Whitehorse, Yukon
Monday, November 27, 1989 - 1:30 p.m.
Speaker: I will now call the House to order.
We will proceed at this time with Prayers.
Prayers
DAILY ROUTINE
Speaker: We will proceed at this time with the Order Paper.
Are there any Introduction of Visitors?
INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS
Hon. Mr. Penikett: I would like to call the attention of all Members to the presence in the public gallery of Brigadier-General Larry Gollner, who was appointed commander of the northern region of the Canadian armed forces effective July 31, 1989, and replaces Brigadier-General O’Donnell, who was known to a number of Members of the House here. Brigadier-General Gollner is here with his aides, including the officer commanding in Whitehorse. I would ask all Members to bid him welcome.
Saskatchewan Roughrider’s Grey Cup win
Hon. Mr. Byblow: I rise to bring the attention of the House to a monumental event that took place in Toronto yesterday. As Members are aware, and as I would like to highlight, the Saskatchewan Roughriders clinched the Grey Cup in a remarkable display of Canadian football supremacy. That supremacy has not been demonstrated since I left the province 23 years ago. Far be it for me to suggest that there may be any relationship. I am sure that all Members, including Edmonton, fans would join me in an expression of congratulations to the team and I thank you, sir, for your kind interpretation of the rules.
Mr. Brewster: I would also like to congratulate the Saskatchewan Roughriders, and go beyond that to congratulate the old farmers in Saskatchewan who have foot the bill until they finally got a championship.
TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS
Hon. Mr. Penikett: I have for tabling the Annual Report of the Yukon Development Corporation for the period ending March 31, 1989, and the Annual Report of the Yukon Energy Corporation for the period ending December 31, 1988.
Hon. Mr. Webster: I have for tabling a legislature return in response to a question raised by the Member for Porter Creek East, the Interim Management Plan for the Porcupine Caribou Herd in Canada 1989-90 and 1992-93, and the 12th Annual Report of the Yukon Liquor Corporation.
Hon. Mr. Byblow: I have for tabling a legislature return to a question asked by the Member for Watson Lake.
Speaker: Are there any Reports of Committees?
Are there any Petitions?
Introduction of Bills?
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
Bill No. 19: Introduction and First Reading
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I move that Bill No. 19, entitled First Appropriation Act, 1990-91, be now introduced and read a first time.
Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister of Finance that Bill No. 19, entitled First Appropriation Act, 1990-91, be now introduced and read a first time.
Motion for introduction and first reading of Bill No. 19 agreed to
Bill No. 13: Introduction and First Reading
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I move that Bill No. 13, entitled Second Appropriation Act, 1989-90, be now introduced and read a first time.
Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister of Finance that Bill No. 13, entitled Second Appropriation Act, 1989-90, be now introduced and read a first time.
Motion for introduction and first reading of Bill No. 13 agreed to
Bill No. 7: Introduction and First Reading
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I move that Bill No. 7, entitled Fourth Appropriation Act, 1988-89, be now introduced and read a first time.
Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister of Finance that Bill No. 7, entitled Fourth Appropriation Act, 1988-89, be now introduced and read a first time.
Motion for introduction and first reading of Bill No. 7 agreed to
Speaker: Are there any Notices of Motion for the Production of Papers?
Notices of Motion?
Statements by Ministers.
This then brings us to Question Period.
QUESTION PERIOD
Question re: Northern Accord
Mr. Phelps: I have some questions with regard to north Yukon and the Beaufort Sea. A Northern Accord was signed some time ago between our government and the federal government. At that time, to our dismay, the Government of Northwest Territories had taken the initiative with regard to negotiations on these important matters. My question of the Minister of Finance is to ask, generally, where we are with regard to our negotiations with the federal government under the Northern Accord.
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I do not accept the Member’s preamble assumption that the Government of the Northwest Territories had one up on the Yukon in that the Government of the Yukon had been intending to sign a similar document with the federal government has proven to the be case. The negotiations have been continuing at the administrative level respecting the details of the Accord, and we have identified persons in the Department of Economic Development: Mines and Small Business to do just that. They have also been working with the federal government in establishing a regime that would accommodate certain kinds of developments as they take place, while the Accord is being developed.
Mr. Phelps: Have the meetings been formal? Has our government or the federal government tabled any position paper on the amount of resource revenue sharing?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Yes, the meetings have been formal, mostly at the deputy minister level and the more junior administrative level. As well, the meetings have been numerous between the administrations of the federal government and the Department of Economic Development: Mines and Small Business.
With respect to resource revenue sharing, the Government of Yukon is establishing for itself a position for which I will be seeking approval from the Yukon government shortly to take to the federal government.
Mr. Phelps: I take it the federal government has not made its position known. Do we know the position of the Government of the Northwest Territories with regard to negotiations on its agreement with Ottawa?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: No formal presentation or position has been received from the federal government, to my knowledge, nor the Government of the Northwest Territories. Instead, there have been general discussions around various elements of an Accord. The time for formally presenting positions has not yet come.
Question re: Northern Accord
Mr. Phelps: Could the Minister advise me whether or not the negotiations between the Government of the Northwest Territories and the federal government are at the same stage, or are they more advanced than ours?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: It is my opinion that the negotiations are at the same stage. All discussions between the governments usually take place on a tripartite basis, both about the interim arrangements of oil and gas administration, as well as the Accord itself.
Mr. Phelps: Is anything being done by this government regarding the definition of the boundary between the Northwest Territories and Yukon to ensure that Yukon’s boundary will include the offshore in the Beaufort Sea?
Hon. Mr. Penikett: I am sure the Leader of the Official Opposition would be satisfied to know that this government has communicated firmly and effectively both with the Northwest Territories government and with the federal government on exactly that point.
Mr. Phelps: What is the next step?
Hon. Mr. Penikett: We believe that the Northern Accord negotiations are an important practical step toward the realizing of our objectives in this area. We have received opinions from the federal government regarding the application of other laws on the books and laws pending, in terms of our interests. I would be happy to brief the Leader of the Official Opposition on those questions, without publicly betraying our negotiating position.
Question re: Recycling and anti-litter program
Mr. Phillips: The Government of Yukon has decided that it is time to jump on the environmental bandwagon and has made several announcements in that regard. To date, we have seen very little in concrete initiatives other than announcements. On April 19, we received unanimous support for my proposed motion dealing with a year-round anti-litter program in Yukon. The first point of the program was to ask the government to establish an environmental awareness and anti-litter education program for use in Yukon schools, over and above Project Wild. Can the Minister of Renewable Resources tell us if the Yukon anti-litter program is in place for this school year?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Any question regarding what is happening within the schools should be addressed to me.
The Department of Education has requested all principals in the school system to ensure their school grounds are cleaned on an annual basis and not only during the annual litter clean-up week. We expect full cooperation from the principals. We have also included the item for discussion at principals’ in-servicing on a number of occasions since the time the issue was addressed in the House.
Mr. Phillips: I would like to know, then, from the Minister of Education, when he issued that memo to the principals because just as early as one month ago, before we had snow, if you drove through the F.H. Collins schoolground and all the way up this way from the schools in Riverdale, there was a mess all around the boulevards and all around the schools. I am wondering, then, if the memo has been issued, why have the schools not been carrying out the policy of the government?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I do not know why there may be litter on Lewes Boulevard, assuming that it is coming from F.H. Collins, but I will undertake to check into the matter for the Member and for the Legislature and see to it that the directives are in fact adhered to by public school staff.
Mr. Phillips: What other procedures is the government putting in place? The intent of the motion was that an anti-litter educational program would be put into Yukon schools so that we not only have the principals just asking the children to go outside once in a while and pick up the litter, but that we educate them within the school system that littering is not a good practice. Is there going to be a policy within the Department of Education that will give instruction to students on what the problem of littering is and how to stop it?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I am sure the Member is aware that the problem of litter and the environment is a much broader matter than simply picking up garbage around schoolgrounds. We have attempted to address that particular item, as I have mentioned to the Member. We have also undertaken a number of initiatives that will make students more aware of environmental concerns within our community and in the territory, both through the curricula of existing programs, as well as the introduction of environmental awareness sections within the various programs in high schools and at other levels.
We have also undertaken to encourage such things as the science fair to focus on environmental questions and have encouraged the Department of Education to be aware of some of the major issues of our time. I will be making the appropriate announcements, after the budget is tabled, with respect to some of the initiatives that carry budgetary implications.
Question re: Recycling and anti-litter program
Mr. Phillips: I thank the Minister for his answer, but I still think the Minister and his government are just paying lip service to the environment. Nothing concrete has been done. School has now been back in for over three months, and the schoolgrounds in many of the areas of Whitehorse are a mess. If they had issued instructions to the principals, obviously the instructions have not been getting through to the children.
I would like to move back to the Minister of Renewable Resources. The second point in the motion asked the government to establish a year-round anti-litter advertising promotional campaign. I have not heard one single announcement, other than the ones that were produced in clean-up week, on the radio or in the local papers.
Why has the Minister’s department done nothing with this section of the motion, especially in light of the fact that all Members on that side supported the motion so strongly?
Hon. Mr. Webster: I take issue with the Member’s assertion that we have done nothing since the time this motion was discussed in the House last spring. The department has instituted work in a number of areas, and one in particular.
You may recall the concern that was raised this summer about the amount of litter along the rivers. We did a clean-up along some of the rivers. We encouraged the wilderness guides to clean up the rivers, and they each took a project upon themselves to clean up a river as part of their work. Also, to further that, next year we are going to release some information to all wilderness travelers advising them of how to properly dispose of all their litter.
We have brought into effect the conservation fund, which will address attempts by various people to try to clean up litter. As you know, the Yukon Conservation Society has recently received $20,000 from that fund to start a recycling program. It is looking at recycling aluminum cans which, as the Member knows, is the source of a lot of the litter in the territory.
As you know, we are also working toward a conservation camp, where we will be inviting students from around the territory for a two-week period to talk about environmental issues, talk about the principles of protecting the environment, and of course discouraging littering.
There are a number of initiatives our department is doing in this regard, and you will see them unfold next year.
Mr. Phillips: I thank the Minister for his answer, but he did not answer my question. I asked the Minister, and I will quote from Hansard, “The purpose of the motion, (2), was establishment of year-round anti-litter advertising and promotional campaigns.”
I am asking the Minister if he has directed his officials to begin anti-litter advertising and promotional campaigns in the territory. If he has, I have not heard one announcement yet. It is already about nine months after that motion was passed, and there has been nothing done this year.
When will the Minister tell his department to go ahead and start the program and when can we expect to start hearing things on the radio and in the media?
Hon. Mr. Webster: As I just mentioned, the Yukon Conservation Society is about to embark on an anti-litter and recycling program. It is going to try to achieve two objectives. One important point of that program will obviously be advertising to get the message out. That is what we are trying to accomplish by recycling: to reduce the amount of litter and, also, to conserve energy.
The Government of the Yukon, through the Department of Renewable Resources, instead of having the government telling people what to do, much prefers to have an independent society do that. This is one of the reasons why they have applied to our department for funding. This is why we created the fund, so people such as that society and others could tap into it to do their own education programs to inform Yukoners about how to dispose of their waste and not to litter.
Mr. Phillips: The answer is quite clear. We are not going to get a territory-wide, anti-litter promotional campaign from the Government of the Yukon telling people why they should not litter.
I would like to go onto part (4) four of that same motion where it describes the the creation of an awards program to recognize individuals, groups, businesses and communities who have contributed to a litter-free Yukon. Why have we not heard anything about this awards program? Is there going to be an awards program this year? Why is it not in place now rather than waiting for litter week?
Hon. Mr. Webster: I do not recall agreeing to the Government of Yukon establishing an awards program to discourage littering.
Question re: Recycling and anti-litter program
Mr. Phillips: I would like to quote from page 409 of Hansard, April 19, 1989. I am quoting an amendment to a motion amended by the Minister of Renewable Resources who has now, surprisingly, lost his memory.
The Member said the “creation of an awards program to recognize individuals, groups, businesses and communities who have contributed to a litter-free Yukon;”. Now that I have reminded the Member of what he said that day, is he prepared to tell the House and the people of the Yukon today that he is going to initiate such a program now and finally follow the intent of the motion, or are we wasting our time passing these motions in the House?
Hon. Mr. Webster: At this time I am not prepared to advise the House that we are going to institute that program.
Mr. Phillips: This is the second time we have passed a motion in this House and the Minister has decided to ignore it. Does the Minister feel that the motions we pass in this House are important?
Hon. Mr. Webster: Yes, I do.
Mr. Phillips: When does the Minister plan to initiate this awards program in the Yukon so Yukoners may be more aware of the anti-litter program? When will the Minister follow the intent of the motion and put the motion in place?
Hon. Mr. Webster: As I have indicated already, we have created a fund for the very purpose that any society in the territory that wants to create such a program can tap into it.
Question re: Caribou antlers
Mr. Lang: I refer the same Minister to the sale of caribou antlers that took place this past year in northern Yukon.
Did the Minister have any prior discussions with the Porcupine Caribou Management Board prior to the issuance of the export permit for the purpose of selling 700 sets of caribou antlers?
Hon. Mr. Webster: No.
Mr. Lang: Why not?
Hon. Mr. Webster: It was not raised by the management board as a concern at that time.
Mr. Lang: Did the management board have knowledge that this was being done prior to the issuance of the export permit?
Hon. Mr. Webster: I cannot answer that question directly. I can only assume that with two members from the community of Old Crow sitting as members on the management board, they would have prior knowledge that those antlers were being exported.
Question re: Caribou antlers
Mr. Lang: On the same topic, in the recent meetings of the Porcupine Caribou Management Board, it is our understanding that the board recommended that there be no further sales of antlers until it reviewed the situation. Could I ask what the position of the government is on that recommendation?
Hon. Mr. Webster: The position of the Government of the Yukon is that we will honour that request coming forward from the Porcupine Caribou Management Board, and we will not be issuing any export permits for large-scale export of antlers.
Mr. Lang: To follow that up, what is large? Are we talking 400, 500 or 700 - or is there a cutoff? What is the position of the government?
Hon. Mr. Webster: I do not think we are looking at a specific number as a cutoff point. As the Member knows, the initial sale involves some 750 pairs of antlers, which is quite sizable. Anything in the order of the same size would cause us to consult with the management board and the people of Old Crow as to their desire to see an export permit issued for that purpose.
Question re: Regulations accompanying new legislation
Mrs. Firth: I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Her department handles the responsibility of drafting new legislation for the departments, and it was a policy of this government to have the regulations accompany new pieces of legislation. I believe it was so that the public would have a better understanding of the new laws that were going to be imposed on them by government. I would like to ask the Minister if it is still a policy that the regulations will accompany new acts that are brought forward in this Legislature?
Hon. Ms. Joe: The policy she has questioned is still the same. It is our intention to have the regulations included. If that has not been done up until now, then I do not have an answer as to why they have not, but that is the policy.
Mrs. Firth: The regulations did not accompany the Pesticides Control Act, just to refresh the Minister’s memory. Who makes the decision whether the regulations will accompany the bill, or not accompany it? Is it her department that makes that decision?
Hon. Ms. Joe: It would be the department responsible.
Mrs. Firth: Is the Minister telling us that she did not know that the regulations were not going to accompany the Pesticides Control Act? That is what I understand from her answer; was she not aware of that?
Hon. Ms. Joe: It was my understanding that the Pesticides Control Act was in a form of a consultation process and that regulations would be developed.
Question re: Education curriculum changes
Mr. Devries: I have a question for the Minister of Education regarding the new curriculum being developed in British Columbia. In the draft copy of “The Year 2000 Curriculum: An Assessment Framework for the Future” it states: “Parents, educators, and the general public, as individuals or groups, are requested to consider and discuss the plans and provide comment to the ministry before December 31, 1989".
My question is: does the Minister know if the Department of Education made any submissions to the B.C. government regarding this new approach to education that is being developed in British Columbia?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: As the Member may well know, there is substantial confusion in British Columbia as to what the final product will look like with respect to the curriculum changes proposed in their position paper.
I gather the Department of Education has, on a number of occasions, participated in meetings called by the B.C. Department of Education respecting the curriculum changes, primarily to acquire a better understanding of what those proposed changes are. As I have indicated a number of times before, the Government of Yukon has not made any decisions as to whether or not they are going to participate in those changes. Any participation in curriculum changes of that sort that we might contemplate taking would have to be a subject of considerable discussion in Yukon before we agreed to participate.
Mr. Devries: The Minister has not really answered my question. I asked if the Minister knows if the Department of Education made any submissions to the B.C. government?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I did answer the question. I indicated that in the times that we have come together with the B.C. department, we have been seeking information, not telling the B.C. department anything, because we have not made any decision as a government or as a department as to whether or not we are going to participate in any of the changes that the B.C. Department of Education is contemplating.
There is some confusion in B.C. as to what those changes are going to be. There is a better understanding in Yukon, as a consequence of the joint meetings, of what the B.C. ministry is contemplating. But whether or not the Department of Education and the Yukon school system will accommodate any one or more of those changes is a decision that has not yet been made.
Mr. Devries: According to the Year 2000 document from B.C., it indicates that there is feeling that this new direction will help address the needs of students not going on to post-secondary education. Does the Minister know if the Yukon Department of Education has reviewed the draft documents pertaining to this and if the department agrees with the B.C. government’s assessment regarding post-secondary education?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I presume the Member is referring to the initiative within the B.C. position document, which refers to the desire to incorporate more work experience in the high school grades in order to give students who may not be going into post-secondary education the opportunity to get some field-work experience.
We, in the Yukon, are past the experimentation stage in encouraging more work experience for students who are not contemplating a post-secondary education, and, consequently, I guess, in essence, we do agree that work experience in the high school grades is a good thing, but we have not yet taken any position as to whether or not we want to accommodate the proposed changes to the B.C. curriculum, which has a subtly different impact on the curriculum currently provided by the Yukon Department of Education.
Question re: Education curriculum changes
Mr. Lang: I just want to follow up on that a little bit further with the Minister of Education. I would like to know why the Department of Education has not put forward their formal position with respect to this major curriculum change? The Government of British Columbia has been asking for people and organizations to put forward positions in the report that was provided to the Minister quite some time ago. I guess my question is: why have they not put forward a position?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Largely because the Yukon government Department of Education is not just another special interest group that deals with the Department of Education in B.C. We can choose whether or not we are going to accommodate some of the changes if we feel they are a good idea. We are not simply a special interest group that provides comments from time to time to the B.C. Department of Education, and we do not consider the B.C. Department of Education the prime movers of what should happen in the Yukon public schools.
We have been trying to get a greater understanding of what is happening in B.C. because, as I indicated to the Member for Watson Lake, there is substantial confusion in B.C. as to what the changes might mean. Consequently, even if we wanted to put forward a position, we would not be in a position at this point to provide that kind of information.
Mr. Lang: I would like to follow through on this further. For the most part, we are on the British Columbia curriculum. If the Minister of Education does not agree with the future curriculum and assessment framework, what is the alternative? Are we going to go with the Alberta system or are we going to develop our own? These are the only recourses. Otherwise, we have to change with British Columbia because we receive their books.
Hon. Mr. McDonald: In a number of areas, where we felt it appropriate and where we have the resources, we have been pursuing an independent curriculum. We are not constituionally tied or in any way bound to the British Columbia curriculum. If we wish, there is the opportunity in the future to consider alternatives. There is a fair amount of opportunity for independent action by the Yukon Department of Education regarding operation within the British Columbia curriculum, irrespective of the changes to the British Columbia proposal. It is unclear whether the British Columbia Department of Education is going to move in certain areas. It would be incumbent upon us to understand exactly what they are doing before deciding to buy into those changes or to seek alternatives elsewhere.
Mr. Lang: I know the Minister has had a few problems. There has been a total changeover of staff during the past six months. Is the Minister going to put forward a formal position of the Yukon Department of Education regarding the substantial changes to the curriculum our children are presently taking?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Personnel changes in the Department of Education have not created any trouble in terms of responding to the proposals made by the British Columbia government. We have been pursuing a course of action calling for greater understanding of what British Columbia is proposing. We have not attempted to form a group to lobby the British Columbia Department of Education for other changes. We are trying to understand those changes that do come to pass. There is a substantial timetable of upwards to 10 years, in some cases. We have tried to determine if those changes will be beneficial to the Yukon. Once we have decided that, we can either consciously adopt them or seek alternatives elsewhere, whether they be homegrown or the purchase of a different curriculum from somewhere else.
Question re: Alaska Highway anniversary celebrations
Mr. Brewster: With the 50th anniversary of the Alaska Highway fast approaching in 1992, various communities and organizations are planning celebrations. Can the Minister of Community and Transportation Services advise the House how much money the federal government is prepared to provide for this celebration?
Hon. Mr. Byblow: I am not in a position to advise as to budgetary amounts being provided by the federal government.
Mr. Brewster: Is the Minister in a position to advise how much the Government of Yukon is going to provide for this celebration?
Hon. Mr. Byblow: The question is somewhat untimely. We will be tabling a budget shortly; those figures will be there.
Mr. Brewster: What plans has the Minister of Tourism developed to mark this anniversary?
Hon. Mr. Webster: The Government of the Yukon, along with the Government of Canada, made funds available through the Economic Development Agreement subagreement on tourism to provide funds to establish the Yukon Anniversaries Commission, which is mapping a strategy to help Yukon celebrate and commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Alaska Highway. In the first year of funding, I believe $300,000 is made available.
Mr. Brewster: This can go to either Minister, since neither of them seems to know. I think we must realize these committees have gone ahead to make great big plans, yet there is no money coming up for these. Why are they wasting their time if you are not going to turn around and back this celebration?
Hon. Mr. Webster: I have to tell the Member that we are tabling our budget this afternoon, and he will be able to see from that budget, specifically under the Department of Tourism, that there will be something allotted for that purpose.
Question re: Health act, proposed
Mr. Nordling: With respect to the proposed health act, in a ministerial statement, the Minister of Health and Human Resources announced a process of consultation to establish the principles for a new health act. The consultation is to start with an invitation to all Yukoners to comment on the principles outlined in the ministerial statement.
Who will do the consulting? Will it consist only of soliciting comments on the ministerial statement?
Hon. Mr. Penikett: The Government of Yukon, more specifically the Department of Health and Human Resources, which will be developing the act, will be doing the consulting. The subject of the consultation will be the principles outlined in the ministerial statement, but which will be elaborated upon further in letters that will go to citizens and interest groups. There will also be meetings with professionals in the field and health interest groups in the coming period. As I indicated in the ministerial statement, we will also be looking forward to putting out a position paper in the next few months that will describe the ideas for a new act in greater detail. There will be a period of consultation around that paper. The third stage will involve us bringing the act before the House.
Mr. Nordling: When the Minister says the Department of Health and Human Resources will be doing the consulting and developing a position paper, will it be done in house, or have there been consultants hired now who will do the consulting and will eventually develop the position paper?
Hon. Mr. Penikett: I cannot say definitively at this point what consultants may or may not be hired. I appreciate the suggestion, though. It is certainly the case that a number of jurisdictions in this country are doing interesting work in the health policy field. Some have done major studies already. I do not think we would want to duplicate those major studies, but it might be possible for us to invite the principals, or people, from other jurisdictions to meet with us and advise us of the work they have already done, so we do not duplicate it.
Mr. Nordling: I think that would be valuable. Developing a whole new and innovative health act is a huge undertaking. How long does the Minister expect the consultation process to go on?
Hon. Mr. Penikett: Almost any Minister on the front bench who has been here for a while knows it is a mug’s game to predict the end date for a consultation since, on several occasions, people have asked us to take more time, or have further meetings or discussions. It is our intention to table an act in this House in the next calendar year, if we can.
Question re: Service contracts
Mr. Lang: I have a question for the Minister of Government Services. I had a private conversation with him last week on the new method of studying the budget. In the past, we have always had the capital budget in the fall and the operation and maintenance budget in the spring. The position of the government at that time was that, because of the process, the service contracts would be made available to us in the spring. Now the format has changed, and I requested that the service contracts be provided as in the past. When can we expect those to be tabled so we can study them in conjunction with the budget documents?
Hon. Mr. Byblow: I have sought information on whether or not that is possible. I remind the Member that we took a policy position last year to provide all the contracts to the House at the close of each year. Accuracy was the reason, and the ability of the departments to produce them. At this point that is still the policy, but I am investigating.
Mr. Lang: It would not make much sense to get these documents when we are not sitting. We could well be out of the Legislature by that time, or at least finished with the budget. In view of the fact there has been a whole new change in format in the introduction of the budget, we ask that we be provided with the service contracts that have been issued to date so we can do our job.
Hon. Mr. Byblow: I take the question as notice and will advise further on it.
Mr. Lang: When can we expect an answer?
Hon. Mr. Byblow: He can raise it with me when we return to the House after the break.
Question re: Service contracts
Mr. Lang: It is my information that it would take three or four days to get this information to us after a decision has been made. It is a question of getting a printout from the computers where the information is already stored. If the Minister can make a decision as of tomorrow, we would appreciate it. It would be very nice to have that information when we come back to the House if the government is intending to scrutinize the budget this forthcoming week after their extravaganza down east.
Hon. Mr. Byblow: The Member underestimates the amount of work he is asking department people to do. We are talking about contracts currently in progress, contracts that have to be checked, the printing process, and a department that is swamped with a lot of other activity. I am not prepared to tell the Member tomorrow whether I have taken a decision or not. I do remind him that the contract tabling will continue at year-end as previously established. That is a practice that I will continue. It is by far much more than was ever provided to me when he was Minister.
Mr. Lang: Could the Minister tell the House how we are supposed to deal with items such as supplementaries for money that has already been spent if we are not going to be provided the information?
Hon. Mr. Byblow: The Member is quibbling. We table the budget. It has information. We are available to answer questions. Information is not being withheld from the Member. It is inappropriate for him to suggest that information is not being provided for him to do an adequate job on the budget.
I might remind the Member that he did not ask me one question for all 5,000 contracts that were tabled last spring. What is he getting at?
Speaker: Time for Question Period has now lapsed. We will proceed with Orders of the Day.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
GOVERNMENT BILLS
Bill. No. 19: Second Reading
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I move that Bill No. 19, entitled First Appropriation Act, 1990-91, be now read a second time.
Speaker: It has been moved the Hon. Minister of Finance that Bill No. 19, entitled First Appropriation Act 1990-91, be now read a second time.
Budget Speech
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Speaker and hon. Members. I am pleased to introduce today the combined capital and operation and maintenance budget for the fiscal year 1990-91.
This budget reaffirms the continuing commitment we have made to responsible fiscal management. It emphasizes our focus on investment for the future, in our people, in our industries and in our natural heritage. It is a realistic budget that marries well our concerns for the social and economic well-being of Yukoners and the protection of our environment.
Our commitment to sound financial management is evident in the budget before you. It is, in broad terms, a balanced budget. This represents the third consecutive year that this government has brought forth a balanced budget. It requires us to continue to live within our means. And it reaffirms our commitment to ensuring that the government’s finances are managed in a prudent manner.
The economic environment within which we operate must be taken into consideration when establishing a budget in order that both the social and economic concerns of our citizens can be appropriately addressed. I would like to take a few minutes to present you with an overview of the economic situation we currently face.
The Canadian economy is expected to experience moderate but solid growth in 1989. Constant dollar gross domestic product is forecast to increase by 2.8 percent over the course of the year. This compares to an average growth rate of 4.7 percent for the previous five years. The national economy should continue cooling-off next year: a growth rate of 1.8 percent is forecast as consumer spending and the housing sector soften even further. Business investment will remain fairly healthy and is expected to continue to drive the economy in the coming year.
Nationally, increases in federal and provincial indirect taxes are contributing to higher consumer prices throughout the country. While the overall consumer price index is forecast to increase by 5.2 percent this year, tobacco and alcohol products are experiencing increases of 11 percent. The rate of inflation is expected to ease to 4.7 percent in 1990 but this is still relatively high given that the national average hovered around four percent during the previous five years.
The introduction of the federal government’s proposed goods and services tax in 1991 will contribute to a significantly higher inflation rate in the order of two or three more percentage points. The rate of inflation will probably top seven percent in 1991 as the cost of services comes under the new federal tax regime. This, of course, is a matter of some concern and has been the subject of much recent comment.
Interest rates will likely moderate somewhat but are expected to remain relatively high. The prime lending rate should dip to 12.5 percent in 1990 from its forecast level of 13.25 percent this year. Concern about increasing inflationary pressures continues to influence the Bank of Canada’s monetary policy.
The number of Canadians employed is projected to continue to increase by a respectable two percent in 1989 and then slow to a modest 0.8 percent next year. As a result of this, the unemployment rate will average 7.5 percent in 1989 and then is forecast to rise slightly to 7.7 percent next year.
The Yukon’s economy, generally speaking, continues to be healthy. Territorial gross domestic product in current dollars should increase by about nine percent in 1989. This compares favourable to the forecast national growth of just under eight percent.
Since 1985, the Yukon has had the fastest growing economy in Canada. Over this period, territorial gross domestic product will have increased from less than $500 million to nearly $800 million in 1989. This increase has taken place despite the fact that the government sector, as a proportion of total economic activity, has declined significantly. Over the same period, wages and salaries are estimated to have increased by more than 40 percent.
Our population is currently just under 30,000 as compared to under 26,000 in 1986. A large part of this increase is due to in-migration and is indicative of the confidence people have in our economy.
The Yukon’s rate of inflation is significantly lower than the national average. Since 1985 our average annual rate of inflation has measured 3.3 percent. This compares to a national average of 4.2 percent over this same period. In 1989 we expect the Yukon’s inflation rate to be four percent, a full 1.2 percent points lower than that for Canada as a whole. This too, is encouraging.
The level of employment in the territory is projected to average more than 13,000 in 1989. This is an increase of more than three percent over 1988 and, once again, will be a stronger showing than is the case for the national picture. Our rate of unemployment is expected to continue to decline this year. The unemployment rate, which stood at 15 percent in 1985, is expected to average less than 12 percent in 1989. While the decline is welcome news, the absolute figure of 12 percent is still, in our minds, unacceptably high.
Although the general economic picture has been bright, not all sectors of the economy have enjoyed the same degree of prosperity. Some sectors, such as tourism, did not meet expectations this year. While the overall unemployment rate continues to fall, not all areas of the territory have experienced this decline. Unemployment continues to be a serious problem, especially in the smaller communities.
The economic outlook for 1990 calls for continued growth, but at a somewhat slower pace than in 1989. Territorial gross domestic product is expected to increase by about eight percent in 1990 and the number of people employed is projected to increase by 1.9 percent to a level of 13,300. Unfortunately, we believe the unemployment rate will continue to hover around 12 percent. The rate of inflation is also anticipated to remain virtually unchanged at four percent in 1990. This compares to an estimate of 4.7 percent for the national economy. These inflation projections are especially encouraging since rapid economic expansion, such as we have experienced, traditionally results in excessive price increases.
We expect the tourism industry to enjoy a promising season next year. Increased expenditures on tourism advertising should help attract more North American tourists and the trend toward more overseas visitors is expected to continue.
The minerals sector is also expected to pick up in the coming year. While no new mines are anticipated to go into production and production volume will remain almost unchanged, mineral exploration activity should show some recovery from the relatively poor level experienced in 1989. The proposed Mount Hundere lead-zinc mine north of Watson Lake will be a welcome addition to the Yukon’s mining industry. Extensive development work will take place in 1990 with production expected to commence in 1991.
The output of the forestry sector is forecast to realize significant gains in the coming year. Yukon Pacific Forest Products in Watson Lake will reach an output of up to 50 million board feet of lumber, more than three times its estimated output for the current year. This is welcome news for the economy of the Yukon as a whole and the Watson Lake area in particular. For the long term, it is our hope that this mill will serve as the base for an integrated forestry complex in the southeast Yukon.
While 1990 gives every indication of being a good year for the Yukon, the outlook for 1991 and beyond is clouded by the proposed federal goods and services tax, to be introduced January 1, 1991. The impact of this tax will be felt much more harshly by the people of the Yukon than by the average Canadian, not only because of the higher costs we pay for goods and services, but also because of the structure and very nature of our economy.
Tourism is expected to be especially hard hit and tourism, as we all know, is one of the most important sectors of our economy. The general cost of doing business in the Yukon will increase substantially. And not only will the tax raise the costs of goods and services, it will also impose additional administrative costs upon most, if not all, Yukon businesses.
The consumer will be particularly hard hit because certain basic necessities, such as home heating fuel and transportation costs, will be taxed. Federal initiatives to offset some of these financial burdens with a refundable tax credit system will not adequately compensate northerners due to our already high cost of living and high nominal, as opposed to real, incomes.
The Government of Yukon and numerous other interested groups and organizations expressed these concerns during the visit to Whitehorse by members of the federal Standing Committee on Finance concerning the goods and services tax. It is our understanding the committee found the presentations and the concerns expressed very enlightening.
I would like now to speak to the issue of the federal transfer payment being shown in the main estimates. I need not remind anybody here of the crucial importance of this transfer payment to our government’s fiscal well-being and the economy of the Yukon.
The current series of formula financing negotiations have been long and difficult. While the issue is close to resolution, we are not yet in a position such that a definitive sum can be incorporated in the budget I am tabling today.
However, we are not unmindful of the financial situation the federal government is facing. To have presented main estimates reflecting no reduced federal support would have been, I believe, unrealistic and dishonest, when one of our goals in setting this budget was to present an honest budget. Consequently, we have assumed a $5 million cut in the grant from Canada for the purposes of this budget. This reduction equates to a decrease in federal support for the territory of approximately $170 for every man, woman and child in the Yukon.
When taken in conjunction with the direct expenditure reductions the federal government has imposed on its programs in the Yukon, we feel the $5 million is excessive. However, given the position the federal government has taken in negotiations and the federal deficit reduction measures that have been imposed upon the provinces in areas such as established programs financing, we feel this sum is realistic.
This reduction in the transfer payment will, obviously, have serious consequences for us. This budget reflects the restraint the new fiscal environment will force upon our government and citizens. We have had to restrain, cut back and establish priorities in spending in a number of important areas, and this cannot help but reduce the overall level of service we are able to provide. We have attempted to alleviate the impact of the reduction by carefully planning and budgeting for it in what we consider to be the best interests of the people of the Yukon.
The main estimates being tabled here today show the Yukon receiving a transfer payment of $202,044,000 for the 1990-91 fiscal year. This figure, which incorporates the $5 million reduction I have just mentioned, represents an increase of just 3.4 percent over the grant we currently expect to receive for 1989-90. This is a low rate of growth indeed, and will not even keep up with inflation. It is, however, the reality we must live with, and we must reduce our expectations to match that reality.
I stress the formula financing negotiations have not been concluded. We are continuing to make a strong case to the federal government that northerners not bear more than their fair share of federal cutbacks.
The budget I am now introducing is, on the whole, a balanced budget. It provides for decreased capital spending and moderately increased operation and maintenance expenditures. The combined capital and operation and maintenance expenditures for 1990-91 are $342.5 million. This represents a decrease of 2.7 percent from the forecast estimates for the 1989-90 fiscal year. This decrease in total expenditures reflects the reduced transfer payment we project to receive from the federal government and our determination to continue to live within our means.
The budget, while providing for capital expenditures of $93.9 million, and operation and maintenance expenditures of $248.5 million, will initially result in a small apparent surplus of $6,896,000 for the fiscal year 1990-91. These monies will be required to finance normal supplementaries, including anticipated collective bargaining settlements yet to be negotiated for the coming year. We therefore anticipate the final result for the year, when all is said and done, to be a balanced budget.
We have tabled today supplementary estimates for the current fiscal year, which project capital expenditures of $116.6 million and operation and maintenance expenditures in the amount of $235.5 million. Consequently, the opening accumulated surplus for the 1990-91 year will be approximately $33 million.
The main estimates for 1990-91 will ostensibly, therefore, result in an accumulated surplus of roughly $40 million at the end of the year, that being March 31, 1991. However, as I have just indicated, we anticipate unavoidable supplementaries during the course of the year and therefore believe our accumulated surplus on March 31, 1991, will, in fact, remain at the $33 million figure projected for March 31, 1990. We consider this amount, which is the equivalent of one month’s spending, to be the prudent minimum required to protect us from economic downturns or other events requiring an infusion of government funds.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce there will be no tax increases for the coming fiscal year. The tax burden on the people of the Yukon has for many years exceeded the national average and this state of affairs continues to the present day. This burden is about to be made even heavier with the implementation of the federal government’s proposed goods and services tax and to ask residents of the Yukon to bear even more would be neither reasonable nor acceptable.
Budgetary revenues are expected to total $351.5 million in 1990-91, some 4.3 percent higher than the current year’s revenues.
Our locally-raised revenues continue to increase. For 1990-91, they are forecast to total $58.4 million. As our locally raised revenues continue to grow, our dependence on the federal government continues to decline. In 1990-91, the federal grant is expected to represent 57.3 percent of our total budgetary revenues. This compares to the 61.6 percent of these same revenues it represented in 1985-86.
Personal income tax revenues are expected to increase by 6.9 percent to $23.8 million while corporate income taxes are forecast to remain above $5 million. The relatively high level of both personal and corporate income taxes is indicative of the strong performance and health of our economy.
There are, however, two major revenue sources that are estimated to decline in the coming year, namely, tobacco taxes and investment income. The revenue from the tobacco tax is expected to decline as changing attitudes toward smoking reduce consumption. This trend is already evident in the current year. Investment income is also projected to be less as the result of a slight drop in interest rates and the decline in our accumulated surplus.
While we will not be increasing the rates of any of our taxes, we have found it necessary to increase motor vehicle licence fees for the 1990-91 fiscal year. As the result of the realignment of these fees, motor vehicle licence revenues are projected to increase by $335,000.
Our prime objective in preparing this budget was to present a realistic budget that incorporated all of the expenditures we could reasonably predict. This, it seems to me, is a fundamental principle of sound fiscal practice. We wanted to introduce a budget that will allow us to live within our means without imposing an undue burden.
Today we are introducing such a budget. As an example of the all-inclusive nature of these main estimates, we are including in them the allowance for bad debts expense in the Department of Finance. While we do not intentionally plan to incur such an expense, it does occur and the introduction of this item will enable us to provide better financial management practices, which is consistent with the budgeting for accrued leave and termination benefits introduced by our government in 1985.
It also gives Members of the Legislature and the public a more complete picture of what is ultimately expected to occur in the government’s accounts for the year.
The budget is tailored to match our current economic environment. Our expenditures next year will place even more focus on the communities where unemployment is a continuing problem.
Now that our economic course is set, we want to devote our resources to striking a better balance between economic, social, and environmental goals. Ultimately, they are inextricably intertwined. This became very apparent during the recent Yukon Economic Strategy Conference. Our future budgets will further highlight this interrelationship and balance as we strive to attain sustainable development in the Yukon.
While continuing the economic emphasis of our expenditures, we have begun to shift our focus toward social and environmental issues and concerns. Social programs will represent 37.7 percent of the proposed expenditures for 1990-91 compared to 34.4 percent in 1989-90.
The importance of our economic development operations and programs are far from being ignored, however. Today’s budget includes approximately $103 million for these purposes.
Our goal in the field of economic development continues to be to implement the recommendations outlined during the Yukon 2000 process. We consider those recommendations, as defined by the people of the Yukon themselves, to be our guide in developing our economy. We intend to continue to implement them and have, in fact, already made a good start in doing so.
I am pleased to announce that our budget provides for the implementation of several new initiatives and the enhancement of numerous existing ones that will address a number of the social, environmental and economic concerns of the people of the Yukon in the coming fiscal year. Foremost, of course, among these concerns is a land claims settlement, which continues to be the first priority of our government.
I would now like to take this opportunity to review with you some of the more important of these expenditure initiatives provided for in the estimates.
Last March, we announced the initiation of a multi-year strategy to ensure quality, affordable, comprehensive child care throughout the territory as outlined in our child care strategy. I am pleased to announce that the government’s long-term commitment toward child care is being implemented. In this, the second year of our commitment, we will provide an additional $400,000 for child care services. These funds will be used to expand the Child Development Centre’s Outreach Program so that it covers all rural communities. They will also be used to expand our child care subsidy and the quality enhancement program. The commitment of these resources will take us a step further toward our goal of ensuring affordable access to quality child care services.
The Department of Health and Human Resources will allocate $200,000 in the coming fiscal year for the design of the planned new detoxification facility for alcohol and drug abuse treatment. This facility will provide the necessary treatment so that those individuals in our society who are in need of such care will continue to have access to this service.
We have recognized the need for an extended care facility in the Yukon and budgeted toward the construction of such a facility. This year we will provide an additional $3,150,000 for extended care. These funds will be put toward the construction of the new facility. They will also be used to provide for immediate needs through the upgrading of Macaulay Lodge. Quality health care for all Yukoners is an investment that I am certain all members support.
In May of next year, we will host the Eighth International Congress on Circumpolar Health. This forum will enable us to discuss with other northern nations important health issues common to us all. The Department of Health and Human Resources will contribute $150,000 towards the hosting of the congress.
The Department of Education will be undertaking a number of initiatives to continue to improve the quality of education that Yukon students receive. The Native Teacher Training Program will receive an additional $232,000, bringing the total funding to $632,000, to continue training Indian people for teaching positions in the Yukon. The Northern Studies program will receive $87,000 in new resources to provide for a much enhanced program in years to come. The construction and renovation of a number of schools is being planned for the coming year. A total of $3 million is being budgeted to commence construction of the new elementary school in the Granger subdivision, and $1.4 million is being set aside for the proposed South Highway school to meet the very valid needs of residents of that area. The Del Van Gorder School in Faro will receive $350,000 for renovations in 1991, in addition to the preliminary work begun in 1989-90. The Department of Education will also allocate $400,000 to complete phase one of the construction of the new Watson Lake high school, and $100,000 has been set aside to begin the planning for a new Catholic school in Whitehorse.
Our commitment to the Yukon arts centre is reiterated by the allotment of $2.5 million toward its construction in the coming year. When completed, this facility will provide the Yukon with a much needed centre for the performing and visual arts.
This is the first budget to reflect the status of Yukon College as an independent, autonomous operation. Yukon College now not only has a new Whitehorse campus, of which we are all proud, but also a new sense of direction as it becomes autonomous.
In recognition of the fact that the most important element of an organization is its employees, an additional sum of $300,000 has been provided to the Public Service Commission for the professional development of the public service. The expenditure of these monies will contribute to reduced turnover and outside recruitment, both of which cost our government hundreds of thousands of dollars each year.
The Yukon Housing Corporation will spend $14.9 million in 1990-91 on capital programs to help improve housing conditions throughout the territory. It is expected that a total of $1.3 million will be infused into the communities to provide for staff housing in the coming year, and $7.7 million will be spent on non-profit housing projects throughout the territory. The corporation’s other capital programs, the Home Improvement, the Home Ownership and the Joint Venture programs, will provide $5.8 million to help improve housing conditions in the Yukon.
We are all aware of the importance of tourism to our economy. To further promote the Yukon as a choice destination, the Department of Tourism is committing $295,000 to the launch of its “Destination: Yukon” marketing program. The program will market Yukon vacation packages and will promote the services of Yukon operators and businesses to Canadian travelers. This new program, along with a contribution of $255,000 to the Yukon Anniversaries Commission, will complement existing promotional programs and will bring our total commitment to tourism marketing to over $3 million this year.
Our transportation systems are fundamental to the well-being of our citizens, not only because of their vital role in economic development but also because of their contribution to our social interaction and well-being. Since 1985, we have committed more than $250 million toward the expansion, improvement and maintenance of all our transportation systems. In 1991, the Department of Community and Transportation Services will provide a further $56.9 million in expenditures for our transportation systems. Of these funds, $20.4 million is for capital projects and $36.5 million is for operation and maintenance of these systems.
In particular, I would like to note the Robert Campbell Highway, from Faro to Carmacks, will receive $2.2 million in expenditures in the coming year, and the South Klondike will receive a further $6.2 million for its continued reconstruction in 1990-91. The Resource Transportation Access program will have a budget of $2.5 million, which will enable it to effectively provide transportation infrastructure for new resource developments. In addition to this, Yukon airports will receive a further $2.4 million in upgrading next year. These are but a few of the many planned projects to expand and improve the Yukon’s transportation systems in the coming year.
The availability of suitable serviced land is important to the continued economic development and prosperity of the territory. A total of $7.8 million will be used to develop lands throughout the territory over the coming year by the Department of Community and Transportation Services.
In an effort to promote our capital city in the best interests of all Yukon people, we will contribute $50,000 toward the creation of a capital city commission. This commission, which will be broadly representative, including rural Yukon and native band representation, will endeavour to promote Whitehorse in a manner befitting the capital of our territory.
In response to the concerns voiced by our citizens during the Yukon 2000 process, we are developing a Yukon Conservation Strategy, which will be released this coming year. It will outline our environmental agenda for the future development of the territory. As part of our action on environmental issues, we will be providing for the development of sewage treatment and solid waste disposal projects as well as the development of our environmental protection program.
The environmental protection program, which was initiated last March, will be enhanced with the expenditure of a further $192,000 by the Department of Renewable Resources in 1990-91. These funds will facilitate the planning, coordination and development of environmental protection programs and legislation in the Yukon.
The Department of Community and Transportation Services will provide $1.6 million for various sewer, water and solid waste projects in communities. It will also develop and implement a comprehensive special waste management program in 1990-91.
With the signing of the Northern Accord Agreement in Principle and the renewed interest in northern oil and gas development, an additional $400,000 will be allocated by the Department of Economic Development: Mines and Small Business toward the areas of oil and gas development in 1990-91. This issue is of vital importance to the future of the territory, and these additional funds will provide a firm commitment toward the potential development of these resources in the best interest of Yukoners.
This government remains committed to the transfer of provincial-like programs from the federal government. The accompanying resources must be sufficient to allow the Yukon to carry out that responsibility at a level of service adequate to the full and proper functioning of the program and at a minimum, on a basis comparable to similar provincial programs.
This budget contains $126,000 for mine safety responsibilities, which will become the Yukon government’s responsibility during the year. Discussions are proceeding on other transfers, including the transfer of the Whitehorse General Hospital, inter-territorial roads, airports and land titles.
Discussions pursuant to the framework agreement on land claims are progressing well. To accommodate the increased activity as band agreements are negotiated, an additional $734,000 has been allocated for 1990-91 over the current year’s allotment. A total of $229,000 is being provided by the Department of Renewable Resources; $44,000 by the Department of Justice; $166,000 by the Department of Community Transportation Services and $295,000 by the Executive Council Office.
This will furnish the respective departments with the resources necessary as we work toward finalizing settlement agreements.
The budget also includes $1.75 million of the $6.75 million commitment made by the government toward the implementation of the land claims settlement. One million dollars is earmarked for training, $500,000 will be available to fund the resource management structures and $250,000 will be contributed to the Wildlife Enhancement Trust.
The identification of these funds will provide the parties the flexibility to begin pre-implementing many of the required structures and to identify problems that will have to be dealt with in the band-final and umbrella-final agreements. This commitment demonstrates the high priority the Yukon government places on the successful completion of land claims settlements for the benefit of all Yukon people.
While we have been able to find the resources required to fund these expenditure initiatives, we have had to implement a number of restraint measures and redirect funds in every department in order to do so. In addition, planned capital programs have been deferred or extended over longer periods of time to balance the budget.
As I mentioned earlier, capital expenditures are to decline. Last March, I introduced capital plans totalling $104 million. Today, capital expenditures are forecast to total $94 million for 1990-91, some $10 million less than the current year’s budgeted amount.
Mr. Speaker, I have presented in this budget a realistic and balanced approach to addressing the needs of the Yukon. The estimates before you reaffirm our commitment to fiscal responsibility and the reality of our need to live within our means. This budget provides for some allocation toward new and existing programs that will contribute to the social and economic well-being of our citizens.
I am sure that all Members of this Legislature will wish to support these goals, and, to that end, I commend it to the favourable attention of all hon. Members.
Mr. Phelps: I move that we adjourn debate.
Speaker: It has been moved by the Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition that we adjourn debate.
Motion agreed to
Hon. Mr. Penikett: I move that the Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve into Committee of the Whole.
Speaker: It has been moved by the Hon. Government House Leader that the Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve into Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to
Speaker leaves the Chair
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Chair: I will now call the Committee of the Whole to order. We will now have a 10 minute recess.
Recess
Chair: I will now call Committee of the Whole to order. We will proceed with the Pesticides Control Act, Bill No. 66.
Bill No. 66 - Pesticides Control Act
Chair: Is there any general debate?
Mr. Lang: During the debate on second reading, I indicated I would like to have further information with respect to what the plans of the department were for the purpose of enforcing this legislation. Are we looking for more personnel and, if so, how many? If it is with existing personnel, how are they going to do it in conjunction with the positions they already hold? I would request elaboration from an administrative point of view.
Hon. Mr. Webster: As the Member knows, we have created an environmental protection unit within the Department of Renewable Resources. In the next week, we will be hiring an environmental protection coordinator, whose responsibilities will be to enforce this particular act. As well, beginning April 1, 1990, there are provisions for two more person years to round out that unit. Those people, as well, will have special training in the area of pesticides, and they will have enforcement and administration of this act as part of their duties.
Mr. Lang: Could the Minister give me an idea how much pesticide we are dealing with in the Yukon?
Hon. Mr. Webster: I cannot give specific numbers in terms of pounds or different types of pesticides. Generally speaking, it is used by people in the landscaping business; it is not used extensively by members of our agricultural community, and it is used by the Department of Community and Transportation Services in its annual mosquito abatement plan. There is not a great deal of pesticide use in the Yukon at this time.
Mr. Lang: That brings me to my next question. The Minister outlined a branch of three individuals being responsible for this legislation. How much time is going to be required to administer it?
Hon. Mr. Webster: The three people in the unit the Member referred to will certainly have to devote some of their time to administering this act. We are not anticipating a great of deal of their time being budgeted for this purpose.
Mr. Lang: How does this co-relate to the Hazardous Goods Act in respect to transportation? It has to be transported here, and I am curious how that is going to work with licensing. Has that been checked out?
Hon. Mr. Webster: The transportation of dangerous goods legislation supersedes this piece of legislation dealing with the transport of hazardous goods.
Mr. Lang: How do the two relate? Are you required under the Dangerous Goods Transportation Act to register the transportation of goods such as this? If so, how does it dovetail with this legislation?
Hon. Mr. Webster: For the transport of dangerous goods you have to have papers approving the transport of those goods. That would also be the case for pesticides occurring in the regulations that can be applied through restricted use only. We are only talking about potentially dangerous pesticides that have been approved for application through a license. Then they would come under the requirements of the Dangerous Goods Transportation Act.
Mr. Lang: Does this relate to herbicides in any way?
Hon. Mr. Webster: It does indeed. As the definitions point out, it does apply to herbicides as well.
Mrs. Firth: I would like to get a clarification from the Minister. Is it a common practice in other jurisdictions to have just an act called the Pesticides Control Act and it would be all-encompassing - it would include herbicides, pesticides and fungicides - because this act certainly does. It includes all three, from what I can interpret when I read it.
Hon. Mr. Webster: Yes, this is the general outline that is used by other provinces. In fact, this act that we have before us is a composite of three jurisdictions: Prince Edward Island, Manitoba, and British Columbia.
Mrs. Firth: The concern I have is that when people in the Yukon who are not familiar with these kinds of laws in other places in Canada are told that we have a pesticide act coming in, a lot of them will assume that it is just for pesticides and not herbicides. I would like to ask the Minister what kind of consulting he did. Did he consult with the agricultural association and with some of the landscapers, because I have been in touch with constituents who I know are landscapers and they were unaware that this legislation was coming forward.
Hon. Mr. Webster: This particular piece of legislation has been coming forward now for eight years. Where we will stand to benefit, of course, from such input, is in drafting the regulations, which will deal with which pesticides and herbicides are dangerous and whose application will have to be controlled. The legislation as it stands is basically a piece of framework legislation, with the accompanying regulations specifically spelling out the dangerous pesticides and herbicides that have to be subjected to controlled use. That is the most important part of it.
Mrs. Firth: I do not disagree with what the Minister has said, but I think he is missing the point I raised. I do not care if people have been talking about it forever. The fact is that it is now going to be a law. The law as we see written on the pages of the bill does not give us all the information as to what the real regulations and laws are going to be when it comes to the control of these products and that there are a lot of people out there who may be involved in the use of products such as herbicides and may not think they come under this jurisdiction of the Pesticides Control Act.
I would have thought that the Minister would have been in discussions with the agricultural association and local landscapers who are involved in using these products to inform them that this legislation was coming forward and ask for their input. I would also like to know if that happened and if there were any outside consultants or individuals with expertise in this area who were involved at all in the drafting of the legislation or who were sought out for counsel.
Hon. Mr. Webster: In the actual drafting of the act we did not use outside experts. We used people who were working in the agricultural branch who have a lot of knowledge over the year’s work in this area and have knowledge of similar legislation in the provinces.
The Whitehorse chapter of the Yukon Livestock and Agriculture Association have recently seen this bill, as has the Agricultural Planning Advisory Committee (APAC) recently and we have asked for their comments. Again, it is a very straightforward piece of legislation that will establish what will be set out in the regulations.
Once we have done that, with their assistance, I can assure you that we are not going to make it a secret. We do not go through all this process of drafting a bill, seeking input on drafting regulations, to keep it quiet. People who are in the habit of applying pesticides will be notified of the act and its regulation through APAC and the livestock and agricultural association chapters will be informed as well. The private sector, such as White Pass, who have had occasion in the past to use pesticides, will be informed. There will be an intensive education program prior to the spring.
Mrs. Firth: The Minister has reaffirmed my concern. He is unnecessarily defensive. I am not accusing the government of being secretive. I am only asking who has been consulted and wondering if they are aware that this includes things like herbicides. The Minister said that White Pass used pesticides when they did not. They used Spike, which is a herbicide.
If this Legislature is going to talk about imposing new laws upon the Yukon public, it should be incumbent upon the Minister to keep his terminology clear. The public should be made aware of exactly what this includes. I am simply making the point that I feel that the public should be made aware that it is going to include things such as herbicides. We should not use the terms interchangeably or call a product like Spike a pesticide if it is a herbicide.
Who is going to be involved in drawing up the regulations? Is it going to done by consultation where the government will meet with the organizations and groups involved? Does the Minister have a list of people compiled with whom the government would be meeting to draft the new regulations?
Hon. Mr. Webster: I apologize for terming Spike a pesticide.
We are a small territory. We have a list of people who are in the practice of using pesticides. I do not think it would be a great deal of trouble to contact all those people for input. The process should last for, at least, a couple of months. We could draft the regulations in time for the spring season.
Mrs. Firth: Is it the Minister’s intention to have a form of draft regulations to present to those people for their input? Is that the process he will be using? Will the department officials or whoever will be writing them draft a set of regulations to be presented to these groups for their input?
Hon. Mr. Webster: When dealing with some aspects of the regulations, such as suitable containers, we will ask for comments on something already prepared. When actual lists of what pesticides would require a restricted application are established, we will be looking for public input.
Mrs. Firth: Will the Minister be drafting licensing procedures, permit procedures and enforcement procedures and asking for input after?
Hon. Mr. Webster: Yes.
Mr. Lang: The Minister stated the bill was drafted locally and that there was a lot of knowledge within the department. I do not understand that. We have been informed that we are hiring people for the purposes of administering legislation of this kind. How many people do we have on staff who are knowledgeable in this area? Why do we have to obtain knowledge from other jurisdictions?
Hon. Mr. Webster: The current and previous agricultural staff, going back as far as Dick Fileau, are the people I was referring to who have the special knowledge and years of experience. They were responsible for drafting this act, and for involving individuals from the agricultural community. The actual enforcement and administering of the act will be the role of the people in the environmental protection unit.
Mr. Lang: I wanted to go back to the procedure again as it does concern me. The Minister indicated to me there has been a draft of this legislation around for eight years, I believe he quoted. Is that correct?
Hon. Mr. Webster: Yes. The draft pesticides act was first raised in June, 1981.
Mr. Lang: I wanted confirmation of that. I do not understand why, in the House today, we do not have draft regulations to at least assess with respect to the legislation before us. First of all, the legislation has been in the drafting stage for quite a number of years. Secondly, we have been told we have had people on staff for quite some time who are knowledgeable in the area. I do not understand why we do not have the regulations when we are dealing with the law that my colleague, the Member for Riverdale South, referred to.
Hon. Mr. Webster: Perhaps I should more fully explain the history of this draft pesticides act. It has not been ready for the last eight years in this particular form. It has evolved over the years and been updated.
I have already addressed the question as to why the regulations do not accompany this act at this time. We will be looking for local input. We will also be looking at the national scene. In my second reading speech, I mentioned the national forum to be held on pesticides in Ottawa in January. At that time, we will have regulations to accompany the act in time for the spring season, when pesticides are used in the Yukon.
Mr. Lang: I want to register my concern, and I hope the Minister takes it in the spirit I am giving it in. The next time we are dealing with a bill, I would appreciate the regulations, although they may be draft. At least, it gives some indication of what the government’s intentions are. In the particular case of this legislation it is not absolutely crucial, but it is a practice we should be getting into. So often, we get a piece of legislation like this that is strictly a framework. The actual law is in the regulations. As lawmakers, in the essence of making laws, we are giving you the right to make the law through regulation.
As a legislator, my concern is that we should be ensuring that, where possible, the law is being scrutinized through this body, as opposed to through other bodies outside the Legislature. This is the final determining body.
When the Minister has other bills coming into the House that require regulations, I would appreciate them accompanying the bill. In deference to the public we serve, it would be in everybody’s best interest.
Here, we are almost talking about a straw man nobody knows anything about. I do not think there is any excuse for not having regulations drawn up. The Minister is quite right in saying, “Yes, it has been discussed for eight years in the confines of government, in one manner or another.” That is true, as I recall it being discussed years ago. Therefore, it is not a surprise, nor is it a bill being presented on an emergency situation. With some planning, the regulations could have been provided just as easily here in the beginning of December as opposed to January. That is not to say there will not be changes in the regulations, knowing they have to go through some public consultation. At least, though, it would give us on this side an idea of what the government’s intentions are or are not. In some cases, those interested may provide some advice as to what should be done.
Mrs. Firth: Are any of the regulations written yet?
Hon. Mr. Webster: No, they are not.
Mrs. Firth: Questions I will have about particular areas of the act are going to be consistent with what would be in the regulations. If the regulations are not written, I will have to ask the Minister what the overall philosophy is.
An example is the licensing requirements. In the act it says that no person will be able to use pesticides other than in accordance with a licence authorizing them to do so. Are they going to have to have a licence or are they going to have to take a course to put herbicides on? These are the things people want to know. Is the Minister going to be able to answer those kinds of questions for me? Will distributors have to have a special licence? Do they have to take some kind of course to be legitimate distributors?
An expert from B.C. put on a course at the last conference of the agricultural association. Individuals who passed the course were given a licence for the application of herbicides. Those are the kinds of specific answers I would like to get on behalf of the individuals I represent.
Can the Minister explain how he is going to answer these questions if no regulations are drafted? Does the government have some idea of what is to be in the regulations?
Hon. Mr. Webster: With respect to licensing - people who apply pesticides as a job or for hire, commercial applicators, will require a licence under this act. It is standard throughout the country that there is a course and test. People have to gain a certain amount of knowledge before they can become a commercial applicator of pesticides. Whatever is required outside, I am quite certain will be the requirement here in the Yukon.
Mrs. Firth: Is the government going to provide programs for these individuals to become licensed? Is it going to be that extensive? Are they going to have to pay licensing fees? Are they going to have to train and license employees?
I gather that members of the agricultural association will be able to go ahead and do it if they are not doing it on a commercial basis. The Minister is interpreting the commercial part as being anyone involved in a commercial endeavor that requires application of herbicides or pesticides. He is not referring to the commercial application of herbicides or pesticides. Is that correct?
This is the problem. It is very unclear according to the legislation.
Hon. Mr. Webster: Yes, the Member has done a fine job of confusing it. I suggest we wait until we come to section 8, when we talk about licensing of businesses to apply and use pesticides, to deal with this matter.
Mr. Lang: A fungicide that has come to my attention is one that is used on lumber that is to be exported. I gather it has been used, at least some times, at the Watson Lake mill. It is apparently very dangerous. I am led to believe that most times the dipping of the lumber is done in Vancouver as opposed to the mill site, but at times it is done at the mill. Is the Minister going to have guidelines on how this type of fungicide is to be used? Has it been brought to his attention?
Hon. Mr. Webster: I am not aware of that substance being used at the mill.
Mr. Devries: Yes, last year at one time we imported a small quantity. We had to have special trucking regulations and so on drafted just to get this stuff up to Watson Lake and it was sprayed onto the lumber manually. They were talking about installing a dip tank but as far as I know that has not happened. I am not sure what they call it anymore.
Hon. Mr. Webster: I want to thank the Member for Watson Lake for that response and informing us about this.
In a general sense, though, any material that comes from the outside will have to be subjected to our regulations to see if its use requires application by an expert.
Mrs. Firth: I just have one question. The Minister may want to leave it to the licensing section but I would like to get some idea now.
In the Department of Renewable Resources now, for anyone who wants to use a pesticide such as strychnine, is it mandatory that they get permits from the department to use it or is it just something that is advisable?
Hon. Mr. Webster: Technically, they are to get permits under the Wildlife Act for something like that, but in the absence of any Pesticides Control Act, or regulations to accompany them, it could very well be done.
Chair: Shall we proceed clause-by-clause?
On Clause 1
Mr. Lang: I would like to ask the Minister why we are using the word “device” in the definition of “pesticide”? It states, “any product, device, organism...”. Could he tell us where it would apply?
Hon. Mr. Webster: I am informed that this may be a mechanical device to dispense pesticides. That is why it is included here.
Mrs. Firth: Would device not also include traps? I know I have Indian people come to my farm with traps to trap gophers, or snares for rabbits. The way this first clause is written would exclude those kinds of activities.
Hon. Mr. Webster: Are we referring to the “device” in section (a) or (b)? They are two different matters. In a general sense, the device suggested by the Member for trapping pests would be considered here.
Chair: We are going to go with each definition in clause 1, and we will work our way down that way. We will begin with the definition of “animal”.
Mr. Lang: I do not understand how we are defining “pesticide”. Under the definition of “pesticide”, why do you have a mechanical device? Pesticide is either a product, an organism or a substance, unless I am mistaken. I understand you have to apply it by a machine or however, but that is a separate issue altogether. It should not be in the definition of “pesticide”.
Hon. Mr. Webster: The definition here says it includes any product, device or thing registered under the Pest Control Products Act. If you refer to that act, it would probably provide a definition of “device”.
Mr. Lang: In deference to the House, the Minister is the sponsoring Minister. Has he read the Pest Control Products Act of Canada?
Hon. Mr. Webster: No.
Mr. Lang: I humbly submit that we are dealing with a law here. Perhaps we should set this one aside so the Minister can review and assure the House exactly what the intent of the section is. I do not want to be standing here and having somebody say, “It probably means that. It does not have much to do with me, but I think it means that.” In deference to the people we are representing, we are making laws and we should be definite.
I do not understand why “device” would be in 1(a). It does not make any sense to me. My understanding of a pesticide is it is a product, organism or substance. It is not how you apply it; that is separate.
Hon. Mr. Webster: The point is well taken. There is a logical explanation for it. I am in agreement that we stand this over until that logical explanation arrives.
Chair: So, the definition of “pesticide” stands.
Mrs. Firth: If I may make another comment, when the Minister looks into his word “device”, which I think is the word the Minister will be examining, as it relates to the word “animal”, the definition of “animal” is so broad when it says it is “any animal other than humans”, I think he is going to have to take into consideration the fact of the point I raised about the snares and traps. It can be interpreted in a broad enough sense that those kinds of devices would also come into question under this legislation.
Just to reinforce the point, it is the substance we are supposed to be making the law in regard to, not the applicators, spray cans or so on. Further on in the legislation, I think there are sections to take into account how it is applied and stored, and how those particular containers and applicators are to be treated.
I want to emphasize that I want the Minister to take a really close look at it when he comes back next time to discuss that particular word.
Clause 1 stood over
On Clause 2
Mr. Lang: How many pesticides are we talking about when referring to banning pesticides? Are we talking about a list of 550, or 25 or 30? The Minister must know this since he brought this legislation forward.
Hon. Mr. Webster: We are talking in the neighbourhood of 20 pesticides.
Clause 2 agreed to
On Clause 3
Mrs. Firth: This is the clause I was quoting about the licence authorizing them to do so. Did the Minister want to talk about the licensing issue under the licensing of businesses? He is nodding his head. I will leave my question about licensing until we get to the licensing of businesses.
Mr. Lang: The question I have is about a person not in business. I take it that if I were a farmer, I would need a licence. We are talking about two forms of licensing, one for the distributor and one for the user.
Mrs. Firth: In section 3(1) it says that no person shall use the pesticide otherwise than in accordance with a licence authorizing them to do so. To me, that represents the individual. The clause that the Minister is referring to, about licensing of businesses to apply is clause 8. Does this represent the individual?
Hon. Mr. Webster: Clause 3 refers to the individual. Clause 8 refers to commercial applicators of pesticides.
Mrs. Firth: Is it fair to conclude that the regulations are going to state that everyone in the Yukon who applies any herbicide, pesticide or fungicide will have to have a license to do so?
Hon. Mr. Webster: No, it will only apply to those who are applying pesticides under controlled conditions. This will be spelled out in the regulations.
Mr. Lang: What are “controlled conditions”?
Hon. Mr. Webster: Usually the controlled conditions are specified on the containers of the pesticides themselves, including the quantities and the duration of the application.
Mr. Lang: Maybe the lights are not going on here but I just want to know who is going to tell me which ones I am going to have to be licensed for. I am thinking of the individual actually out in the field applying various pesticides.
Hon. Mr. Webster: That information will be contained in the regulations, as to which pesticides will be applied under restricted use.
Mr. Lang: I just want to follow through with what my colleague for Riverdale South referred to earlier. I would like further clarification. In order to get this licensing - and I am talking about individuals now and not distribution by businesses - are they going to be required to take courses in this? I did not get a clear answer earlier.
Hon. Mr. Webster: Again, that will be dependent on the nature of the pesticide being applied. If it stipulates in the regulation that there will have to be controlled, restricted use, the individual would have to be licensed. We will be putting on courses to enable a person to become licensed for that purpose, as we have already done this past year.
Mr. Lang: Then I take it that the government will take the financial responsibility for the courses and there will be no cost to those that want to participate in such a program.
Hon. Mr. Webster: No, I cannot guarantee that there will not be a fee charged to participants to take the course.
Mrs. Firth: I just want to follow up on the question of these courses. Does the government have a number of courses planned for this spring?
Hon. Mr. Webster: Yes, we have planned some courses, as we did last year.
Mr. Lang: Can we be assured in the House that the courses that will be provided will ensure that those who are applying this type of commodity will have all the credentials in order to be licensed to apply it for this forthcoming year?
Hon. Mr. Webster: Yes, that is the intent.
Mrs. Firth: Could I ask the Minister a question about some of the research done before the act was tabled in the Legislature?
Presently, some of the local stores sell herbicides that people can buy and use to kill weeds in their gardens, and some pesticides too, I would imagine, such as ant sprays and Raid, and all these other name-brand products. Is the Minister aware of any that are going to become banned products under the regulations that his government is proposing? For example, have any of the local hardware stores been selling products they may not be able to sell unless the people who are buying them are licensed individuals?
Hon. Mr. Webster: Two years ago there was an inventory undertaken on all pesticides being sold through all commercial outlets in the Yukon. It was discovered at that time there were a handful being sold here that, according to B.C. regulations, should be applied in a controlled fashion.
Mr. Lang: Were the people who were selling these pesticides informed these commodities were being applied in a manner that was probably less controlled than what it was in other jurisdictions? Are they aware that some commodities they have been selling over the last number of years will no longer be allowed to be sold?
Hon. Mr. Webster: Those products are legal and will still be sold. Greater control of application will be required now.
Mr. Lang: Will the individual who is buying them have to have a licence? I am thinking of the storekeeper. He or she has a licence to sell these commodities, but for those commodities on the semi-banned list, will the purchaser have to have a licence? Is that how the system will work?
Hon. Mr. Webster: The way the Member describes it is how the procedure will work. When an individual goes into a store to buy some pesticides he will be required to sign an affidavit saying he has a certificate to allow him to apply the pesticide in a controlled manner.
Clause 3 agreed to
On Clause 4
Mr. Lang: I need one further clarification on transportation. Presently, under the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, are those who now truck this type of commodity registering them at the weigh scales when transporting them?
Hon. Mr. Webster: The dangerous goods that are defined as such by the federal government are presently monitored that way.
In the absence of legislation or regulations here in the territory, there is no way of knowing.
Mr. Lang: The Minister referred to the banned commodities, or pesticides, that would be coming under the regulations. Are those banned pesticides also covered under the Dangerous Goods Transportation Act?
Hon. Mr. Webster: Yes, they are.
Clause 4 agreed to
On Clause 5
Mr. Lang: What happens if I happen to be a farmer, something happens to the original pesticide container, and I put it in another container? What happens to me if I am found in violation of section 5? Will I be told to put it in a proper container or I will get up to a $15,000 fine if I continue, or is there some other section that comes into force, were that to occur?
Hon. Mr. Webster: We will assume that the use of this unapproved container to store these pesticides would be an interim measure. Under the act, noticing a pesticide was being stored in a container not approved for that purpose in the regulations, the inspector would inform the individual to correct the matter.
Clause 5 agreed to
On Clause 6
Mrs. Firth: What are people supposed to do with their containers?
Hon. Mr. Webster: I believe the Member asked a question on what people should do with the empty containers, once they have used the pesticide. One day a year, there is a call for people to bring in their containers for disposal by the Environmental Protection Service.
Mr. Lang: Where do they get stored? At the Minister’s house? What do they do with them?
Hon. Mr. Webster: Once the Environmental Protection Service has collected these empty containers, they dispose of them immediately. They do not maintain a collection of these containers.
Mr. Lang: Specifically in 6(b), they refer to a site. Are we speaking of the industrial area in downtown Whitehorse? What are we actually referring to? There must be a reason for this section, because you must have some knowledge of some pesticides that have to be stored in such a manner it will not cause any damage to anyone or the environment. Where would that site be?
Hon. Mr. Webster: EPS does maintain a site to store containers, and that would be the one prescribed in the regulations.
Mr. Lang: Where is that site?
Hon. Mr. Webster: Apparently there is a site down in the Marwell area that is used for storage of these containers.
Mr. Lang: Exactly what is stored at this site? This is the government that said it was on top of all these environmentally damaging materials, hazardous goods, pesticides and so on. You would think that at least some of the frontbenchers would have some idea of what is being stored there and exactly where down in the industrial area.
Hon. Mr. Webster: I will ask the federal government department, the Environmental Protection Service, what is stored at that site and identify its location.
Mr. Lang: I would appreciate that. The other thing is, the Minister has been referring to the Environmental Protection Service both from a territorial point of view and also, I gather in the last few minutes, in a federal sense. Do we have agreements with the federal Environmental Protection Service that we will be storing these commodities there? Is that correct? Or will we be creating our own storage site?
Hon. Mr. Webster: Currently we have an agreement that the federal EPS will store empty containers.
Clause 6 agreed to
On Clause 7
Mr. Lang: I am not knowledgeable about pesticides so I am curious. In what manner would we be allowing pesticides to be put into an open body of water, even if one was licensed to do so? Is it just for mosquitoes?
Hon. Mr. Webster: Other than for the obvious control of mosquitoes, there are some on the market for controlling vegetation. They are used to kill off vegetation to improve fish habitat.
Clause 7 agreed to
On Clause 8
Mr. Lang: Once again, we go into further licensing. Is this going to cost the business or individual money to buy this licence?
Hon. Mr. Webster: I would imagine that individuals taking the necessary training to apply pesticides in a commercial manner would have to pay some fees to do that.
Mr. Lang: I just want to make the observation that here the government is again asking an individual or individuals for money. They are already required to have a business licence to do something, and it is my feeling that if they are prepared to meet the law primarily for their own protection and in the public’s interest, I would submit that maybe it should be part of the business licence and encourage people to get registered. It is $25 here, $30 there. We just had the announcement earlier today that there were no tax increases but our motor vehicle licences are going up. I question why we are going to set up another licensing fee structure and all the costs that go along with it and so on. I am sure there can be some streamlining in government under the licensing that would require one to register and, if called upon, to be able to follow it through to ensure things are being done properly.
Hon. Mr. Webster: I will consider the Member’s suggestion. We are not talking about very many people. In a general sense, it is not uncommon to charge fees for people to take a course for proper training, such as a course for the application of insulation...
I will consider that suggestion. I thought the Member was referring to taking a course or training to become a qualified commercial applicator of pesticides.
Mr. Lang: I can see the rationale where you would charge someone for costs incurred. I am thinking of the actual licensing itself. Serious consideration should be given to providing licensing in conjunction with a business license. If they need one, they will need the other. We are requiring so much licensing of people, it is becoming a detriment to anyone doing anything. You spend your whole time chasing around government offices rather than doing something. There is not going to be any money involved either way. I do not think you will have a lot of people applying for this licence. It is not going to mean anything to your revenues. My recommendation is that it be a certification and they can conduct themselves accordingly. Government then knows who is in the business and who to get in touch with if there is a problem.
Hon. Mr. Webster: All that confusion has been straightened out. I can see what the Member is saying. It is certainly worth considering.
Clause 8 agreed to
On Clause 9
Mr. Lang: This is a technical point. Is this clause not redundant? Anyone applying pesticide for hire or reward would have to be licensed. There is no one who would be using an airplane to distribute pesticides unless they were doing it for commercial purposes. I may be off base, but I do not see the need for section 9.
Hon. Mr. Webster: The line of thinking is that only trained and licensed people should be permitted to apply pesticides from aircrafts, considering the the risk involved if the pesticide should be swept away by the wind into a place where a person does not want pesticide applied.
Mr. Lang: I am not arguing that point. The section above it requires that one has a licence if one is doing it for hire or reward. The only use I can see now is for mosquito control. They are being hired to do it. They are required to be licensed, whether they distribute it from a car or an airplane.
Hon. Mr. Webster: There may be some applications here that this particular section may apply to, such as applying pesticides from an aircraft over a forest. That is a common one in the provinces. Some people are actually hired to fly the plane, as opposed to applying the pesticide from the plane.
Mr. Lang: I am not going to hold up the legislation. It just seems redundant with section 8 above it. I would assume section 8 applies to any application no matter whether it is by vehicle, space ship, airplane or whatever.
Hon. Mr. Webster: The Member makes a good point. That is quite true, but is he opposed to having this clause in here?
Mr. Lang: I leave that to your discretion.
Hon. Mr. Webster: Thank you.
Clause 9 agreed to
On Clause 10
Mr. Lang: I do not understand why the Commissioner in Executive Council is making these appointments. It would seem to me that it is an administrative job, under the legislation. So often when this section is in legislation the paperwork seems to go astray for one reason or another and it never gets into Cabinet for ratification. If it does, it is a year later because there has been a turnover in staff. I do not see why such an appointment is required by Cabinet. It does not make sense to me. It would seem that the Public Service Act would come into play. Perhaps the Minister has some comment on it - unless they have some political people they want to put to work.
Hon. Mr. Webster: This is a fairly standard procedure. An order-in-council is the way that people are made conservation officers. This is one method to appoint inspectors. I really cannot comment if this method would be preferred over the one suggested by the Member opposite. This method seems to work and is used in many other acts.
Mr. Lang: I do not intend to hold up the legislation. I do know there are times when the paperwork is not done. It is very questionable then what happens when you go to court and you have not abided by law in appointing an individual. Personally, I do not believe the Minister’s example of the appointment of conservation officers by Cabinet should be occurring. I really do not. I do not see the rationale. They have the law to enforce and it is there, but why is Cabinet appointing conservation officers? Here we have the same situation developing in the Animal Protection Act, where nobody was appointed under that act. Look at the situation that arose this past year primarily because the appointments did not go through Cabinet and nobody knew who was supposed to enforce the legislation. I raise it as a point. Perhaps in future laws we should be looking at these appointments and change the way we appoint these people. It compounds the paperwork within the government.
Hon. Mr. Webster: I want to thank the Member for his comments, and that is probably something that should be reviewed in that policy.
Mr. Lang: On the overall policy, who would we talk to about that so it does not get lost in the shuffle over the next year? Is the Cabinet Minister who just spoke prepared to carry the ball and raise it as a general policy issue in Cabinet to see whether the legislation should be changed, as time goes on, to reflect more of a modern way of appointing people?
Hon. Mr. Webster: Yes, I think Cabinet would be the appropriate place to review that policy, and I will take that forward.
Clause 10 agreed to
On Clause 11
Clause 11 agreed to
On Clause 12
Clause 12 agreed to
On Clause 13
Mr. Lang: With respect to clause 13(6), we talked about the creation of an Environmental Protection Services branch in the department. Are we talking about all three of them being appointed as officers under this act?
Hon. Mr. Webster: Yes, that would be the case.
Clause 13 agreed to
On Clause 14
Clause 14 agreed to
On Clause 15
Clause 15 agreed to
On Clause 16
Mr. Lang: I want to make an observation. These are pretty substantial fines of up to $15,000. The second fine is up to $30,000, and up to a year in jail. Are penalties of this kind normal in the other jurisdictions?
Hon. Mr. Webster: Yes, they are consistent with other jurisdictions. In Ontario, for example, there is a fine of not more than $5,000 for each offence, and a fine of up to not more than $10,000 per day; major offences in New Brunswick have fines not exceeding $50,000 or imprisonment of one year. Right across the country, it is a reflection that penalties are becoming stiffer to reflect the nature of the damage being created.
Clause 16 agreed to
On Clause 17
Mr. Lang: I question why this section is here. I have a lot of problems with the employer being liable for the employee’s conduct. I notice that there are two caveats. One is that the employer did not consent to or condone the violation. If he or she did not have any knowledge of it, then the employer would not be responsible for the employee. With that being the case, I do not understand why the section is there. You have to be a party to the offence to be a part of it and responsible for it, whether you are the employer or the employee. Could the Minister clarify why that section is there? It seems to be redundant, in view of the fact that if you do not have knowledge of the situation you would not be charged. It leaves it wide open for you to be charged. You would then have to prove to the court that you had no knowledge. You are guilty until you prove yourself not guilty.
Hon. Mr. Webster: It is incumbent upon the employer to become familiar with the pesticide being applied and the necessary control procedures and to pass that information along to the employee. By making the employer responsible for pesticide offences, we may be able to ensure closer supervision of the pesticide applications.
Mr. Lang: My concern, in part, is with the way it is written. Would it not be better if the employer was liable if the employer condones or consents the violation? It would be very clear that the state has to prove, prior to laying charges, that the employer agreed to the violation. I am concerned because it is so wide open in the way it is written at present. Every time we turn around, the employer is the bad guy. It is getting to the point where no one wants to be an employer.
Hon. Mr. Webster: As it is written now, subject to subsection 2, the employer is not liable. If the employer has not informed his employee of the hazards involved in applying this pesticide, then clearly the employer is liable for violation of this act. That is straight forward. The employee can still be charged if, upon hearing the instructions from the employer, he does not follow the instructions. This saves the employer from the violation.
Clause 17 agreed to
On Clause 18
Clause 18 agreed to
On Clause 19
Clause 19 agreed to
On Clause 20
Mrs. Firth: This is a regulations clause that we have raised concerns about in the House. They are very broad definitions of what the regulations can do. They can include everything from A to Z. Will the Minister provide us with copies of the draft regulations before they become law to give us an opportunity to do our own consulting and make our own recommendations as to the contents of those regulations? I would also like to caution the Minister to be very specific when defining herbicides and pesticides, particularly the ones they are going to be banning so that we know what all the rules are. Will the Minister give us a commitment to the first question that I asked?
Hon. Mr. Webster: Certainly the draft regulations for which we are looking for some public input includes everyone in the territory. I would be pleased to make that available to the Members opposite at the same time as I do the Livestock and Agricultural Association and the Agricultural Planning Advisory Committee.
Clause 20 agreed to
On Clause 21
Clause 21 agreed to
On Clause 1
Hon. Mr. Webster: Returning to clause 1, on the definitions, in response to the questions raised by the Members for Riverdale South and Porter Creek East, with respect to the inclusion of the word “device”, there are electronic devices on the market used for attracting and electrocuting insects. These are pesticide devices.
The Member for Riverdale South also asked if the definition would include snares or mammal traps. Technically, they would, but they would not be scheduled as a controlled or banned device. They would not be regulated.
Mrs. Firth: So what the Minister is saying then is that when he has the list of devices in the regulations, snares and traps will not be included in that list but things like the electrical lights that attract mosquitoes and other bugs and ant traps and whatever things they have on the market that entice bugs and insects to crawl into them, are the kinds of things he would be looking at under these circumstances.
Hon. Mr. Webster: That is correct.
Mr. Lang: I just want to follow this device idea a little further. What is wrong with devices such as the kind that the Minister referred to? Are they going to be banned?
Hon. Mr. Webster: No, they are not going to be banned. These things that attract and electrocute bugs are pesticide devices. They will not, in any way I can foresee, to be having some controlled use and be therefore banned by regulations.
Mr. Lang: Why is it in there then? What is the purpose of it then? Why is it here if we have no need to regulate or refer to it?
Hon. Mr. Webster: We are trying to define “pesticide” and include everything under that definition.
Mr. Lang: I can see the Minister is a little embarrassed because he does not know why. If that is the reasoning for the word “device”, why is it included in this section as a definition of a “pesticide”? You have just said to the House that you do not intend to control it, do anything with it or have any problems with it. I do not understand why it is there.
Hon. Mr. Webster: “Pesticide” means any product, device for use in destroying or repelling any insects. One such device as I have described are those for attracting and electrocuting insects. That is why “device” is there. Just because this particular example will not be included in the regulations does not mean that the word “device” should not be in the definition of pesticide. Does it?
Mr. Lang: I agree with the Minister. Does it?
I still do not understand it. It seems to me the Minister is searching for reasons why it is here, to justify it. I do not understand why it is here. He has not given me a good reason why it is here.
Hon. Mr. Webster: I will try again. We are defining “pesticide” as any product, a device as being an elaboration of a product, et cetera, for use in destroying or repelling any insect. That is why “device” is there.
I can see I have convinced the Member opposite with the sound logic for including the word “device”. Would the Member opposite not concede that a device used for attracting and electrocuting insects is indeed, under the definition of “pesticide”, one use in destroying or repelling of insects?
Mrs. Firth: The Minister just stood up and said he did not think that an electrical device would be one that would be banned. Therefore, one would ask why “device” would be in there if you are not going to ban that particular device, although that is the only example he can give.
On the converse of the Minister’s argument, by including the word “device”, it does give the government the ability to ban whatever they want, because “device” is included there. I think that is the point the Member for Porter Creek East is making. Why do you need the term in there unless you have some intention of banning some devices? In his reasoning, the Minister stood up and said this is an example of a device, but we are not going to ban it anyway. I guess the question still remains: why bother having “device” in there?
The obvious question here is, could the Minister please cite an example of a device that could possibly be banned by regulation?
Hon. Mr. Webster: Now I will answer my question with some help from Members of the House. No, I cannot at this time provide you with an example of device that could be banned. I could stand this over until I come back with an example of one that could be considered, something that could be invented 10 or 15 years from now.
Mr. Lang: Why do we not just bring an act in that says Mr. Webster can do any thing, any time, any place and any where?
In all seriousness, I would like to know why it is there. There has to be a reason. This almost sounds like a repeat of the Yukon River Basin Study. We are bringing it in, just in case. We do not know if they are going to need it, but we are going to bring it in anyway. I recommend we set it aside. We have tomorrow, and I am sure, with all the staff he referred to earlier, the Minister should be able to conjure up some idea that has some legitimacy. If it does, it will be accepted by the House. If it does not, we will amend the legislation accordingly.
Hon. Mr. Webster: I would be pleased to stand this clause over and take 24 hours to come up with a possible reply if that would satisfy the Member for Porter Creek East.
Mrs. Firth: Usually laws are made because there is a problem that has occurred and you want to remedy the problem. If the Minister cannot think of examples where devices have been used that should be considered for banning, that further reinforces the argument about why it should not even be there. The concerns I brought forward about snares and traps were legitimate. I felt that if other people read it they would probably interpret it that way too, because it was some kind of physical device they were using to capture and kill animals.
If the Minister does not have any intention of banning those kinds of things, nor the electrical devices, why is the word there if there is no great problem that this is being brought forward to solve? Usually, legislation is made to solve a current problem. We do not make a lot of legislation for problems that just might happen, although there are some legislators who like to do that. I am not a strong proponent for that type of legislation. Perhaps the Minister might take that into consideration when he explains the terminology.
Mr. Brewster: The Minister suggested that something could happen 15 to 20 years from now. I suggest we leave it to those legislators when they amend the act at that time, not amend it now for 15 years from now.
Clause 1 stood over
Hon. Mr. Webster: It is my understanding that we have stood over clause 1 for further explanation. On that note, I move that you report progress.
Motion agreed to
Chair: Does the Committee want to have a break? We will take a five minute break?
Recess
Chair: I will call Committee back to order.
It is my understanding that we are going back to Bill No. 66.
Bill No. 66 - Pesticides Control Act - continued
On Clause 1
Hon. Mr. Webster: In raising the concern, the Members opposite are focussing on the banning aspects contained in the regulations. Some things under the definition of pesticides will be banned outright. There will be a number of things set out in the regulations that will be permitted for use in a controlled situation. An example here is electronic devices. They will not be banned, but the regulations will stress that these should be used in a controlled situation. For example, they should be kept out of the reach of children. They should not be used around a swimming pool, et cetera, or anywhere where they could be knocked over. That is the explanation I am offering to the Members. That is why it is included here in the definitions.
Mr. Lang: I have never come across this electrical device that the Minister is referring to. I gather this clears the whole area of mosquitoes. Maybe we should use it in Old Crow. It may be an answer to some of the problems experienced there in the summertime. You might have to carry a generator along for power, but that would be all right. Could the Minister be more specific? I do not understand this. I have never been exposed to this. The Minister has not given us an example. Are there people here with electrical devices to attract insects?
Hon. Mr. Webster: Yes, they are in use in the Yukon. I have seen them in the Yukon. It is a device that emanates a blue light at 110 volts. It attracts insects larger than mosquitoes and it zaps them.
Mrs. Firth: The point I want to make is if the Minister had provided regulations, we could see what the intention is. I am still not in total agreement with the term “device” being there, but we could then see what he is going to be referring to as “devices”, and I would not have had to ask the question about the snares. When the Minister brings a bill to the Legislature that is going to impose new laws upon Yukoners, it is incumbent to bring a complete bill with the regulations attached. That is what we had did in the past with the Human Rights Act, and lottery licensing regulations and so on.
I would ask the Minister to get the draft regulations done up as soon as possible and make them available to us as well as the rest of the public so that we know the government’s intentions are positive and there is not something being kept from us that the public should be made aware of.
Hon. Mr. Webster: I have already made a commitment to provide Members opposite with a copy of the draft regulations as soon as it is available.
Clause 1 agreed to
On Title
Title agreed to
Hon. Mr. Webster: I move that you report Bill No. 66 without amendment.
Motion agreed to
Chair: We will move to Bill No. 3, the Hospital Act.
Bill No. 3 - Hospital Act
Hon. Mr. Penikett: As I described in second reading, the purpose of this bill is to establish in law a hospital corporation and a hospital board to which the federally-operated hospital in Whitehorse can be transferred, and for whom the employees of that hospital, when they come to work for the people of the Yukon, can work. As I explained the other day, we are doing this to provide for independent governance of the hospital, but also to facilitate the transfer in that the employees will be able to go, upon passage of this act, directly to work for a hospital corporation rather than first coming to work for the Yukon government and then us having to do a subsequent transfer