Whitehorse, Yukon

Wednesday, January 24, 1990 - 1:30 p.m.

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

Prayers

DAILY ROUTINE

Speaker: We will proceed with the Order Paper.

Are there any Returns or Documents for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Hon. Ms. Joe: I have for tabling the response to written questions by the Member for Riverdale South.

Speaker: Are there any Reports of Committees?

Petitions?

Introduction of Bills?

Are there any Notices of Motion for the Production of Papers?

Are there any Notices of Motion?

Are there any Statements by Ministers?

STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS

Management for Commercial and Domestic Freshwater Fisheries Assumed by Yukon Government

Hon. Mr. Webster: Today, Mr. Speaker, I arise to advise Members that as of January 1, 1990 the Yukon Government formally assumed responsibility for the management of our commercial and domestic freshwater fisheries.

I would like to take this opportunity to inform members of the three major principles that will govern this government’s management of this resource, and of the guidelines that we will follow to ensure these principles are honoured.

Sustainability is the first principle governing management of the freshwater fishery. This means that fish should not be harvested at a level that compromises future harvests.

This general principle, and the others that I will mention, have been emphasized in the Yukon economic strategy, underline the Yukon conservation strategy and are a feature of my government’s management of any of the Yukon’s renewable resources for which we have responsibility.

Providing harvest opportunities consistent with chosen lifestyles is the second principle guiding management of the commercial and domestic freshwater fishery.

The third and final principle that the guidelines address is management of the fishery in a way that minimizes the potential for conflict between different resource users.

The guidelines that I will briefly outline are designed to put these three principles into practice.

Given that most fishery users have expressed concerns about apparent declines in lake trout stocks, and given the limited baseline information and harvest data that we have inherited from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, we are proposing quite conservative commercial and domestic harvesting arrangements.

A review of the 20 previously scheduled commercial lake trout harvest lakes has been conducted and their number has been reduced to six of the larger lakes in the territory that we believe can support a commercial harvest with a minimum of conflict with other resource users. We believe that these six lakes can support fish populations able to sustain harvests at the levels that we intend to authorize, pending the collection of more precise resource inventory data.

The six lakes on which commercial lake trout fishing will be permitted are: Lake Laberge; Atlin Lake; Bennett Lake; Teslin Lake; Frances Lake; and, Kluane Lake.

The lakes eliminated from the commercial lake trout schedule accounted for less than 10 percent of commercial effort in the past.

Eliminated from the schedule are: lakes that are readily accessible by road and pose the possibility of significant conflict with recreational users; lakes that have significant tourist lodge use or potential; lakes that have been ignored by the commercial fishery in the past; and, lakes that are too small for commercial use.

To minimize conflicts between commercial and sports fishing on lakes, where there remains some likelihood for conflict, the commercial fishery will be restricted to winter operations. This staggering of seasons, along with the reduction in the number of lakes on the commercial schedule, has the added benefit of allowing our fisheries personnel and conservation officers to better monitor actual levels of harvest.

Harvest quotas are an important management tool as well. Since we lack definitive information on lake trout stocks in most Yukon lakes, the interim guidelines adopted for 1990 will reduce the allowable harvest quota for lake trout by more than half. Lake trout quotas will be reduced from 14,540 kg allowed last year to 6700 kg on the six designated commercial fishing lakes this year.

I would like to point out that the commercial lake trout harvest quota proposed for 1990, the 6700 kgs just mentioned, remains a small proportion of the total lake trout harvest of over 90,000 kg a year. Angling will continue to account for over 95 percent of the Yukon’s annual total lake trout harvest.

The quotas established for commercial fishing are also being applied differently this year than they have been in the past. Quotas are being assigned by individual and lake rather than simply by lake as they were by Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

This makes harvests more predictable for those holding commercial licences as well as more manageable for the people in our fisheries section.

Those who have recorded commercial harvests in at least one of the last three years will be eligible for commercial licences. Commercial licence holders who have held licences but not reported production will be asked to provide documentation of past production. In the future, new applicants must hold or have held a valid Assistant Licence or Commercial Fishing Licence previously in order to qualify for a commercial licence. Applicants will be assigned licences through the licensing procedure or by providing proof of quota transfer from another licence holder.

I understand that our fisheries section has contacted previous commercial licence holders and is working with them to ensure the smoothest possible transition for the new regime.

I would also like to advise Members of some changes to the domestic fishery guidelines.

As of January 1, new domestic fishing licences will be issued only to those individuals who have a subsistence or land-based lifestyles and live outside of major population centres. As is the case with commercial licence holders, people in the domestic fishery will be issued individual lake quotas. The domestic fishery will not centre on the lakes on the commercial schedule, but will instead focus on lakes in close proximity to the homes of domestic licence holders.

People who held domestic licences last year will be issued licences again in 1990, if they apply.

In conclusion, I believe that the principles and guidelines for the commercial and domestic freshwater fishery, which I have outlined today, will ensure economic opportunities for Yukoners to meet local demands for freshwater fish, enable Yukoners living in the bush to meet their needs and ensure anglers healthy stocks of lake trout. The management guidelines that I have presented will protect the integrity of an important renewable resource and minimize potential conflicts between commercial domestic and sports harvesters of lake trout and other freshwater fish species.

Mr. Phelps: I am somewhat concerned about one aspect of the ministerial statement. I am concerned that Bennett Lake is on the list of such lakes where commercial lake trout fishing will be allowed. This goes against the expressed wishes of virtually every Carcross and Tagish area resident.

Four years ago, a petition was signed by most residents in that area. The petition asked that commercial fishing not be allowed in Bennett Lake. Copies were sent to the Minister in his then capacity as Chairman of the Select Committee, hearing the views of Yukoners about the green paper on renewable resources.

Then again, about one and one-half years ago, there was a controversy about commercial fishing on the Bennett, and another similar petition was circulated by the Carcross-Tagish Indian Band. That petition was signed by most residents in the area. That petition was sent, along with other correspondence, to the Department of Renewable Resources.

I am somewhat dismayed at this turn of events. I hope that residents will be consulted early before this policy is cast in stone. To my knowledge, most residents have not been advised that this is the intention of the department.

Hon. Mr. Webster: I want to assure the Member opposite who has raised this concern that our department shares his concern. Bennett Lake and Frances Lake are two of six lakes mentioned where we have had a number of complaints from the public as to the health of the lake trout stocks, and demanding some action to reduce the quotas for commercial fishery. For both those lakes for this year of 1990, we have reduced the quota for commercial harvest to less than half of last year’s levels, recognizing the concern out there. I would suggest to him that these are interim guidelines; there will be some opportunities for input by the public to make comments as to what they feel is a reasonable harvest quota for the commercial fishery, not only on those two lakes but on the other four lakes designated for commercial lake trout fishing. This summer, our departmental fisheries has singled out both Bennett and Frances lakes for some inventory work to get a good idea as to the health of the fish stock in those two lakes.

Speaker: This then brings us to the Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Question re: Yukon Pacific Forest Products

Mr. Phelps: I have some questions of the Minister responsible for the Yukon Development Corporation, once again, regarding the sale of the Watson Lake sawmill to Yukon Pacific. The Minister continues to allege that he was not aware of the key role played by T.F. Properties in the negotiations leading up to the sale and that his officials did not check into the background of T.F. Properties and its principals, Ted Myrah and Mr. Ferguson, before the sale closed last year. I am advised that Jack Sigalet spoke to Mr. Alwarid several months before the sale was completed and, at that time, warned him about Mr. Ferguson’s dubious business background. Was the Minister advised about this warning by Mr. Alwarid?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I am certainly not going to get into commenting on remarks and aspersions cast by one third party to another third party some months ago outside this House. While the Member for Porter Creek East is snickering, the fact of the matter is - as I have said before in this House and I will repeat - Yukon Development Corporation negotiated arrangements with the Shieldings Group - that is who we made our transactions with. Whomever Shieldings chose to bring in as their agents or partners or employees was their private business, not ours.

Mr. Phelps: This deal was put together, let us face it, by T.F. Properties and its principals, and the officials acting on behalf of the Minister and on behalf of the people of Yukon were warned about the dubious business background of those very people who were dealing with Yukon Development. I would like to know why the background of T.F. Properties and its officers were not checked into, in view of the caveat that was received by Mr. Alwarid several months before the sale took place.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I think there is something quite improper about the Member using his situation of privilege in this House to cast aspersions, in fact suggesting criminal behaviour, immoral behaviour, or a dubious record by some people who are not here to defend themselves or explain themselves, under cover of his immunity in the House. Then, he asks me to explain why a third party, a private company, did business with those people.

I repeat: the private company that did business with those people was the Shieldings group. We had a contract with Shieldings. We made arrangements with Shieldings. I previously told the Member, and I will repeat again, we made very thorough checks into Shieldings, including who their owners were, the Bank of Nova Scotia, that they were financially solvent and had investments all over this country. The commitments we were concerned about having met, including the payment to local creditors were, from our point of view, commitments made by Shieldings, and those are the people whom we hold to account.

Mr. Phelps: We have yet another red herring being dragged across the path of those who would like to know more about this business arrangement, on behalf of the taxpayers of the Yukon who, ultimately, are paying for the mistakes made by the Minister and his colleagues.

The business background of Mr. Ferguson has been fully divulged outside this House in the Whitehorse Star. I do not have to add anything to the articles that have been published. In view of what we know, and in view of the fact the officials were told about some of these previous transactions, why was no check made into the background of T.F. Properties: who put the deal together, who signed documents at the closing, and who were responsible for preparing the agreement with regard to the building of the new mill?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I can only repeat what I said before, that our arrangements were with the Shieldings company. I am not quite sure what the point of the Member is here. He is alleging that a certain person has a bad character or a bad reputation. I do not know what his position is. Is it the position that they should not be allowed to invest in the business in the Yukon, that they should not be allowed to be employed in the Yukon, not be allowed to be a resident in the Yukon? What is his position? We have no contract with that person, and I understand his obligation was to build a mill for this company.

If the Member is suggesting that the position of this government should be that someone who has ever had a business fail, or who has ever been involved in some disputes or difficulties or if, in the opinion of the Leader of the Official Opposition, somebody has a bad reputation from somewhere else, they should not be allowed to invest here, live here or work here, I have a little problem with that suggestion on human rights grounds.

We checked very thoroughly into the people ...

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

Hon. Mr. Penikett: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We checked very thoroughly into the people with whom we made a contract. Whomever they chose to then hire, or have agents or other contracts with, or retain as managers, was their private business. I submit it was not something which ought to be discussed in this House.

Question re: Yukon Pacific Forest Products

Mr. Phelps: There are several issues. First of all, a contract was entered into with T.F. Properties and its principals. The government stood up proudly and told Yukoners that they had checked very thoroughly the Shieldings company. They cannot have it both ways. Why, then, did the government Minister for Yukon Development Corporation, if he is not at all concerned about the business background of anybody that they enter into business with, bother checking out Shieldings?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: The Member is missing the point. We checked out Shieldings because that is who we were doing business with. If Shieldings has an arrangement with a third party, that is its business, not ours.

Mr. Phelps: We do not have all the contracts yet - I am sure we will get them in time - but the government was doing business with T.F. Properties - they are named on the documents. I will move on because I have some questions about the fees received by T.F. Properties over the past year, the fees that they enjoyed, from managing Yukon Pacific.

Mr. Phelps: Can the Minister advise us whether T.F. Properties, or its principals, received a commission for selling lumber on behalf of Yukon Pacific?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: For reasons that I described yesterday, I am going to take the question as notice.

Mr. Phelps: Will the Minister also take as notice, look into and report back to House how much the commission was and how much money was paid by T.F. Properties or its principals?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I will take all further questions of this type on this subject as notice, yes.

Mr. Phelps: Can the Minister also advise us as to whether T.F. Properties or its principals have an interest in the trucking company that trucked the lumber from Watson Lake sawmill to various points in B.C.?

Question re: Yukon Pacific Forest Products

Mr. Phelps: Is the Minister then telling us, by his refusal to stand up, that he is going to take this under advisement and respond later?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: Forgive me, I was not being rude to the Member. I just indicated an answer to the previous question: that I would take this question as notice and any subsequent questions on the same subject, arising out of the same question, as notice.

Mr. Phelps: Does that mean that he will be reporting back to the House with the answers?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: When I can, I will be reporting back on those questions that have to do with the public business. I may be constrained and I may have to take legal advice as to whether I am inhibited in any way by matters now before the courts, in terms of the timing of my answers. I will take legal advice on that question and we will be providing answers to the matters that pertain to the public business.

Mr. Phelps: Can the Minister advise this House as to why it would not be responsible for him to answer to the people of the Yukon about the matters being raised? To my knowledge, no one is in court right now, and to my knowledge, none of these questions bear on the issue of the appointment of a receiver.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I do not know whether the final assertion by the Member is the case or not but I can tell him that I have received advice from the lawyers for Yukon Development Corporation, in respect to the care that I should take in answering questions on this subject while the matter is before the courts, and I think the Member should understand that.

Question re: Yukon Pacific Forest Products

Mr. Phelps: Can the Minister advise the House why Yukon Development Corporation decided to launch an action against Carroll-Hatch a day or two before the Public Accounts Committee was supposed to be looking into the operation of Yukon Development Corporation and Hyland Forest Products?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: They did not, Mr. Speaker. They retained legal advice on this question some time ago and made a decision to proceed with legal action upon receipt of that legal advice. The connection the Member is trying to draw between the two events is not there.

Mr. Phelps: When the Minister takes notice of questions, will he advise this House about the trucking company I mentioned earlier that transported the lumber from the Watson Lake sawmill to various points in B.C.? Would the Minister also advise this House as to how much was charged for transporting the lumber by the trucking company in question?

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

Mr. Phelps: Will the Minister advise this House about how much money has been received by T.F. Properties for managing the Watson Lake sawmill to date?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I will take notice of the question.

Question re: Yukon Pacific Forest Products

Mr. Phelps: Will the Minister provide us with the fee structure in place between Yukon Pacific and T.F. Properties for managing the mill?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: Again, I will take notice of the question, and I will again repeat that if the information is within the public domain, if it is a matter of private business or information, it may not be accessible to me. Once again, I will take notice of the question.

If the Member is seriously expecting me to have answers to some questions like this, he would have given me notice or questions in writing. The fact that he has not done that indicates that he really does not expect answers today.

Mr. Phelps: Before the Christmas break, I asked many of these questions of the Minister. I am somewhat perturbed that he is surprised by these questions at this late date.

Will the Minister advise us whether T.F. Properties is managing the Watson Lake sawmill to date?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: As I told the Member yesterday, he knows the answer to that question. We have applied to the court for a receiver manager. That matter will be disposed of by the courts before there is any change in management.

Question re: Na Dli Youth Centre

Mr. Nordling: I have a question for the Minister of Health and Human Resources with respect to the young offenders facility.

The young offenders facility took this government four years to plan, and it cost well over $3 million to construct. Part of the planning process included the hiring of consultants to determine what services would be provided.

Can the Minister tell us if those consultants’ reports formed the basis of the young offenders program?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: Off the top of my head and without a review of the files, I do not know how many consultant reports there were, what recommendations were made or what were accepted. I can assume in general that the consultants’ reports did make recommendations and that we followed them, but without a check of the files, as I was not the Minister at the time, I cannot answer the question definitively today.

Mr. Nordling: I would hope the Minister would take a little more depth of interest in the problems at the young offenders facility and what lead up to them and review his file. We asked that these reports be tabled in April of 1986, and that was not done. We know that $55,000 was paid to Audrey McLaughlan for “Young Offender Program Planning Service”, and another $20,000 for development of a wilderness program.

I would like to know if there were other reports or consultants from outside the territory used in developing the program.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I could check into that. I am sure that a report done by Audrey McLaughlin, was an excellent one. I will take the Member’s suggestion, and go back and read it myself. We reject the Member’s suggestion that we have not devoted time and attention to the problems at the young offenders facility. We have moved resolutely to address the problems that we have recently had there, and I hope to be making a report to the House on that shortly.

Mr. Nordling: Has the Minister looked into the history of the problem? Does he know if we have any research or analyses from other jurisdictions that told us that the design, security and programming of the facility that we put in place would work and meet our needs?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: The preliminary report from the investigators from the Solicitor General’s Department of the Province of B.C., very senior people in this field, indicated in a preliminary way that the basic design and program of the facility are sound. The department will not be receiving a report from these people for some weeks yet. The general soundness of the design and the program have been confirmed by this third-party examination.

Question re: Na Dli Youth Centre

Mr. Nordling: Can the Minister describe the damage that was done to the facility by the youths who escaped?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I cannot describe the damage in terms of the actual dollar cost to repair it. That is yet to come. We had damage to the furniture and some damage to the facility. That damage was not in the same order of magnitude as the improvements in the security that we have since commissioned. They will, notwithstanding a false allegation made by the Member opposite, be within the total amount that we budgeted for this facility. Even the improvements will be able to be handled within that general budgetary target.

Mr. Nordling: When will we know how much it will cost to repair the damage?

Why were preliminary estimates of the damages not done?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: My instructions, and the instructions of the deputy minister that were given to the people in Government Services, were to repair the damage and make the recommended improvements that were indicated by the staff as soon as possible so that we could restore the facility to its proper use.

Mr. Nordling: What measures have been taken to improve the security at the facility?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: The report that we expect in a few weeks will get into some more detail on this. We do have some recommendations to improve physical security and procedures in order to protect and enhance the occupational safety of the staff as well as the people incarcerated there. The department has recommended that I not get into a public discussion of the improvements in the physical security for fear that public discussion would compromise the security of the operation.

Mr. Nordling: It sounds like nonsense to me.

Question re: Meech Lake Accord

Ms. Hayden: The Premier of B.C., Bill Vander Zalm made his proposal public yesterday for the amendments to the Meech Lake Accord. Given the concern of the Yukon people about this issue, could the Premier advise this House as to whether or not his proposal will have an impact on the position the Government of the Yukon has been taking on the Meech Lake Accord?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I thank the Member for the question. There is not anything in Mr. Vander Zalm’s recommendations, which I have now had to read, which would give any particular comfort to the people of the Yukon, beyond the fact that, in his proposals, he does indicate in future, in passing, that the territories ought to have a voice in the approval process for constitutional change. However, he does not specifically deal with the concerns we have as a jurisdiction, except to suggest they would be dealt with in some later process, and that we would have a stay of execution for about three years.

I think the one point of optimism we may have is that another province has opened up the question, and that may provide us with some opportunities. We intend to explore the matter further with the Premier of that province.

Ms. Hayden: As we approach the targeted date for the passing of the Meech Lake Accord, the lobbying for various positions on the Accord is becoming more intense. Does the Government of Yukon plan to take part in that lobbying?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I have previously indicated that, time permitting, Ministers of this government will certainly be part of lobbying their provincial colleagues and the federal government, as I have had occasion recently to do in a meeting with Lowell Murray, and in discussions with the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and other federal Ministers. Given the short time, we are also intending to assign some senior officials in this government to the task of lobbying in the provinces, and I hope to be making further announcements about that during the course of this sitting.

Question re: Na Dli Youth Centre

Mr. Nordling: To go back to the topic we are on, I will make my same remarks so it is in context. To refuse to answer my question because it may jeopardize security at the young offenders facility sounds like nonsense to me. We are not asking for a detailed description or a blueprint of the security system at the facility. We are asking, in general, what measures have been taken to increase the security at the facility. We can see there has been barbed wire put on the top. The Minister has already told the media there were improvements in the locking system.

Would the Minister honour this House with a general description of what has been done?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I am sorry the Member did not understand my previous answer to his general question. Yes, the locking systems will be improved. The fencing will be upgraded, with a view to enhance the security in the facility. In terms of staff procedures, we are taking some measures that we hope will improve the situation. We hope the physical improvements in the security, including the locks and fencing, will be concluded in a matter of days. The staff will be oriented to the new physical arrangements and to some new procedural improvements this week. As I have indicated, by the end of this week or early next week, we hope to have the facility in operation again.

There may be some further action arising from the report, which will come in a few weeks, but I cannot indicate anything about that in advance. It is quite likely that if we have a certain number of young people in there, and there is a concern about the population at any moment, I want to give the authority to the staff to bring in ...

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

Hon. Mr. Penikett: ... extra auxiliaries, or whatever is necessary, in order to make sure the safety of the staff is not compromised.

Mr. Nordling: Can the Minister tell us how much, approximately, these improvements to the security are going to cost?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I cannot yet, for reasons I have given, but I will be more than happy to take that question as notice and provide the Member with the actual number once complete. I am sure Government Services will provide us with the information when they have actually completed the work and, of course, it will come out of the capital allocation of the Department of Health and Human Resources.

Mr. Nordling: Will the Minister also provide us with the cost to the taxpayer to bring the consultants in from British Columbia to help us straighten out the mess we got ourselves in?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I am sorry the Member has to add his snide remark to the question, because it was unnecessary. The procedures in the young offender program for any major incident require a third party investigation. In this territory, that requires going to another jurisdiction. The British Columbia government was very cooperative and willing to send people up and, as I understand it, there is no charge for that other than their expenses.

Question re: Na Dli Youth Centre

Mrs. Firth: My question is also directed to the Minister of Health and Human Resources.

Since the incident at the young offenders facility, a constituent has informed me that the employees of the facility were called aside and told not to talk to the politicians about the incident. Can the Minister tell us if this was being done?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: Not on my instructions. Indeed, I met with the employees the day after the incident to talk to them about it and explain the process of the investigation that was going to go on. I understand a number of the employees have talked to the media and, as you know, it is the policy of the government generally that you are not to talk to the media about the operations of your own department unless you are authorized to do so. There is a general rule about that throughout the government, and it was in place when the Member opposite was a Minister. Mr. Speaker, there was no specific instruction given from me.

Mrs. Firth: I am not talking about employees talking to the media; I am asking questions about employees talking to politicians.

The Minister made reference to his presentation to the employees. The question I want to put to the Minister is this: did he go up to the young offenders facility and make a speech to the staff, at which time he told them to keep quiet and not discuss the issue, because he did not want it to become political?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: Certainly not. I did not do anything of the kind. I went up to talk to the staff the day after the incident and commiserate with them about the effect on them, particularly those who had been physically attacked. Through Family Services, a counselling session was provided to the employees to deal with that traumatic event; as well, the Occupational Health and Safety people came in to take a look at the operation from the point of view of employee safety. We also had a brief discussion with them about the investigation process, which I have already talked about in this House, and I do not think I did anything that would even, by any characterization, resemble a speech.

Mrs. Firth: People have raised this issue with me directly as their MLA; they are facts that were presented to me by people who feel intimidated and are frightened for their jobs. I would like the Minister to perhaps present us with a written form of exactly what he told the employees at the time of his visit to them.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I do not believe the Member has constituents who say that. I am going to call her bluff, because I did not say that, and if she has any evidence that I said anything like that, she should present it to the House, because I do not believe her.

Question re: Visitor reception centre

Mr. Phillips: I have a question for the Minister of Tourism.

In May of 1988 I tabled a petition in this House with over 200 signatures of individuals and businesses who wanted the government to consider building the planned Whitehorse tourism information centre on the Alaska Highway. In fact, there were some suggestions made that the centre should be located near the transportation museum. Since that time, several studies have been undertaken by the government, and 1992 is fast approaching. I feel that we should have a centre in place by then.

What is currently happening with the plans for a visitor reception centre? Are we going to have one before 1992?

Hon. Mr. Webster: Before I answer that question I would like some clarification from the Member opposite.

He is referring to a reception centre in downtown Whitehorse or one on the Alaska Highway?

Mr. Phillips: The debate was on where the visitor reception centre would go. Many people questioned whether it should be built downtown. There were several studies done to determine where they would build it. No one on this side has seen those studies. If the Minister has such studies would he table them in the House?

Hon. Mr. Webster: Two studies were done to determine the possible location for the visitor reception centre in downtown Whitehorse. It was also suggested to me at that same time, taking the example of other large communities in western Canada, that there should also be a smaller reception centre located on the highway to entice visitors to come to find out more information about the community so they can be directed to the major centre in the downtown location. Those reports have been provided to the Department of Tourism and I will ensure that the Member receives a copy of that report.

Mr. Phillips: As I said earlier, 1992 is fast approaching and the type of facility we are talking about will take a year or two to construct. When are we going to at least announce the construction process for the building of a new visitor facility in Whitehorse?

Hon. Mr. Webster: As the Member is aware there is some difficulty acquiring a suitable location for the visitor reception centre. This is what is stalling the construction of a new reception centre for the Whitehorse area. The Member is obviously aware that when he views the capital budget proposed for 1990-91 that there have been no monies allocated for this purpose. I would suggest that we, too, recognize the urgency to have some kind of facility in place in time for the 1992 celebrations. That will hopefully be reflected in next year’s capital budget.

Question re: Contract bonding requirements

Mr. Devries: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Transportation Services.

Small businesses face a lot of obstacles and some of these difficulties are created by the bonding requirements and the manner in which the Department of Highways tenders contracts. I am referring specifically to highway asphalt emulsions and would like to know if the Minister would entertain downsizing the tenders so more small businesses can compete?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: Off the top of my head I see no particular problem with the request. I would exercise the qualifier that I would like to seek some advice on why the current contracts are let in large volume quantities. Perhaps if the Member has additional information on the subject he could share it.

Mr. Devries: Other jurisdictions, such as Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, issue several dozen individual tenders for different areas over a period of two months in order to give small businesses a better chance. Would the Yukon highway department consider separate tenders for emulsions issued with closing dates several weeks apart so companies could make three separate bids for possibly the month of June, July and August. If they got the June contract this would also give them the opportunity to borrow more money for the bonding on the tender for July.

Hon. Mr. Byblow: I appreciate the Member’s representation. As he describes it, it does not sound unreasonable. Certainly, through the discussion that I have had with the contracting and constructing community, the business of downsizing contracts and staggering them is not unusual. It is something that is encouraged and we do it. I want to explore the option the Member raises.

Mr. Devries: Would the Minister also examine the issues of bonding to ascertain what can be done to help small businesses?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: I can undertake that initiative as well. I take it that the Member is suggesting that the bonding requirements are too rigid or too strict at the moment.

Question re: Workers Compensation Board office building

Mr. Brewster: My question is to the Minister responsible for the Workman’s Compensation Board. In May, 1988, it was revealed that that the Workman’s Compensation Board was considering building an office building in Whitehorse, to be built to meet a projected growth for approximately 20 years. I asked: “Can the Minister advise the House if this project has been approved and is going ahead?” The answer to that question was, “It is my understanding that the Workman’s Compensation Board has proceeded with plans to go ahead with the building.” Can the Minister confirm this as a fact?

Hon. Ms. Joe: For the information of the House, it is “Workers Compensation” and not “Workman’s Compensation”. The response I gave the Member at that time is correct. There have been plans to proceed with the building, in consultation with other organizations in the city.

Mr. Brewster: Thank you. I will have to apologize sometimes for my language. I do not have the education that some of these people have.

I then asked, “Can the Minister advise the House if it is still the intention of the Workers Compensation Board to rent extra office space to other government departments and agencies, as well as the private sector?” The answer I received then was, “The information he is seeking is not before me. I have spoken to them with regard to the building and understand there will be accommodation. I will have to bring this information back.”

My question is: when will it be brought back?

Hon. Ms. Joe: My apologies to the Member, Mr. Speaker. I have been assured by Workers Compensation that there would be no added space that would be rented out to other organizations and businesses; it would be used strictly for Workers Compensation.

Mr. Brewster: I asked that on December 12 and I get an answer on January 24. On December 12, the Minister stated, “I believe the Workers Compensation Board has developed a plan whereby office space they are planning will be built in a manner that is acceptable to the people involved.”

Will the Minister please table the plan?

Hon. Ms. Joe: I not entirely sure whether or not that would be something that I would do. I would have to go back to the Workers Compensation Board to get advice from them and I am not entirely sure whether that is a proper thing to do - to table plans for all buildings that are built. I will seek that advice and I will come back to the House with it.

Question re: Wood bison

Mr. Lang: I have a question to the Minister of Renewable Resources and it is a question about the decision by the government to bring more wood bison to the Yukon. In view of the controversy that is raging over in the Northwest Territories, and the very serious situation that wildlife is facing in that area, is it still the position of the Government of the Yukon that more wood bison would be coming into the Yukon this spring?

Hon. Mr. Webster: Yes, it is still the intention of the government, along with the other groups associated with this project - the Yukon Fish and Game Association, for example - to bring more wood bison into the Yukon. It is part of the management plan strategy, which eventually will see us bring the total number of the herd up to 200.

Mr. Lang: I have to raise the very real concern with respect to the diseases these animals can get, in view of what has happened in the Northwest Territories. Can the Minister guarantee the people of the territory that we will not experience the same disease problems with the wood bison in the Yukon that are presently being experienced in the Northwest Territories?

Hon. Mr. Webster: I do not know if I can give a personal guarantee to that effect, but I can only assume that the department, and the Fish and Game Association, would only accept animals that are healthy and have been proven to be so.

Mr. Lang: Will the Minister of Renewable Resources verify this? That disease can be in an animal for a minimum of seven years before it is detected. Is that not correct?

Hon. Mr. Webster: I understand that is true.

Speaker: The time for Question Period has now lapsed. We will now proceed with Orders of the Day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Mr. Phillips: On behalf of the House Leaders, I would request unanimous consent to proceed directly to Motions other than Government Motions, rather than calling Motions for the Production of Papers, and for the motions to be called in the following order: Motion No. 64, Motion No. 51, Motion No. 65 and Motion No. 52.

I would also request unanimous consent that, if we are not then finished debate on the motions, to allow a motion to be moved at 4:30 p.m. for the House to resolve itself into Committee of the Whole.

Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

All Hon. Members: Agreed.

Speaker: Unanimous consent has been granted.

Motions other than Government Motions?

MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS

Clerk: Item No. 24, standing in the name of Mr. Lang.

Speaker: Is the hon. Member prepared to proceed with Item No. 24?

Mr. Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Motion No. 64

Speaker: It has moved by the hon. Member for Whitehorse Porter Creek East

THAT it is the opinion of this House that the Yukon Government should not implement the proposed increases in motor vehicle licence plate fees.

Mr. Lang: The motion before the House is very simple and to the point. As all Members are aware, during the course of the past two months, we have had a very emotional debate over the changes to the plate proposed by the government under the personage of the Minister of Community and Transportation Services. It is unfortunate that it overshadowed another very significant issue, and that was the question of the raising of the registration fees for motor vehicles.

At the outset, prior to getting into the question of the fees, I want to compliment the Minister for finally seeing the light and reinstating the obviously very-much-loved goldpanner and the “Klondike” back onto our licence plates. I must add that I think it was a needless debate, and I am surprised the government took the initial steps they did take.

I also want to register, as I did the other day, my very major concern about the precedent that was set in announcing the change in policy in a local liquor outlet in Whitehorse. I think it brought politics to an all-time low in trivializing an issue that was so important to the people of the territory, to the point that we had almost 6,000 people sign the petition and put forward their thoughts on the issue that was addressed at that time.

The point before us now is the reality that the people of the territory are going to face up to a 33 percent increase for car registration and up to 44 percent for trucks. The question that we have to ask ourselves is why, at this stage, is the government asking for a tax increase to be borne by the people of the territory?

Let us take a moment and examine the facts. On November 28, the Minister justified, in part, the government’s increase of the fees by comparing the territory to the western provinces. He stated that 32 percent of revenues are collected by this method to pay for the operation and maintenance of highways. The Minister pointed out how cheap the people of the territory were because they are only paying 5.4 percent.

The Minister forgot to mention that we are in a much different situation in the financing of our highways, vis-a-vis the Government of Canada. The Alaska Highway and the Haines Highway are paid for by the Government of Canada under a separate operation and maintenance and capital agreement. The territory gets grants for upgrading portions of the Dempster Highway from the federal government under the engineering services agreement.

There is another reality regarding the paying of the O&M costs of the highways in the territory. One of the justifications for our transfer of payments from the Government of Canada is that our highways budget is built in to the base. Therefore, I do not understand the argument put forward by the Minister that he is being forced to increase our motor vehicle registration costs because of our relationship with western Canada. We, as a northern territory, are in a very preferred position because of the transfers we get from the Government of Canada. The argument that the Minister presents has no basis. To compare ourselves to the western provinces is like comparing apples and oranges.

Some very significant points have to be examined to determine how this will be felt by the people of the territory. Except for the City of Whitehorse, which has limited public transportation, there is very little public transportation available in the rural ridings. Subsequently, it is almost mandatory for those people, to be able to carry on a working and social life, to own a minimum of one vehicle. This increase in taxation is going to hit most Yukoners; there is no question about that.

I would also like to point out that in the Yukon, because of the distances, because of our lifestyle, in many cases Yukoners have two vehicles per family. So, in many cases, we are not only being taxed once, but this would be double taxation. The Minister can say that is not really the case, that the people can afford it. The point is, though, why do we need it?

When the budget for 1990-91 was introduced, the Minister of Finance proudly stood in his place and said to the people of the territory that there would be no increase in taxation. Lo and behold, within days of the announcement by the Minister of Finance, a bill is brought forward - fait accompli - hidden under the smoke and mirrors of the goldpanner today, with up to a 40 percent increase on our registration fees. Why?

The Government of Yukon has never ever, never ever experienced the prosperity that we have seen in the past five years, largely because of the transfer payments from the Government of Canada.

We have seen an orgy of spending here that has been unparalleled, not only in the Yukon but in Canada, and even perhaps in North America, when we take a look at some of the wanton spending that took place over the course of the last five years. I just have to take a look: we had an arena that was estimated at $500,000, but we are now over $3 million. There was another project, raised today, the young offenders secure facility; we find out that, for $3 million, we got a building with no locks on it, so we had to bring some experts in from outside, at a cost, to tell us where to put the locks.

Another issue raised today in Question Period was the question of the Watson Lake sawmill. Before the court action was launched last week, the Government Leader could not answer any questions because he did not know anything, and this week he cannot answer any questions because his legal people have said, “Oh, be careful.” He does not have any problem being careful, because he does not know anything about the issue.

More important, the amount of taxpayers’ money that has been wasted through mismanagement of that particular project has never been disclosed to the people of the territory. It has been estimated to be $8 million and as high as $15 million.

I see the Government Leader smirking and smiling to himself; he should stand up in his place some day and tell the people of the territory. He has not had guts enough yet. The Government Leader cannot stand up in a public forum and tell the people of the territory what the costs are. No, no, no; he is above that. He is the king now, on his little throne. “Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the people of the territory any answers in this House. Why should they even ask? I cannot believe they would have the audacity to ask and bow to the Government Leader to ask him why he spent their money this way.” He is above that now; he has changed his title. Things are changing in the territory, and we can blow $15 million - poof. Maybe we can blame the Government of Canada, because they are not going to give us any more money.

I am more than prepared to have the Government Leader stand in his place and tell the people right now, today, exactly how much it cost - if he has got the jam - but maybe he does not have the knowledge. I would give my place to the Member across the floor to stand and tell the people of the territory. He did not take that opportunity. I wonder why? He sits there and smirks to himself and wonders why he cannot stand up in this House and tell the people of the territory how he spent their money. Because he is not answerable to the people of the territory any longer. He is not answerable for the fact that they do not have locks on a young offenders secure facility. “Mr. Speaker, I cannot divulge that because the experts have told me that if someone knew where the keys were they might know how to get out.”

Mr. Speaker, give your head a shake. The side opposite does not want to talk. The cost of the Yukon College: work started at $25 million, and we are over $50 million. “Mr. Speaker, it is just money.” I am just trying to remind the Minister of Justice of the wanton spending that we have witnessed in the last five years that the people in the territory are going to have to start paying for. Maybe we should start unwinding a little bit of it. Maybe we should raise, now that we are talking about the Minister of Justice, the matter of $62,000 to go on a holiday.

Speaker: Order please. Would the Member please get back to the motion?

Mr. Lang: I am, Mr. Speaker; I am talking about increased taxation here and I am talking about how the government spends our money in relation to our taxes. I did not realize I would be out of order.

Speaker: Order please. I would just like to remind you that we are speaking about the licence plates fees increases, Motion No. 64.

Mr. Lang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not understand why we are increasing the motor vehicle taxes to pay for somebody to go on a $62,000 junket. We pay this individual through general taxes and motor vehicle taxes an average of $180,000 for four years. That is over $700,000. I know it is not much money and I recognize that hiring someone with that expertise for that amount plus expenses was a steal.

Here is $62,000 for somebody to go on a holiday, for somebody to learn French, or to write a book, for which it is my understanding that the Government of Canada gave him a grant a couple of years ago to do. He might take a course or two and try to get his feet back on the ground after all that heavy thinking at $180,000 a year, plus expenses. We can always justify that kind of expenditure through the increased fees and taxes on our motor vehicles because the Government Leader told us that the other negotiator was getting paid more.

Through motor vehicles and income tax we have it covered. The Minister of Finance has not even decided when to cut the cake for the grand opening of the new curling rink. It is only $1 million. After the mine closed we still had the same Minister, the same responsible government, spend $35,000 or $40,000 finishing the cabinets. That was a wise, judicious use of money. I would applaud this gentleman, and I would have a lot more confidence in his ability to manage our affairs if it was his own money, but it is the people’s money, so who are we to ask how the public’s money should be spent. I honestly believe the side opposite would prefer to have taxation without representation because it would be a lot easier.

The point I am making is that there is an endless list of how money has been misdirected, mismanaged, and in many cases misspent by the side opposite. Now we are faced with the first step in the increase in taxation because of financial mismanagement by the side opposite.

There are people who are very upset with the fact the government is coming in with this increase, especially with the arrogance that has been demonstrated by the government on this issue. The Minister has stated publicly, almost with relief, that the one good thing about the goldpanner debate is that the increase in fees has slipped through unnoticed.

I am here to tell you it has not slipped through unnoticed. People are aware that taxes are increasing, contrary to the comments of the Minister of Finance when he brought forward his budget, and contrary to any of the public statements by the side opposite that everything is balanced and there are no problems.

I want to read into the record a letter to the editor.

I want to read into the record a letter to the editor dated December 20, 1989. It capsulized very well and very succinctly the issue that we are facing here today and how people saw the smokescreen brought forward by the Minister in relation to the goldpanner and, at the same time, making every effort to get his increases through unnoticed. It is entitled “Cute Trick, Minister told” This is an open letter to the Transportation Services Minister Maurice Byblow.

“I have to hand it to you. What a great way to double the motor vehicle licence fees and make the public accept it without a whimper. Terrific sleight of hand. Off the goldpanner, design a new plate, thus creating a huge public outcry, then gracefully bow to public opinion and bring back our dear old miner friend.”

That was on December 20. He read the Minister’s mind a month before the Minister made up his mind in the Taku bar.

“Joe Citizen says, how about that, we won, and then hands over an extra $28 or $30 for the same plate. Cute trick, Maurice.”

I do not know if the Minister read that letter, but I think it came pretty close to the mark.

I want to conclude by saying that there is a magic and a mystery to this. The magic, up to this point, has been where the money has been coming from, and now we know where it is going to start coming from with increases to taxes. The mystery is, as I outlined earlier, is where they are spending it.

I want to ask all Members to reconsider this very irrational decision brought forward by the government, and ask them, on behalf of their constituents, to forget party lines, forget being told and whipped into shape by your king. Think for yourself. Stand up for yourself and stand up for the people you represent. I ask all Members to vote for this motion. Say no to increased taxation.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: What I have to say is short and sweet. After I deal with the Member for Porter Creek East, who just spoke, I will get the message across.

I did enjoy the Member for Porter Creek East putting on one of his two performances, this one being his Mr. Macho-Man performance. I have enjoyed it for years. It has been a real pleasure, over the period from 1982 onward, that he has entertained us with basically the same histrionics that he did this afternoon.

The Member clearly does not understand the issue well. He certainly did express his desire to use the motor vehicle licence debate to take a few shots at the government’s budget. It is primarily to that I would like to respond this afternoon.

Firstly, just to point out for all Members’ attention and, also, to help the Member for Porter Creek East understand the budget better and the concern we have with respect to the formula better, the Member’s statements regarding the Highways budget being built into the base is precisely why we are concerned about the formula arrangement, as the gross expenditure base in the new formula does not mean anything anymore. I realize that this is a complication that is far beyond the Member’s comprehension but, nevertheless, I would entreat the Member to try his level best to understand some of the issues that are before the House with respect to the financing arrangement, and I will get to that in a moment.

As I indicated to the Member before his rather pathetic attempt to level this attack, the licence plate fee is a fee for a service. It is a fee for a service not only in Yukon, but elsewhere in Canada.

The principle is, in fact - and the Member did indicate this - to pay for a portion of the costs of operating the highway system, and if the service costs go up, the fees go up. The fees, as the Member is I am sure aware, have not been raised since 1981, when he was the Minister responsible and he increased them rather dramatically at that time.

The Member for Community and Transportation Services will provide more detail on this, I am sure, but the obvious point is that costs have gone up; they have more than doubled, and consequently, fees ought to go up, unless we decide to subsidize the cost of this service from general revenue.

Let me just say this: the statement that it is inappropriate to raise this fee, this standard fee, coming from the Opposition, who say that the general revenues of this government ought to be slashed, is a stinging inditement of the role that the Conservative Members have played in this Legislature over the past 10 months. I have not ever, ever seen anything like it.

Let me tell you this: If the federal government, in the next budget, cuts the established program financing arrangement for the provinces, will there be one opposition party in this country, in any provincial legislature, who will thank the federal government for having cut transfers to the provinces? No, but in this Legislature the Members proudly announce that fact, but they have also, in public, around this city, been bragging about the fact that they were on the telephone to Mr. Wilson’s office regularly, encouraging them to cut back the rightful transfer to this territory.

Some Hon. Members: Prove it. Prove it. Prove it.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Speaker, Tokyo Rose over there has been bragging that they have been manipulating the federal government to try to encourage them to cut funding to this government, and these Members across the floor have on many occasions been saying that the formula is too rich, that the spending ability of this government is too great and that we should not only expect to be cut back, but to be cut way back. Not only that, but given the relationship with the federal government and given the fact that they have been working on this for some time, making the job of the Department of Finance here in negotiating a new agreement particularly difficult, and given the fact that these people have been betraying the public trust for a very long period of time, it has been very difficult for both the Yukon and the Northwest Territories to get a decent arrangement from the federal government.

All along, the Conservative Members from across the floor have been saying that the formula grant has been too much - all along - from day one when this government first came to power in 1985. At the time they were making silly suggestions back and forth respecting the need to take this funding, not spend it, put it into the bank - do not put into it infrastructure, even though that was the acknowledged reason for having the formula financing in the first place, but put it into the bank so that we can somehow justify to Mr. Wilson that we can fatten our bank account at the expense of the federal government and not...

Speaker: Will the Member please get back to the subject on Motion No. 64 on fees for licence plates?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Speaker, the point of the remarks that I am making is that the Member for Porter Creek has made the allegation that this particular debate has everything to do with taxation. He has made the point that the expenditures for licence plates should come from general revenue and that the government itself has plenty of money in order to fulfill its commitment with respect to the service costs of running the highway system.

I am responding by stating the relationship between the government and the fees it charges to the public for the provision of services, as well as the availability of funds to provide this service, should we decide not to provide them for a fee. That is the crux of the issue.

The Member has made allegations that I must respond to with respect to the financial arrangements this government has had with the federal government over the last little while, as well as the formula agreement, which determines how much money we have to fund things like this if we are not going to levy the fee. The Member has made allegations about the kind of budgeting this government has undertaken in the last few years, and the so-called wanton spending. I will get to that in a second.

We did not put the money in the bank. We invested it in infrastructure in the territory. The operation and maintenance budgets of this government have gone up by inflation. The increases in budget expenditures by this government have not been more than the increases in the global economy of the territory, unlike the previous Conservative government. We are less dependent upon the federal government than we were when the Yukon Conservatives were in power in there territory, not more dependent. During this period, the government has not only grown less than the growth in the economy, but has invested in an infrastructure that is acknowledged to be needed by most people in this territory.

The Member is continually dredging up the issue of the college and claiming that, somehow, the cost of Yukon College - announced by Howard Tracey, Minister of the day, in a press release - bears some relation to reality. I have been told by department officials how they were shocked to see the press release come forward that said the college was going to cost $25 million, when they were already telling the government that it was going to cost a minimum of $39 million.

Speaker: Order please. Would the Member please get back to Motion No. 64.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: The available funds in the government’s budget are to be used for the purposes we have established in the main estimates. There is a system of fees in the territory for paying for certain services the public expects to be provided. Given the fact the formula agreement we have with the federal government now, which diminishes our ability to make expenditures in areas where, otherwise, fees would cover the expenditures, it would be wrong-headed to redirect funds from the general revenue to this particular service.

It is only so given the fact the formula agreement the federal government has imposed upon us, to transfer funds to the territory, has so dramatically changed the relationship between this government and the federal government. It is interesting to note that the formula transfer from the federal government has had its impact eroded dramatically over the last few years: as a result of federal offloading of its programs; as a result of the rising population and the demand for services associated with that rise; without the commensurate increase in budget transfers; as a result of inflation and, now, as a result of the general sales tax that will be imposed upon the territory.

This incredible largess no longer exists except in the imagination of the Member for Porter Creek East. Not only that, the funds have been cut back in a way that makes it more and more difficult for this territory to bear the cost of standard services that the provinces enjoy. It would be wrong to transfer the cost of services normally covered by licence plate fees to general revenues. The reason the situation has changed so dramatically and why I am so concerned with this wrong-headed motion by the Member is that the impact of the federal arrangement on the Yukon is so unfair and so difficult to bear. The Members seemed to like the new arrangement; they asked for it.

Let me ask rhetorically, why would the Yukon government consider it fair to accept a cut in transfers that is proportionately more than the provinces have faced? Why would that be fair? Now that the Conservatives have thrust this on the territory, why do they think it is fair? Why would anyone think that a formula arrangement which penalized economic activities...

Speaker: Order please. Would the Minister please get back to Motion No. 64 on licence plate fee increases.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: The issue here is whether or not general revenue should provide funding for what is otherwise covered by a fee for service. The Member for Porter Creek East is saying yes, it should, and that we should not charge the fee, but we should use general revenue. I am trying to explain it is not right for general revenue to provide for what was otherwise a fee for service.

Our ability to fund through general revenue is so diminished now by the agreement that the Yukon Conservatives have encouraged the federal government to force on us, that it would be wrong to pay for this fee for service. It would be wrong not to raise the licence plate fees.

The reason it would be wrong is because of the diminished ability in our formula agreement to fund from general revenue things that ought to be covered by a fee for service. It is the same anywhere across the country. Given the fact of the formula money provided to the Yukon, that the Yukon Conservatives seem to want to cut, it would be wrong to use those funds to replace a fee.

I forgive the Member for Porter Creek East for his ignorance, because I know he cannot improve himself.

We have a formula now that penalizes economic activity. We have a formula now that is going to be reduced, because the federal government and the Yukon Conservatives think the taxes should be higher in the territory. Because of the Yukon Conservatives supporting the federal government, we have a formula that says Yukon people already pay taxes that are too low by a minimum of 36 percent.

That is why I insist that this issue before us now is relevant to the debate. It is the most relevant element to the whole debate. Why would the Government of Yukon, or anybody, support a formula that penalizes the Yukon unfairly, causing us to pay more than our fair share? Why would anyone consider it fair that a formula would penalize the Yukon for having a healthy economy and good budgeting, according to Mr. Wilson himself? Why would anyone think a formula is fair that says to Yukoners, “You are not paying high enough taxes and, if you do not raise your tax rate by 36 percent, we are going to take $1.36 for every dollar you get in economic activity”?

Obviously, the Yukon Conservatives support that. They have been bragging about trying to convince Mr. Wilson to inflict this on us.

The Member for Porter Creek East says, why do we not take our responsibilities? I am saying we should take our responsibilities as Canadians, and not more than our fair share of the cut. We offered a cut of $5 million in the formula arrangement, and that was fair. What the Yukon Conservatives are proposing is not fair.

The Yukon Conservatives have been supporting the federal government’s transfer arrangement from day one. The federal government has ignored the very significant contributions we have made already, in terms of our expenditures. They have lauded us on our budgetary practices already. It has proved perfect; the facts are on the table; the expenditures we have made have caused the federal government’s revenue from the Yukon to climb. Because of this arrangement and, to respond directly to the Member for Porter Creek East’s point about the highways system already being on a base budget, there is already a black cloud over devolution because the base budget does not mean anything anymore.

This is all coming at a time when there have been other cuts coming from the federal government. There have been other things inflicted upon the Yukon government. There have been cuts in everything from training to flow-through shares to Canada Post rates; you name it. We have not even faced the impact of the general sales tax.

The Yukon government has worked under tremendous handicap in this Legislature. The handicap is in the name of the Yukon Conservative Party and MLAs in this Legislature. They have been undermining the interests of Yukoners by lobbying hard to federal politicians to cut the transfer, therefore cutting services.

Yet, here they are now saying to us that we should not raise a licence fee that is common practice across the Canada. It was last raised in 1981, and the Member for Porter Creek East raised it much more that what we are raising it now, in terms of percent. What a hypocrite. What hypocrites.

The bottom line here is that the formula arrangement, which appears to be acceptable to the Yukon Conservative Party and the Conservative Members in this Legislature, has caused the Yukon government, and the Northwest Territories government, to do more than their fair share in terms of fighting the federal deficit problem, has forced on the Yukon a perverse disincentive to economic development. Yes, absolutely. It is going to cost the Yukon $2,700 per capita in the end.

It is not fair, and we have to suffer the likes of the Members opposite, and the Member has yet to speak. We have to suffer this pathetic politicking about a fee for service that is a common practice. It comes out of general revenue - general revenue they think should be cut. This is outrageous. The projects they cite as examples of wanton over spending or wanton misdirected spending amount to probably two percent of total expenditures for the time we have been in office.

Let us hit the curling rink in Elsa head on. The curling rink was being built; an election came along; the Leader of the Opposition was in Elsa. Did the Leader of the Opposition say that the curling rink should not be built? I did not hear it. It did not come from the Conservative who was running for office in that riding. It clearly did not come from anybody I ever heard. Now, it is 20/20 hindsight.

I have sat in this Legislature for at least three years before coming onto the government side, asking, begging, for Members on the Conservative side of the House to do something for that community, because that community had residents who were taxpayers, too, and I am still having to suffer snide jabs from the Member for Porter Creek East about what was their due, not in 1989, not in 1988, but in 1970, 1960, 1950. And I am still getting it in 1990.

The college is acknowledged to be one of the widest expenditures in which this government has ever invested. It was originally conceived at $40 million, not $44 million; that is some fictitious figure in the imagination of some press release writer from the Minister’s office. Forty million dollars. Subsequent to that, there was a decision to build a better archives. Did we hear anything from the opposition Members about how wanton and needless that was? Nothing. Did we hear anything about the gym? We heard nothing about the gym and that was in the original design. Nothing. Do we hear anything about the arts centre? Nothing other than positive remarks. Yet this puts the cost up to $50 million total for the whole project. Now the Members come forward and say, listen, compared to the $24 million fantasy land figure we generated because we did not want to tell the public the true cost of the college, compared to $50 million, is a big over run and, holy smokes, look at the wanton spending. But when it is broken down into just a few component parts to explain the expenditures, “Oh, we are in favour of the arts centre, oh yes; oh yes; we are in favour of the archives, that is a great expenditure, of course it is; oh yes, we are in favour of the gym, when it is going to open. That is our biggest concern, because we do not want the thing to not be available to the Yukon public.”  That is the explanation. That is the example of where this ridiculous tack about wanton over expenditure on the Yukon College goes into a tailspin and crashes and burns in flames, because they are too interested in making a political allegation and do not care two hoots whether there is any substantiation for it. They are hoping the only thing people will recall about this debate is what is said, not what is the truth.

Watson Lake sawmill ...

Speaker: Order please. Would the Member please get back to Motion No. 64?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: The Member for Porter Creek East wants to know whether I am going to vote for the motion.

If the Member, after listening to what I have been saying, is asking me now whether I am going to vote for this motion, I must admit that an elephant gun could not kill this guy. I will not vote for this motion; it is a ridiculous motion. It is no surprise that the Members have been goaded into this. I understand the ridiculous politics. I also understand their inconsistency. I also understand their basic sense of unfairness. I also understand the hypocritical nature of everything they have been saying all along, given that the Member for Porter Creek East, only a few years ago, was raising it by percentages that is now making the Minister for Community and Transportation Services blush in comparison. But that is then and this is now - right? That is what politics is all about.

The difference between then and now is that there are still people in the Legislature who care about what the Member for Porter Creek East said when he was a Minister. Unfortunately, so much of what I want to respond to are things that the Member has said, but, given what you have been saying during this debate, I am certain I will not be able to respond to them, whether it be the Ross River arena in your constituency, Mr. Speaker, or the community centre, or the young offenders facility, or anything else. I would certainly love to use the vehicle of this debate to respond to the allegations of over spending and consequent unreasonableness, I guess, in the Member’s opinion, but it is only appropriate that we should cover this fee for service through general revenues.

In summary, given that I am going to be confined to very narrow remarks in this debate, the suggestion by the Members that the fee for service should not be increased does not hold any water when one understands what the fee for service is all about, does not hold any water when one considers what the increased cost has been over the last eight years, when it was last raised dramatically by the Member for Porter Creek East, and does not consider the fact that the general revenues has less ability - thanks to the formula arrangement and the good offices of the Yukon Conservative MLAs - than ever before to make up for the cost of the service.

It would be outrageous and inappropriate, irresponsible for me to support the motion and, consequently, I cannot do that.

Mr. Phillips: I would like to make a couple of brief comments on the remarks made by the Member who just spoke. Several times in this House in the last week, and especially here today, the Minister has made the point that Members of this side have been in contact with Mr. Wilson and have told Mr. Wilson to cut the Yukon back. That is totally untrue, totally false, and if the Minister is serious about his accusations, he will put his seat on the line, and he will seriously stand up and prove that Members of this side have done that. The Minister has not done that at all. He is just throwing out false rumours. Again he is pointing fingers at everybody but himself; it is “blame everybody but me in the NDP”.

I will be supporting the motion put forward by the Member for Porter Creek East. The Member has covered most of the points, but I would like to express some strong concerns I have about this increase.

The first concern is the way in which the Minister tried to slip this one by the people. The Minister raised an extremely controversial issue on the licence plate and then piggybacked a substantial tax increase to it so Yukoners would not react. This is quite simply a tax increase. Interestingly enough, the Member who spoke last, the minister of Finance, rose in the House two weeks prior to the Ministerial statement announcing that tax increase and told Yukoners - tongue in cheek, I hope - that there would be no tax increases in this budget. That is false. If this is not a tax increase, I do not know what is.

This is not the first time that this has happened. We had the same government tell us we would be free from increased taxes the same year they raised the lottery licence fees. I share the concern of the Member for Porter Creek East for the way the government has mismanaged its money. I have to wonder how many useful programs this government could have carried out if they had not messed up the Watson Lake sawmill situation, or the millions in cost overruns in building the Yukon College. It is going to be interesting to see how much money has been spent on payments to employees of the Department of Education as a result of this government’s mistake.

This government is developing a dreadful track record of financial mismanagement. It is in the habit of putting the blame on everyone else but themselves. They love to cut the cakes and eat them, but when trouble brews they run for cover, nowhere to be seen. Everybody but the Minister responsible speaks from the government when there is a problem. They seem to forget one simple thing: when they point their finger at someone else, three of their fingers are pointing back at themselves.

I object to the way in which the Minister tried to hide this increase and I object as a Yukon taxpayer to have to pick up the tab for this government’s extremely poor money management.

Hon. Mr. Byblow: I rise to provide some continued debate on the subject, and particularly to correct a number of false allegations made by the Members opposite.

It is most inappropriate to suggest that the licence fee increase was, in some fashion, slipped through so no one would notice through the camouflage of a plate design. That is completely and totally inaccurate and I would not want Members opposite to leave that impression.

The design issue was entirely unexpected. I have admitted to Members, to the House and to the public that I miscalculated entirely the reaction of the Yukon public to the proposed new design. I totally miscalculated the public sentiment for the goldpanner. The design that I did put forward was a design that attempted to capture the broad spectrum of representation for all Yukon people. It spoke to a cultural and historical depth that I thought most Yukon people shared.

The questionnaires and discussions I had with people since the release of the design indicated quite a number of things. They indicated the design put forward in December was not a bad design but it had to have the goldpanner on it because the goldpanner was important. I accepted that.

The communications indicated that Yukon people identified with the Klondike and they wanted that retained on the licence plate. At the same time, many Yukon people, and I would dare say the majority of ones who communicated directly with me, said that the design that was put forward was not a bad one - it was a good design, it just had some deficiencies. However, the ability was not there to combine everyone’s ideas. The design would have become cluttered. It is entirely inappropriate and wrong for Members to suggest that the issue of the design was a deliberate smokescreen to hide the fee increase.

The hypocrisy of the Member for Porter Creek East is revealed when we look at what he did when he was Minister in 1981. At that time, the Member, then the Minister, raised fees in excess of what we have raised those fees this year. The fees that were put forward in 1981 reflected an average of a 30 percent increase across the board for licence plates. Small car fees were increased in 1981 by 67 percent. Utility trailers jumped 230 percent. That is the magnitude of the increase that the Member for Porter Creek East raised fees in 1981. He stands here today and suggests that for some reason we do not have a right to raise the fees. They have not been raised for nine years, since 1981.

Nine years ago, the Member opposite, the one who charges the government with mismanagement and an orgy of spending, says that we should not raise the fees. He forgets that nine years ago he raised the fees 10 percent more on average than we did. That is hypocrisy. That is how ridiculous the motion is, especially when it is being put forward by the Member for Porter Creek East - or perhaps we should call him the Member for Re/Max. Motorcycles and skidoos were raised by 100 percent in 1981. This government has raised them by 12 percent. I am sorry, that is all we were prepared to do.

It is entirely inappropriate for a motion go be put forward that suggests that the fees should not be raised after nine years, that somehow the Members opposite have some divine knowledge about fee structures, but their track record, unfortunately, does not bear out that kind of divine knowledge.

Since the time of the last fee increase in 1981, the consumer price index for all items during that period until now, increased by 47 percent. Our average fee increase is 20 percent. We have not even kept up with the rate of inflation with fees. Those are the facts of the matter. We have raised fees less than inflation has increased during those nine years.

I remind the House that nine years ago the Member who put this motion forward raised fees in excess of what we are raising them now. The Member suggests that the fees should not be raised because we have base financing built into our formula financing, and the Minister of Finance clarified that point.

There is a distinct need for us to reflect an ability to raise revenue more in line with the services we are providing. That is an unfortunate financial reality that is developing. Members opposite who lobby Ottawa to cut us back further and, then, lobby in this House not to raise fees, turn around and ask us for improved programs. I do not understand them. There is a betrayal of the trust given to them by their constituents to do fair and honest representation in this House. You do not lobby the feds to cut back the territory and turn around and ask us for more programs, more roads, better maintenance and, at the same time, not want fees raised. He says, “I raised them nine years ago, but you do not raise them. You are not entitled to. You have a better relationship with the feds now.”

That is crap, and Members know it. They made a mistake in putting this motion forward. There is no rationale or basis for it. The fees involve a modest fee increase.

In 1981, when the Member for Porter Creek East was a Minister, administrative expenses, including all costs related to the delivery of programs in the motor vehicles branch, cost $250,000. Nine years later, that costs us just over $500,000. Our costs have increased by 100 percent. Inflation has increased.

The Member talks about managing. I remember the Member, when he was a Minister, managing this government. I remember him building the Faro school that collapsed. I remember him building the Dawson sewer and water system that cost the public millions of dollars because of mismanagement. The Member talks to me about mismanagement? I am sorry. I remember. I sat for seven years there and watched his mismanagement, and that is why I am here today, and not him.

We have had a 100 percent increase in our costs related to delivering motor vehicle branch services.

I think the Member for Porter Creek East is trying to raise a point of order.

Mr. Lang: If the Member would entertain a question?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: The Member is trying to interrupt proceedings. Perhaps you could call him to order.

Speaker: Order please. Point of order to the Member for Whitehorse Porter Creek East.

Hon. Mr. Byblow: The Member is not raising a point of order.

Mr. Lang: I am raising a point of order. I have asked the Minister if he would entertain a question.

Speaker: I find there is no point of order.

Hon. Mr. Byblow: I will try to restore the debate to civility.

In the course of nine years, administrative costs have increased by 100 percent. The consumer price index and inflation has increased by 47 percent. Our average increase is about 20 percent. It is a modest fee increase for services. Sure, and the Member pointed it out, in the provincial jurisdictions the fees that are recovered from licences, from registrations, from permits, generally go toward paying for road services. In the provinces, there is a general 30 percent average that is used for recovery. In our case, it is a five percent average.

The Member correctly points out that we have some roads where funding is  provided directly for by the feds.

The fact is that, on a per capita basis, we still have the most kilometres of roads anywhere in the country and, on a per capita basis, we spend more on roads than any other jurisdiction in the country. The Member knows that, having been a previous Minister. It is inconceivable for us to try and match the provinces on percentage recovery levels. Nevertheless, as I have pointed out, the fee increase we are proposing is very modest. In fact, I went through all 2,000-plus of the questionnaires, and many people reflected that they did not mind the fees. A number of people made comments relating to the fees as being a modest fee increase. Some people objected; no question about it; most people would. I have spoken to a number of people who have also indicated that they do not mind the fee increase; they do not like it, but they treat it as a fact of life and particularly, as the Minister of Finance has pointed out, there is an urgency for us to deliver on our ability to raise revenue, which will reflect in our formula financing arrangements. The formula financing arrangements that the Members opposite ought not to be running to Ottawa trying to cut back.

Mrs. Firth: Who did it? Substantiate that.

Hon. Mr. Byblow: Was it Tokyo Rose?

Point of Order

Mrs. Firth: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mrs. Firth: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I understand this name has been referred to before; unfortunately, I was not in the Legislature at the time so I could not raise it as a point of order. However, being present now and hearing the Minister responsible for licence plates again using the term “Tokyo Rose”, I would like Mr. Speaker perhaps to give us a ruling on whether or not this is considered parliamentary language. My interpretation of the name, that has been levied at myself I believe, is that it is unparliamentary language and that we, as Members of the Legislature, should not participate in or accept that kind of insulting unparliamentary language from the other side of the Legislature.

Hon. Mr. Byblow: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the point of order and to help you with your ruling, I did not intentionally cast any aspersion on the Members opposite. I made a side reference to my colleague that ought not to have been heard on the record.

Speaker: Order please. I find there was some unparliamentary language used, and it is to my satisfaction that the Member has withdrawn this remark. Does the Minister wish to continue?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will bring my remarks to a conclusion in quick summary.

I believe that the motion is not in order. It should not be supported. I believe that the fee increase is modest and reflects a responsible and reasonable approach to trying to balance better the cost of providing services. I believe that the fee increase that we are proposing falls short of what other jurisdictions would ordinarily do in their attempts to meet inflation and administration costs related to motor vehicle branch operations. I believe that the issue of the design plays no part in relation to the fee increase. It was never intended to, and should not be considered as a smokescreen at all.

In conclusion, the fee increase we are introducing in 1990 is by far a more modest and moderate approach to fee increases than was introduced by the previous government in 1981.

Mrs. Firth: I rise to respond to this motion. I will not win the badge for having the loudest voice. I will not be presenting any barn-burner speech. I was debating whether or not to respond to this motion, but after hearing the comments from the other side I feel I have no alternative.

All we are doing is saying that it is the opinion of this House that they should not implement the proposed increase in motor vehicle licence plate fees. I remember the Minister of Finance introducing his budget and telling the public in his sincere way that there were going to be no tax increases this year. That was the message that the public got: no tax increases.

Now the Minister of Community and Transportation Services makes a ministerial statement about some changes to the licence plate and to the fee structure for the licence plate. The increase in the licencing fees can be seen as nothing else but a tax increase by the public. The skepticism and cynicism was expressed by the public when they responded to the whole licence plate issue. I am sure the Minister received letters. We saw letters in the newspaper from people who were accusing the Minister of hiding the increase in fee structure by bringing forward this multi-coloured licence plate. That did not come from this side of the House, it came from letters to the editor in the newspaper. When the Minister says we are doing this, he is not right.

Particularly distressing to me was watching the performance today of the Minister of Education and Finance, the Minister who gives barn-burner speeches.

I have been in this Legislature just as long as the Minister of Finance has. This has probably been one of the most disappointing, embarrassing performances I have ever seen from this Member. I know the Minister’s colleagues, the Member for Whitehorse North Centre and the Minister of Justice, would be very concerned if the tone of our speeches was like that Minister’s this afternoon. The Minister was so angry and so hostile with his comments that he made references to World War II terms and references to one of the Members on this side not being able to be killed with an elephant gun. If we raised things like that in this Legislature, those two Members would be talking about our violent actions and words.

One of their Members on the front bench stood up and made those angry, bitter and violent charges and accusations. I was embarrassed as a Member of this Legislature. I know that the Member must also feel some embarrassment.

We were debating the issue. We were trying to stick to the relevancy of the issue. You were reminding everyone in the House to stick to the content of the motion. Through that debate, the point was raised about the formula financing agreement and the money we would be getting from the federal government. At that time, the Minister of Finance said that there were Members from this side of the House who had phoned Mr. Wilson’s office and had been bragging on the street about phoning him and telling him to cut back the funding to the Yukon Territory.

His colleague, the Minister for Community and Transportation Services, also said that. Never once did they ever confirm or substantiate it with fact. I feel that the comments were directed at me personally. I have had the media ask me to make a comment about a comment that the Minister of Finance made about me. It was a rumour. He heard a rumour that I had phoned Mr. Wilson’s office, the federal Minister of Finance, and told him to cut off the money to the Yukon. That is absolutely untrue. That never happened.

For the Minister of Finance to make those allegations and not be able to back them up with any fact, other than some gossip he has heard on some street corner, really makes me wonder what kind of a low we have come to in this Legislative Assembly. The Minister of Finance surely knows better than that. I thought he was more intelligent than to do something like that, to spread that kind of malicious gossip.

Things have not been going well for the government lately. They are under a lot of pressure and stress. They have had issue after issue blow up in their faces. The press coverage is not as good as it may have been right after they were first elected. They are starting to be scrutinized more by the public and by the media. They are starting to be questioned with the letters to the editor about the increase in these fees for the licence plate. People are starting to examine them a little more closely. They are having difficulty coping with that.

Instead of defending why they are doing these things, why does the Minister have the need to increase these licence fees? We have not had one good, sound, logical reason that the public can grab onto and think it was a good, sound logical reason. We have not had one logical reason presented here in the Legislature.

We have had lots of insults thrown at us. We have had lots of accusations thrown at us. We have had lots of ancient history and old NDP rhetoric thrown at us. The same old stuff, the same old terms, and I am waiting for the bootlegging speech to come up. Never once have they defended their own policies and decisions. That is all we are asking them to do. We are not asking to get into a name-calling contest. We are not providing a platform for the Minister of Finance and Education to vent his frustrations because his press coverage is not good these days, because he is being criticized by the media for not putting a gym at the new student residence, and that made him mad. The Legislature is not a platform for him to rave and rant because he did not get good press coverage one day.

We are asking for good solid reasons why the government feels that these proposed increases are necessary and they have not been able to do it. We have more money in the Yukon Territory now, and in the past five years, than we have ever had. This government expounds on its great track record on not increasing taxes. Then, through the back door, and controversially, we have what many people would see as a tax increase.

I would like to hear from the Members opposite why they feel it is so important we have these increases. We have just been through debate with the Minister responsible for issuing fishing licences, the Minister of Tourism and Renewable Resources. He said we had to increase licence fees. That is another form of taxation, another little increase to the user, and another way of generating some extra revenue. The NDP are extremely good at doing that. No tax increases but every government service fee will be increased. Before you know it, all kinds of revenue is coming in. We only have to go to the track record in Manitoba when the NDP started increasing all kinds of licence fees, along with little hidden things that had to be paid for that were considered services from the government. Soon the public is paying for every little service the government gives them. We are supposed to be here to serve the public, not to charge them through the nose for every little service they get.

The Minister of Renewable Resources lost that debate. He had to put the fee structure back as it was before.

I do not know if the Minister of Community and Transportation Services is going to lose this one. He probably feels confident that he is not. The fee increase will go through and people will reluctantly pay it because people have to have licence plates. There is no choice involved like the fishing licences - revenues go down and the government goes oh oh and puts the fee structure back.

People do not have a choice with this fee increase. They have to pay it. They have to go to the government for that service. There is not a lot they can do to make the government change its mind.

I heard the government side talk about us representing the people we were elected to represent. That is what we are doing by raising this issue in the Legislature this afternoon. We have come here and heard concerns and complaints. We brought a motion forward saying it was not necessary. We do not need to increase fees at this time. We are doing that on behalf of the constituents that we represent. We are not doing it to pass the time of day or give the Minister of Finance a platform to vent his anger, frustration and hostility.

We are doing it because people have come to us and made representation and we have a responsibility to bring that representation to the public forum. That is all we are asking. We are asking the government to either defend its policy with some good, sound logic or to agree with the motion and not implement the proposed increase to the licence fee structure. That is all we are asking. No big deal, nothing to jump up and down about, nothing to scream and yell and shout about. It is a very simple request that we have made on behalf of our constituents.

I want to just sum up by cautioning the Members opposite about their accusations and allegations unless the Minister of Finance can in any way prove his allegations - I know he cannot, because I am the individual in question here and as I have said before there were no phone calls made to Mr. Wilson’s office so therefore I would have nothing to brag about on the street and I certainly have not been bragging about  phoning Mr. Wilson’s office and making any representation. So, would the government Members just take this motion in the context in which it was brought forward to the Legislature and perhaps we could finish up with some reasonable debate on the issue and, sometime this afternoon, have a vote on the motion?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I am going to begin my speech by responding, as is proper and parliamentary, to the remarks made by the Members opposite in this debate. Mr. Speaker, you have, during the course of this debate, called attention to the fact that Members from time to time have strayed from a very narrow and blinkered discussion of the question of licence plate fees but, Mr. Speaker, nonetheless, in the course of that debate there have been people who have made arguments and accusations about matters that they regard as related to that question, including the Member who just spoke, who chastised my colleague, the Minister of Finance, for his speech. A remarkable intervention by the Member for Riverdale South who - especially since my colleague the Minister of Finance, was responding appropriately and in kind to the speech from the Member for Porter Creek East - addressed the House as if the Member for Porter Creek East did not exist. Perhaps that is her wish, but he gave evidence of his existence earlier today quite voluminously and the Member on this side responded in kind. That happens in parliaments; it has happened in this House one or two times before in the time I have been here.

I would just say to the Member, with respect, because people do lose their cool or lose their tempers, and I have been one of the people who have, that if you provoke it you have to expect it back in kind. If the Member or one of her colleagues dishes it out, they are probably going to have to expect to get it back, especially when I think that part of the debate today has been a reflection of various kinds of frustration. The Member for Riverdale South talked about a certain kind of frustration Members may feel if their points of view are not accurately represented outside this Chamber, or if their knowledge of the facts of the question is at variance with that represented in the House. I very well understand frustrations of that kind. Just today, the Member asked me a question about a speech I supposedly gave at the young offenders facility, which was so so far from the facts that it was either invented by someone, her correspondent, or it was her own purist fantasy - because it had no relation to the facts, whatsoever.

I return it to her. She cannot demonstrate it because I have dozens of people who were there and know what I said. Whatever words she wants to fantasize that I said, or put in my mouth, there is absolutely no evidence to support.

She is muttering something over there, but she has already addressed the House.

She raised the question of relevance and appropriateness to this debate. Relevance and accuracy is something that has been addressed tangentially by all sorts of Members in this House. I will look for an opportunity in the next few days, God willing, to respond to some of the complete falsehoods that have been uttered by Members opposite, particularly the Member for Porter Creek East, about firings, hirings, politicization and all these things. In the course of that, I want to compare the record of this government with the record of his government, a record I am proud of but which he ought to be very ashamed of, in terms of his own government.

I will do that. In the course of that speech, I will rhetorically ask why they never talk about the other side of the story; not only why they do not talk about their record, but why they do not always present a complete statement of the facts. We will come back to that.

The context of the discussion of licence plate fees ...

Pardon me, Mr. Speaker, I will wait patiently until I have the attention of the House.

The context of the discussion about fees is this: we have an entirely new financial arrangement, or situation, in the territory. That is fact one. Fact two is that costs have been going up in the operation of this program. Fact three is that costs have been going up everywhere else in the country, as a result of inflation, and other jurisdictions have responded with fee increases.

I am absolutely astounded at the proposition put by the other side, particularly as it was articulated by the Member who last spoke, which is that governments elsewhere - I think she cited the Government of Manitoba, and I assume she is talking about the present government of Manitoba; perhaps she is talking about the former one - are using fees to cover the costs of their operations, as opposed to taxes. I believe she made the statement that it was disreputable, from her point of view, to use fees to pay for services.

I believe that I am correct in saying that it is one of the tenets of Tory ideology everywhere in the free world that services should be paid for by fees, user charges, rather than funded from general revenue. In fact, I think I have heard variations of that argument on other issues in this House by Members opposite.

I do not want to ask, or plead, for ideological consistency on behalf of the Members opposite. That would be an absurd request, and something that is not to be expected in even our most lurid fantasies.

We are not talking about tax increases. We are talking about increasing the fee for service. We are talking about a service where the costs have gone up, and the government and Minister have made a decision to recover more costs of providing that service through fee increases.

The Member who moved the motion, presented a case when he was talking on the topic which, I admit, was only occasionally. He argued that this should come out of general revenues and that increases for this kind of service should not be funded from the people who use the service. In other words, he was not using the traditional Tory argument. He was arguing that everybody should pay for the service out of general revenues, whether or not they use it.

Someone who has no vehicle should be subsidizing those who have 10. That is a perversion of the traditional Tory argument, but it is logically consistent in this sense. It is an argument of make the poor pay. Therefore, those who have the most vehicles and can afford the most equipment should be subsidized by those who do not. That is essentially what he was saying. It is not a reputable argument. It has not been reputable in this century. No doubt, there were places in parliaments somewhere in the world in the last couple of centuries who have made that argument.

This is interesting because at a time when we are proposing a 20 percent increase, after nine years without one, the motion before us comes from the Member who proposed a 30 percent increase when he was the Minister responsible. The percentage increases that he proposed when he was the Minister are in excess of the one proposed by this government. In the tortured processes of that Member’s mind, it is quite possible that he could simultaneously be for something and against something. He is against it if someone else does it; he is for it is he does it. In a sense he is arguing, as he often does, against himself. He is arguing against his own record and his own history. That is consistent with his behaviour before in this House. He is making, as he often does, an argument of convenience. In five or 10 years’ time, God forbid, if he was in government, he would probably be arguing a different case and with just as much venom and just as much hysteria as he did this afternoon. He will be down on his knees, shouting and jumping, threatening to hold his breath if we do not agree with him. He will throwing a little tantrum as he did this afternoon.

The Member will still not be persuading anyone by the logic of his arguments, because there is none. He certainly will not be persuading anyone on the basis of sound government practice. He certainly will not be persuading anyone on the basis of his managerial record. It is well known in the public service here that, although at times he was aggressive, partisan and at time vindictive, he was not a decisive Minister during his time in office.

We have a financial situation now where the transfers from the federal government have been cut dramatically. We have services that the people of the Yukon expect from this government. The rhetoric has come this afternoon about raising taxes.

The only politician I know who is mounting incredible pressure to raise taxes in this territory is a Conservative gentleman by the name of Michael Wilson, who believes that our tax effort is not sufficient in this territory. That is what he said. He wants us to have a provincial sales tax on top of a federal sales tax, which both sides of this House have been against. His belief about our tax effort is that we are going to be punished for every improvement in our economy. Every dollar increase in our revenue will cost us $1.36 in a reduction of the federal grant: a new formula, which is absolutely “perverse” in its implications - that word was used by the Minister of Finance, was used advisably.

This is not an unintended consequence. This is not an accident, because I have raised this privately with the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, the Minister of the Environment, every senior federal Cabinet Minister. It is an intended consequence. It is a conscious decision of the federal Conservative government that we should have a powerful disincentive to do the kind of economic development that we have done in the past few years. The only way we can bring ourselves into conforming with federal wishes on this hand is by very large tax increases.

We are going to resist that pressure from the Conservatives as long as we are in office and as long as we are able to do so. We believe the tax burden of the people of the territory is already great enough.

Where the costs are rising for certain services we are going to have to be taking steps to recover the cost of those services. I know the Leader of the Official Opposition, who at his best is a person of integrity...

Speaker: Order please. Would the Member get back to the motion on motor vehicle licence plate fees.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: Yes. I know that if the Leader of the Official Opposition was the Minister of Finance and faced with the identical situation of raising licence fees, he would do exactly the same thing. Unlike some of his colleagues, he understands something about the economy and can read a balance sheet. I know he would do exactly the same thing no matter what his junior partners say. I know he would because he would have no other choices.

Admittedly we are not raising the fees as much as the Member for Porter Creek East when he was in power. We are not doing that.

I want to get into some detail on the nature of the fee increases that are proposed. The proposed increase in registration fees for commercial vehicles has been intentionally held to a moderate level. I think the Minister for Community and Transportation Services told the House earlier that this is done in recognition of the shifts in the industry resulting from reregulation.

The increases bring the commercial vehicle registration fees to a more realistic level that is in line with other western jurisdictions. Those increases may have to be implemented at a later date, once the industry has an opportunity to settle into a new regulatory regime. We should understand we are talking about recovering the cost of providing a service.

The fees for most licence plates, permits and regulations have not increased since 1981. As my colleague, the Minister of Community and Transportation Services, said, the administrative expenses have increased from 1981 to the recent fiscal year quite dramatically.

The provinces had to raise the same kind of fees to recover more of the costs of providing the same kind of service. What we are doing is perfectly consistent with what other jurisdictions have done.

The rates will increase for certain kinds of vehicles, trailers, snowmobiles and motorcycles. I believe there are some changes indicated for farm vehicles and private vehicles as well. The licencing fee schedule is a matter of public information.

The Minister has indicated the kind of fee schedules that exist in other jurisdictions. This is a warranted increase in a fee for service, not a tax increase. It is done in the new fiscal context, in a radically changed financial situation in the Yukon Territory, where the transfers from the federal government will be substantially cut. We will be having to adjust to that reality. The ability of this government to finance a service that is not enjoyed equally by all operators, that varies greatly from family to family and business to business, does not exist and it would not be appropriate to provide a total subsidy. The fee increase proposed in the budget before the House is sound and we stand behind the decision to implement it.

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

Mr. Lang: It has been a very enlightening debate in many ways. The thread of the debate thus far on the government’s side and the reasoning of why they had to bring this in was the consequence of the formula financing. Of course, it was somebody else’s fault; it was the federal government’s fault and then it was some Member on this side of the floor’s fault, and somebody else’s fault - none of their own. I have to ask, on November 28, 1989, if the reasoning for this tax increase was the result of the formula financing, why was it never mentioned by the Minister of Community and Transportation? This is the record. Now that they have to confront the public and speak to the public for the reasoning of the tax increase, all of a sudden the red herring of the formula financing is brought in. Never once did they answer some very specific statements that were made from this side of the House with respect to how they were spending their money.

It is interesting; it is very interesting. As my colleague, the Member for Riverdale North, says, “The front bench is always there to cut the cake, cut the ribbon, make the nice speeches. But when something goes wrong, there is always somebody else to blame.” Just take a look. Quite a few instances come to mind, but I do not want to bore you: having the motor vehicle fees coming into effect, is the federal government’s fault. I gave the Government Leader the opportunity to stand up in this House and tell us what the Yukon Development Corporation had over spent and why and to talk about the reasoning for the very disastrous situation it has faced in that particular area of the economy, but he declined because we are blaming somebody else. We have now gone to court, and we cannot talk about that issue either.

Another issue that comes to mind is the formula financing; the reason they did not get the formula financing they wanted was somebody else’s fault. It never occurred to the side opposite that maybe they were incompetent in their negotiations. Did that ever come to their minds?

The other area of example that comes to mind is the question of the Ross River arena. Remember when the Government Leader went out to Ross River? He blamed everybody but himself; it was the employees and the civil servants, and he was going to come back and take them to task for the uncontrollable expenditures on that particular project. The Government Leader is obviously very sorry; I will give him a copy of the press clipping so that he can refresh his memory. When he came home from Ross River, he blamed the architect and anybody else involved except for himself.

My point is that somebody has to carry the can. Somebody is responsible. It is fine to be there to cut the cake and especially eat the cake, but you also have to stand up and take responsibility. We saw it earlier today when we were talking about the young offenders facility. What answers did we get? All we found out is that we had to find somebody to come up here from B.C. to tell us where to put the locks.

My concern is that the Minister of Finance has stood up and blamed everybody but himself with respect to the financial dilemma the government is facing.

We have seen the results of their negotiations. We missed the window of opportunity when it came to the health transfer. Yellowknife has a $50 million new facility; what have we got? We have a Minister who stands up and says it is somebody else’s fault.

What about the Alaska Highway agreement? We have seen significant cutbacks in the Alaska Highway agreement. This side has been constantly and consistently pressing, especially the Member for Kluane. The Minister responsible for highways and the Minister of Finance stand up and blame somebody else, just like the motor vehicle increase. Blame somebody else. The reason we had to increase the fees is because of the formula financing.

For the record, here we have a statement by the Minister on the question of the motor vehicle increase, and I quote. On November 28, 1989, he stated, “On average, in provincial jurisdictions across Canada, transportation revenue from driver licences, vehicle registrations and permits account for an average of 32 percent of road maintenance funding. In the Yukon, the equivalent figure is 5.4 percent. This is not surprising, when one considers the Yukon has the longest per capita system of maintained roads in Canada. It is clearly not possible, nor practical, to meet this level of funding from driver licences and vehicle registrations. As a result, we have patterned our new fees for driver licences and private vehicle registrations on the comparable fee charged in other western jurisdictions. We have taken special steps to phase in fee increases for commercial vehicles during this period of economic deregulation, that began under the federal government’s freedom to move and the federal Motor Vehicle Transport Act. Nevertheless, these new fees reflect our desire to become more fiscally responsible by bringing revenues to a more realistic level with fees that are consistent with western jurisdictions.”

I reiterate: never once was the formula financing, nor the need for these fees for the purpose of general revenue, expressed. It was to bring us into comparable line with western jurisdictions. My point and argument has been that we have the financial wherewithal to conduct our business within government. If we manage our funds properly, we do not have to increase taxes. That is what we are saying from this side.

They bring the red herring out about increases back in 1981. You want to talk about financial restraint; you want to talk about a government that, every time they had to do something, they had to actually ask the question, and this is the question that was asked every day. It is not a startling revelation after five years of being in office, where the Minister of Finance came to this House on January 22. At the end of his statement on formula financing, he came to the realization and said to the people of the territory, “Now, we must ask the simple question: where are the funds to come from?” What a startling revelation, after five years.

After five years, the lights went on. Where are the funds to come from?

He will stand up and blame somebody else.

My point is, and I am going to conclude with this, that I see no reason for the increase of this tax at this time. I feel the government has the wherewithal, the revenues and the financial capabilities to conduct their business without the people of the territory incurring up to a 44 percent increase in taxation in licence fees.

I think the question is simple, and I think it is a question each Member has to entertain when they vote on this. If they vote for this motion, they are voting for no taxation.

To conclude, that would then be consistent with the Minister of Finance’s statement when he stood up and presented the budget, and said to the people of the territory that there was going to be no increase in taxation in this budget, contrary to what has been presented to this House since that time.

I ask all Members to vote.

Speaker: Division has been called.

Mr. Clerk, would you kindly poll the House.

Division

Hon. Mr. Penikett: Disagree.

Hon. Mr. Byblow: Disagree.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Disagree.

Hon. Mr. Webster: Disagree.

Hon. Ms. Joe: Disagree.

Mr. Joe: Disagree.

Ms. Kassi: Disagree.

Ms. Hayden: Disagree.

Mr. Phelps: Agree.

Mr. Brewster: Agree.

Mr. Phillips: Agree.

Mr. Lang: Agree.

Mr. Devries: Agree.

Mrs. Firth: Agree.

Mr. Nordling: Agree.

Clerk: The results are 7 yea, 8 nay.

Motion No. 64 negatived

Clerk: Item No. 14, standing in the name of Mr. Phelps.

Speaker: Is the hon. Member prepared to proceed with Item No. 14?

Mr. Phelps: Can this be set aside please, until next sitting day?

Clerk: Item No. 25, standing in the name of Mr. Phillips.

Speaker: Is the hon. Member prepared to proceed with Item No. 25?

Mr. Phillips: Yes.

Motion No. 65

Speaker: It has been moved by the Hon. Member for Whitehorse Riverdale North

THAT this House urges the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Hon. Tom Siddon, to assign one of the six new community advisor positions established for the western region to the Yukon in order to support and promote the Salmonid Enhancement Program in Yukon schools and in various communities throughout the territory.

Mr. Phillips: I brought this motion to the House today with some urgency. We are hoping to get unanimous consent on the motion today, and I am not being presumptuous. We can then pass the message on to the Hon. Mr. Siddon as quickly as possible so that something can be done.

Before I get into the history of the motion, I would like to tell the Members of the House what a community advisor does. First of all, they are really a manager, a technical advisor of the Salmonid Enhancement Program. He or she works closely with the community groups, native groups, schools and individuals in carrying out the salmon enhancement projects. They offer technical expertise as well as provide financial advise on project costs. They pick sites for such projects and assist these groups so that the programs are successful.

Both the school and community aspects of the Salmonid Enhancement Program, which has been successful in B.C., is dependent upon community advisors. They provide the needed expertise and technical and educational support for teachers in these community groups. They strive to increase the awareness and the returns of salmon to local streams.

Recently, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Hon. Mr. Tom Siddon, announced that six new positions would be added to the western region. The western region already has 13 of those positions. I have been informed that out of the six positions, one was contemplated to be given to the Yukon. I understand now that this decision has been changed, and that all six positions will be going to B.C.

There are several programs on salmonid management in the schools in the Yukon in the classroom program, the teaching package for teachers and students. It is fairly important that this type of community advisor be present. The type of advice and expertise that such a person could provide is essential to the continuation of these types of programs.

The various schools and organizations have started, in the last year or two, various projects that can use a community advisor. If we do not get the support we need, if we do not get a community advisor in the territory, these programs will be in great danger of not continuing. There can be an argument made that people have to made aware of the value of the salmon resource. One way to do this is to have someone here who works on a full-time basis. We have been offered 10 percent of the time of the Prince George community advisor, which is just not enough for the programs that we have in the territory.

The Yukon River is one of the longest running rivers in North America and one of the longest salmon runs in North America. Its potential is immense. We were left out on the Pacific Salmon Treaty and I think there is some responsibility on behalf of the federal government to ensure we will do something to protect the resource for future generations.

With that, I will