the House, and that is primarily why the motion was brought forward in the first place, as mentioned by the Minister of Community and Transportation Services in his opening remarks. He wanted to reaffirm various principles in the area of municipal financing, and I think this clarifies an area that was obviously an oversight on his part, especially in view of the words that were spoken last spring.
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I enjoyed the debate today, largely because the principle of the motion that the Minister of Community and Transportation Services presented is a principle that I strongly support as a Member of this Legislature and a representative of constituents in this territory. The principles of block funding, as outlined in the motion that the Minister presented, are principles which speak to allowing communities to make decisions for themselves.
Briefly, because I will speak to the main motion as well, I would like to respond to the Member for Porter Creek East, who has presented an amendment to the motion that he characterizes as friendly. When he smiles, of course, he is gritting his teeth; that is about as friendly as I think we can expect from the Member opposite. I have the utmost and absolutely total respect for the Member for Porter Creek East on most issues and most subjects; however, with respect to this subject and the amendment that the Member proposes, the difficulty that I personally see with the amendment is that it clearly moves away from the principle of the motion and starts speaking to specific types of projects, which the government will — without consideration for the community’s ability to pay, the government’s ability to pay — be funded by the Yukon taxpayer and by the Legislature.
Point of Order
Mr. Lang: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker: Order. Point of order to the Member for Whitehorse Porter Creek East.
Mr. Lang: I would ask a ruling from you, Mr. Speaker. The Member opposite alleges that my amendment has moved away from the principle of the motion and I would ask that you rule as to whether or not the amendment is in order. If it is away from the principle of the motion, obviously, it should be ruled out of order.
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I was making the point to the Member, before he rudely interrupted me, that the point of the Member’s amendment is, in fact, to bring the motion to specifics...
Speaker: Order, please. The Minister of Finance will speak on the point of order.
Hon. Mr. McDonald: On the point of order that the Member brought forward in his attempt to interrupt my speech, the point I was making was not the technical point of whether or not the principle of the motion was being adhered to with respect to the amendment, but whether or not the Member was in fact moving to discuss specifics of the principles. I was about to object that the motion that the Minister presented was one that dealt exclusively with principles, and not with specifics, on purpose. In my view, the technical point that the Member made was not appropriate because I have never challenged whether or not the amendment is in order, technically.
Mr. Lang: On the amendment, I think that it is important because the Minister, earlier, whether he realizes it or not, indicated to this House that he felt it was out of order. I just am asking for a ruling from the Chair as to whether or not the amendment is in order. If it is in order then obviously, Mr. Speaker, it speaks to the principle and we can carry on discussion. If it is out of order then obviously we should not be discussing it at all. All I am trying to do is to go along with the rules of the House and be as friendly as I possibly can to people such as the Minister of Economic Development. I just want to ask you whether or not the amendment is in order.
Hon. Mr. McDonald: On the point of order, once again, and certainly not wanting to indicate to the Members opposite that the amendment is not in order technically, the point that I was making was that the principles of the motion were generally stated and the Member was moving to specifics. I did not challenge the right of the Member’s amendment to come before the House and I say so in a friendly way. However, if the Member has legitimately misunderstood my remarks, then as far as I am concerned that is fine, but if the Member has intentionally desired to interrupt my debate as a characteristic of just simply being rude, then I take objection to that.
Mr. Lang: I could never be rude to the Minister of Economic Development. I know who to be nice to and when to be nice to him.
I think it is more important than that. I would not want to think that the side opposite would vote against this amendment on the pretext that it was out of order, as the Minister was indicating, prior to me rising on the point of order. I do not want to go against the rules and all I ask is for a fair ruling from the Chair. We would not want to see the side opposite using some technical excuse for voting against a friendly amendment of this kind, especially when they voted for essentially the same motion last spring.
I would ask that the Speaker tell us if the amendment is in order.
Hon. Mr. McDonald: On the point of order, I would not like to indicate that the Member is out of order — he may be out to lunch, but he is not out of order.
Speaker: I find that there is no point of order. The Chair has accepted this amendment. I take it that the Minister was not saying this amendment was out of order.
Hon. Mr. McDonald: It has taken the Member for Porter Creek East some considerable time to come to the understanding that literally every other person in this Legislature came to a long time ago. It did allow Members to take a coffee break while the Member for Porter Creek East did his typical gymnastics in an attempt to interrupt debate and to stick his snoot into debate yet another time because he has not heard his voice often enough over the last six months.
The more the Member for Porter Creek East speaks, the less friendly I think it is.
I will deal with the actual wording of the particular amendment itself. The amendment says that the Government of Yukon will enter into agreements with municipalities for expensive capital projects. The amendment appears to be a blank cheque by the Government of Yukon to enter into special capital projects. As the Minister of Finance it would be a rare thing for me to agree to such a carte blanche plan to spend money by this Legislature. The attempt by the Member to provide for his amendment is, in my view, financially irresponsible. Consequently, I could not support it as it stands.