Whitehorse, Yukon
Monday, October 29, 1990 - 1:30 p.m.
Speaker: I will call the House to order. We will proceed at this time with prayers.
Prayers
DAILY ROUTINE
Speaker: We will proceed at this time with the Order Paper.
Introduction of visitors?
Are there any Returns or Documents for tabling?
TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS
Speaker: I have for tabling the Annual Report of the Yukon Human Rights Commission for the year ended March 31, 1990.
Hon. Mr. Penikett: I have for tabling the Health Transfer Framework Agreement.
Speaker: Are there any Reports of Committees?
Are there any Petitions?
Introduction of Bills.
Notices of Motion for the Production of Papers.
NOTICES OF MOTION FOR THE PRODUCTION OF PAPERS
Mr. Phelps: I give notice of motion
THAT the order of this Assembly be issued for copies of all studies produced by or on behalf of the Yukon Development Corporation and of the Yukon Energy Corporation regarding potential hydro sites in the Yukon.
Speaker: Notices of Motion.
NOTICES OF MOTION
Mr. Phelps: I give notice of the following motion:
THAT it is the opinion of this House that the Yukon Energy Corporation should not pay dividends nor transfer profits to the Yukon Development Corporation, but rather should retain such money for investment in hydro facilities and transmission lines so as to keep down the cost of electrical energy to Yukon consumers.
Mr. Lang: I give notice of motion
THAT it is the opinion of this House that the Department of Renewable Resources should implement a well-managed game program with the objective of increasing the moose and caribou population in game zones 7 and 9.
Mrs. Firth: I give notice of motion
THAT the Department of Health and Human Resources, Yukon, in consultation with the Association for Community Living, the Child Development Centre, the Council for Yukon Indians, Alcohol and Drug Services, and all other agencies familiar with fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effects, should develop a job description and advertise immediately for the position of a fetal alcohol syndrome coordinator for Yukon.
Mr. Phillips: I give notice of motion
THAT this House urges the Minister of Tourism to establish a Yukon ambassador at large program for Yukoners who travel outside the Yukon Territory and who wish to promote tourism travel to Yukon.
Mr. Devries: I give notice of motion
THAT it is the opinion of this House that the transfer of control of the forestry resource in the Yukon from the federal government to the territorial government has been held in abeyance since April 1987 because the Government of Yukon has not treated this transfer as a matter of priority and;
THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to work cooperatively with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to reach an agreement on the transfer of this important resource so that the people of the Yukon will have control over forests in the territory in relation to forestry management, timber harvesting, silviculture, economic development proposals and environmental protection.
Speaker: Are there any Statements by Ministers?
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
Framework agreement governing the health transfer to the Yukon government
Hon. Mr. Penikett: I rise today to inform Members that after many years of negotiations we now have the basis for a health transfer to the government.
Officials of this government, the federal government and the Council for Yukon Indians have signed an agreement on the principles that will form the basis for all future negotiations and on specific areas of transfer.
This signing follows a cooperative three-party process that will continue throughout the remaining negotiations. While this agreement is subject to final ratification by ourselves, the federal government and Council for Yukon Indians, I am confident that we are finally on the way to a transfer.
The transfer will include all program and administrative resources currently used by the medical services branch in the Yukon, and capital funds required to replace Whitehorse General Hospital. The hospital transfer is the first phase of transfer.
Upon approval by the Treasury Board of Canada of the class B estimate for a new Whitehorse hospital, including the approval of a schedule for the release of funds for construction acceptable to the Yukon, the Yukon government will then assume full responsibility for construction. It is possible that construction of the new facility could begin in the spring of 1992, with completion in 1995.
Our policy and this agreement stipulate that all medical services branch staff currently employed by the federal government in Whitehorse or in the communities will be offered comparable positions in the Yukon. It is anticipated that the offers or employment to hospital employees will be made by April 1991. Transfer of the hospital and MSB staff in Whitehorse is scheduled for October 1, 1991.
Phase 2 of the transfer will involve remaining medical services branch responsibilities, including community health programs and the services, related facilities and administration.
Not all programs will be transferred to the Yukon government. Some, such as the community health representatives and the Native alcohol and drug abuse program will be transferred to Yukon First Nations, in all likelihood.
We are naturally tying in with the negotiations for Indian self-government as part of the land claim agreement. With the signing of this agreement we have taken an important step toward a Yukon-controlled quality health care system.
In summary, we will be making an offer to the federal employees of the hospital in the spring. It is anticipated that the transfer of the hospital will come to us in October of next year and the construction of a new hospital will begin in the spring of 1992.
In a parenthetical note, I would like to express the thanks of this government and no doubt all Members of the House, to Brenda Riis, Violet Van Hees, Leo Chasse, Pat Herbert, Linda Martin, Don Trochim, Mike Nevile, Nick Pouchinsky and Doug McArthur for the excellent work these officials have done in completing these negotiations.
Mr. Lang: The transfer of the health services has been a high priority for this side of the House and if anyone looks back in Hansard they can see that we have had numerous debates on the question of the transfer. It is long overdue, especially when one looks at what our sister territory, the Northwest Territories, accomplished a number of years ago. Yet, at the same time, we are in a situation we have just negotiated an agreement to negotiate.
The ministerial statement raises, I think, quite a number of questions - more than what it answers. I have a series of questions to which I would like to ask the Minister to reply.
I will first ask the Minister: in the one paragraph he states, “the officials of this government, the federal government and the Council for Yukon Indians have signed an agreement on the principles that will form the basis for all future negotiations in specific areas of transfer.”
Is it the position of the Government of the Yukon that the Council for Yukon Indians will have to agree to any future transfers as they come, as far as federal devolution in other areas of government are concerned?
The next question I have is: if the new hospital is agreed upon, and in view of the fact that government budgeting is in such a manner that you have class A and class B, then how is it that the hospital is in the class B estimates of the federal government if the Government of Canada has agreed that such a structure will be built - since it should be in class A?
I would also like to ask the Minister this: is it the position of the Government of the Yukon that they are accepting the transfer of personnel without an ironclad agreement and commitment that a new hospital is to built?
Fourthly, can the Minister assure all Members that the employees transferred to the Yukon government from the Government of Canada will be given comparative benefits to what they now enjoy with the federal government?
Hon. Mr. Penikett: I suspect such a long list of questions requiring such a long list of answers might be a bit irregular and, I suspect, we may have to cover some of the ground in Question Period.
To be brief, I can answer the questions and comments of the Member this way: an agreement has never been possible before because we have never had a commitment from the federal hospital for the money to build the new hospital, unlike the situation in the Northwest Territories. We now have such a commitment.
The Member asks if CYI’s agreement is necessary on all devolution agreements henceforth. No, that is not the case. As the Member knows, we wanted to proceed in two phases on this agreement, and the federal government preferred to agree as a single package. We achieved a compromise on that point. Because the Council for Yukon Indians has a very significant interest in community health services and the whole question of self-government surrounding land claims, it was necessary and appropriate that they become part of this agreement.
The Member asked about a class A estimate. The final estimates will be made by this government, who will be building the hospital. The federal treasury board will be asked to give formal final approval to transferring the necessary funds, some $45 million for that purpose. That is why the final estimates will be made by us according to the means that are available.
The most significant and important question the Member asks is about the relationship between the hospital funding and the health transfer. It is a very simple relationship. The federal government gives us a cheque for the new hospital. We make an offer to the employees. Those two events are related. If we do not get the financial commitment for the new hospital, we do not make the offer. We believe, on the basis of the agreement we have now reached - and it is not an agreement to reach an agreement; it is an agreement - that the federal government will now, following Treasury Board approval, make the financial commitment to us, following which we will make the offer to the employees. That offer will be based on the discussions we have been holding during the last several months, which will deal with job descriptions, classification, pay, benefits, housing - a whole package - which will be analogous to a collective agreement, although it is not a collective agreement because they are not yet employees. That offer will be made to the employees next spring. Individual employees decide whether they will accept it or not. Those who accept will become our employees as of October 1, 1991.
Speaker: This, then brings us to Question Period.
QUESTION PERIOD
Question re: Decentralization
Mr. Phelps: I am going to lead off with some questions about decentralization, the policy that was so hastily thrown together and unveiled to the Yukon last week.
I would like the Minister responsible for the Executive Council to tell us why the government has not made stages 2 and 3 public, and when we can expect to receive information about stages 2 and 3 of the decentralization policy?
Hon. Mr. Penikett: Mr. Speaker, you will forgive me again, but given the nature of the Member’s preamble, I will of course have to respond to that. He describes this as a policy that was hastily thrown together, which is of course far from the truth. We have been wrestling with this policy for a long time.
Good intentions have been stated in this House by the party opposite and us for some considerable number of years, and I think this is a very significant step we are making, and with considerable thought. The policy that has been adopted by this government has set a target, which is what was necessary to achieve the policy, of 100 hundred jobs in the next three-year period. It is not possible much in advance of the final development of budgets for those future years to detail in precise terms the positions that will be subject to decentralization in years two and three. The Member will notice that a number of departments have been very well represented in terms of positions for the first year; other departments are not so well represented and we will be instructing departments not represented in the first year, obviously, to be represented in years 2 and 3. That should give the Member some clue as to the kinds of areas that may be subject to transfer.
Mr. Phelps: Is it the intention of the government, then, to address the issue of the global number of employees to be moved from each department from Whitehorse out to the rural communities, and if so, when can we expect to receive that information?
Hon. Mr. Penikett: Mr. Speaker, no, we will not be able, in these estimates, to tell the member that X number of people will be moving from department A or Y number of people from department B. What I can tell the Member that in the next two years a similar number of people - some 30 plus positions -, in each of the next two years will be decentralized in order to achieve the target of 100 positions that we have set for this first phase of the decentralization process.
Mr. Phelps: I wonder if, given that he claims that the policy has been very carefully thought out, he could table in this House the cost estimates for each of the stages 1, 2 and 3, and how the cost was arrived at.
Hon. Mr. Penikett: I can table the costs, and will be happy to do so, for year 1, but what I am sure will be obvious to the Member is that the final costs for years 2 and 3 will be at least of the order of magnitude of year one, but they will depend absolutely on what positions are finally slated for decentralization. The Member will no doubt be aware that we have a number of proposals before us that we will be deciding in the coming months for the following year’s decentralization. I would be surprised if we would be in a position to announce those positions for the second year much in advance of the presentation of the budget to this House, because the fact that they have a cost will have to be addressed in the budget.
Question re: Decentralization
Mr. Phelps: In an open letter to Yukon government employees dated October 25, the Minister responsible attached a question and answer sheet regarding Yukon government decentralization. On page 4 of that document, it is stated that the cost the first year of all 39 jobs is about $479,000 and that of this, the one-time capital cost is $225,000.
I look at the list provided to employees and the public of Yukon by the Minister’s office, and I look at the first item on that list - Community and Transportation Services communications branch, Carcross, four full-time positions.
Approximately how much of the $225,000 for capital is going to be spent on those four positions in Carcross?
Hon. Mr. Byblow: I can take the question given that, in the first instance, the branch referred to is within my ministry and, in the second instance, the issue of space for office workers relating to decentralization would fall principally under the purview of Government Services.
There are no identified capital costs relating to the decentralization of the communications branch within the specific numbers cited by the Leader of the Official Opposition. What is calculated are the anticipated rental costs of expected facilities.
Mr. Phelps: I am sure the Minister is aware I live in Carcross, and I am not aware of any office space available to the government for a fairly significant sized office such as the communications branch. Is there office space available? Where is it and how much is it going to cost? If not, does he not agree with me that to build that office space would cost about $500,000?
Hon. Mr. Byblow: Again, I will take the question. I would suggest to the Leader of the Official Opposition that he become a little more informed in his own riding. We are currently in discussions with White Pass for the acquisition of the railroad building.
Mr. Phelps: Is the Minister then saying they intend to renovate the railway depot so it will provide the office space required for this move?
Hon. Mr. Byblow: I cannot cite the details of any final arrangement, because they are not in place yet. Discussions and negotiations are currently taking place between the staff of my department and the private sector regarding acquisition of the space. Until those discussions are concluded, I cannot give specifics.
I can assure the Member that space will be available for the decentralized move on that score, and he can be assured of that.
Question re: Decentralization
Mr. Phelps: So we are informed they really do not have any office space available. They are busy negotiating for some that would require extensive renovation. The cost of building 2,000 square feet of office space to government standards in Carcross would be in the neighbourhood of $500,000.
I am concerned about housing as well, because there is no housing available in Carcross. I would expect that the cost of providing staff housing would run at $125,000 per unit for four jobs. Exactly how much of the $225,000 that has been allocated for the entire 39 positions has been allocated for staff housing in Carcross?
Hon. Mr. Byblow: Again I will take the question, given that the issue of housing is principally resting with the Yukon Housing Corporation as a lead agency.
It is not assured that the Yukon Housing Corporation will be supplying staff housing in every case. Each community will be recognized for its individual housing capability. In many instances we have staff housing available. In some instances there is private sector housing available to be purchased or rented. Each community has a different case scenario with respect to housing. That is the approach we are taking.
At the same time we are currently reviewing our policies in order that we can support and facilitate decentralized efforts for housing purposes. We will continue those policy reviews in order to provide employees with the most suitable housing available.
Mr. Phelps: We have this carefully thought out policy, in the words of the Minister responsible. We have a price tag of $225,000 for 39 jobs throughout the Yukon, yet they have no clue as to whether or not they are going to have to build office space in Carcross, or if they are going to lease it from White Pass and renovate to a great extent. They have no clue where the housing is coming from and have not even addressed it. Yet, this is a carefully thought out policy.
In view of this, can the Minister responsible for housing and for community affairs tell us how much has been factored into the price for O&M that was given out in the attachment to the Minister’s letter? How much of that O&M is attributed to the high cost of providing pump-out services for the water and sewer in the housing, and in the new office space that is going to be required? Could he tell us roughly what has been factored in with regard to that cost?
Hon. Mr. Penikett: The Member is huffing and puffing, but I do not think he is going to blow this house down.
The most sensitive question of decentralization is the issue of our employees. It is not possible to have a cookie-cutter policy, or some kind of mechanical formula that gives us a 100 percent position on this, for the following reasons: we have made the decision that incumbents in the position will be offered the chance to move with their position or to other jobs in the Yukon Territory. That means we cannot know for some time in every case about whether or not people are going to choose to move with their position to the community, because they have to talk about these possibilities with their families. If they do not choose to move, there is the possibility that we will be hiring someone from that community who already has their housing needs met. Nor is it necessarily the case, if someone does move, that we will be providing staff housing. The situation in every community is different.
As a result of discussions with employees, employees’ representatives, the communities affected and our central agency, the one thing that will be sure is that, by the time people go to the communities, there will be a place for them to work, and we will have satisfied their housing needs.
The housing needs are not calculated in terms of these cost estimates for relocation, and we said this at the beginning. The sum we have talked about is part of a global budget for this process. Calculations of estimates for the costs come from various departments, and there is a huge variable in these costs. That variable comes from the decisions made by individual employees on whether they want to move with their positions or choose to take alternate positions within this government. We cannot know the final cost of all those elements, and we will not know the final cost until we know the employees’ decisions.
I am absolutely certain that, if we were to build housing on the basis that everyone would move, or build office space in advance of the decentralization, we would be criticized by Members opposite for wasting money. We think this is the right approach: putting the employees first, and the communities, and that is the way it will work.
Mr. Phelps: With respect, the issue here has to do with government waste and a complete mismanagement of the money they have been given from Ottawa.
I listened to this dribble from the side opposite. We have a one-time capital cost of $225,000. We are talking about the potential for $1 million for the first four jobs. Surely the Members on the side opposite can do better than that. Surely they can at least come close, not to be out by many hundreds of percent. Would they not agree they could do a little better than this?
Hon. Mr. Penikett: It is going to be a long sitting. I certainly hope the Member opposite is going to do better than this. If he is seriously suggesting that his standard of competence and good management is spending $1 million for every four employees in the territory in order to house them, then I think he is being ridiculous.
The costs we have estimated here are based on the aggregate of the costs we are talking about. They are reasonable estimates. Perhaps the Member opposite has a piece of real estate in mind for us. We are not talking about $1 million to house every four employees in rural Yukon. That is not our experience, and that will not be our practice.
Question re: Decentralization
Mr. Phelps: Again, I ask if we can have a complete breakdown of the estimates that led to the figures provided publicly by the Minister, including the costs for capital and O&M for moving the four positions to Carcross, as well as each and every other position, so we have some idea of what this government intends to spend.
Hon. Mr. Penikett: I am beginning to think the Member opposite is taking a personal interest on this question in his constituency. In answer to his first question, I have said we will be providing a breakdown in our estimates. I am quite happy to provide him with the information he seeks.
Mr. Phelps: You bet I am taking a personal interest in my constituency. I am asked by people in Carcross where the infrastructure is, where the office space is, and when this government is going to move on water and sewer for Carcross. These are fundamental issues that are tied into the provision of infrastructure and of the office space.
Many times in this House, we have had debates about the problem of adequate housing and the availability of lots and land in Carcross. When are we going to be told about the plans for office space for the four positions in Carcross, and who will be making the announcement?
Hon. Mr. Penikett: Normally, announcements about office space would be made by the Minister responsible for Government Services, as would announcements about water, sewer and housing as they are all under the same Minister. But I happen to know and would like to assure the Member’s constituents in Carcross that the Minister responsible for these three areas has been working very hard on the question of land in Carcross, as well as the other issues the Member mentions. I would be surprised if the Member opposite did not know that.
Question re: Decentralization
Mr. Lang: I want to return to the question of the overall decentralization program: the one the government said has been in the process of being formulated over the last five years, and the denial it was hastily conceived by the side opposite.
I go to the disbandment of the career services branch of the advanced education branch within the Department of Education. I would point out this service has been discussed at some length between all Members of the House. It has provided a much-needed service to over 1,200 Yukoners in a year over many visits to all communities, and it has performed various functions that are very important to people who are being forced to change their jobs, for example as a result of such events as the Elsa mine layoffs. The Minister of Education has said what a great program it has been.
Why has the Minister had such a change of heart? Why has he made the decision to disband this particular program when, in the Minister’s own words, it was providing such a valuable service to the public?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: The only way to answer the question is, first of all, to deny the service has been disbanded. To decentralize the service is not to disband the service to rural Yukon residents. We have focussed the service to rural areas because, through the offices of Yukon College and Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, there are already career counselling services in the City of Whitehorse.
In order to provide a better service to rural Yukon residents, we thought it would be better to place these services in the communities themselves. Regionally based, they would provide a quicker, more responsive service in the future.
Far from abandoning the service, this particular element of their delivery has been focussed to rural Yukon. The Yukon College and Canada Employment and Immigration Commission will be providing career counselling in the City of Whitehorse.
Mr. Lang: Once again, I refer to the decentralization program that has been so well thought out. It took five years of thinking. The Government Leader said to the public, we are working on this program. Now, the Minister speaks about a program that has been providing a valuable service to the people of the Yukon. He stands in his place today and says it is time to decentralize it. I hearken back to April 10, 1989, when the Minister, in his opening remarks to the budget, stated as follows: “Under the advanced education branch, the recently opened Career Services Office will receive $10,000 for furnishings and equipment for its new facility. This office provides a well-used service to the public and is effectively ...”
Speaker: Order please. Will the Member please get to the supplementary question.
Mr. Lang: I will play by the same rules as the Government Leader, Mr. Speaker.
“... well-used service to the public and is effectively responding ...”
Speaker: Order please. I have asked the Member to please get to the supplementary question.
Mr. Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
“...this office provides a well-used service to the public and is effectively responding to an important community need for career development information and career counselling.”
Why is the Minister disbanding this service that he stated in this House was valuable? All Members also did so at that time, and even last year in debate. Why is he disbanding this particular service?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Before, the Member was simply ignorant. Now, the Member is wrong for other reasons. The service is not being disbanded, as I mentioned already. The service is being relocated to various Yukon communities, all of which will receive enhanced service, as a result of the relocation of the service. The provision of services to the City of Whitehorse, in particular, will be provided by the four counselors at Yukon College, whose mandate it is to provide career counselling.
The Member is wrong when he says the service is being disbanded; the service is not being disbanded. I stand by the commitments we have made in the past to provide for better career counselling in this territory. In my view, this enhances the service. It focusses a bit more on people who need it the most and, consequently, I feel this decentralization initiative is well-conceived and will provide for better service in the territory.
Mr. Lang: If it is not being disbanded, is the Minister telling us the four counselors at Yukon College will have time to accommodate the needs of a minimum of 1,200 people they have to deal with, in one way or another?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: As the career services branch exists right now, it provides for service for people throughout the territory, in every community in the territory. The service provided for by the advanced education branch, after the decentralization move takes place, would be focused on rural Yukon, and the services provided by the four counsellors at Yukon College would be focussed on Whitehorse.
Consequently, we believe this is a sound use of available resources. We do not have the luxury to simply expand the services and allow for duplication in the career counselling field to exist anywhere and, in particular, in Whitehorse. Consequently, we feel all people in the territory, including those in Whitehorse, will continue to be served well, and the people in rural Yukon will be served better than they were in the past.
Question re: Decentralization
Mrs. Firth: I have a question for the Minister of Education with respect to the same issue my colleague from Porter Creek East raised.
Last time we sat in May, we raised concerns with respect to workplace harassment and abuse of authority, and the morale problem in the Department of Education. At that time, the Minister admitted there was a problem, and that he was working with the department to try to alleviate the concerns.
At that time, we also raised with the Minister a particularly unkind and insensitive memo written by him to his deputy minister, making reference to “warm bodies” within the same department. At that time, we questioned the Minister with respect to the jobs of the employees being in jeopardy. That was five months ago. At that time, the Minister reassured everyone in the House the jobs were not in jeopardy and, therefore, the program was not in jeopardy.
Since decentralization, we find the career services office in advanced education has been eliminated. When was the decision made to eliminate the office and have the career services program as part of decentralization?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I will respond to the preamble first. Last spring I admitted there were concerns expressed by a few people in the advanced education branch respecting the morale. I admitted I had been dealing with them on the matter. The memo referred to was one I had written expressing a desire on my part for top performance by public servants and an expectation of nothing less. In my view, the issues the Member is referring to now are in no way connected to decentralization.
The desire to relocate the service was made in late summer of this year after a thorough analysis of what the college could provide, and what CEIC has a mandate for. The service could be better provided on a decentralized basis than centralized in Whitehorse. There were no aspersions cast upon any person working for the advanced education branch. I am certain they are all doing the best job they can within the framework of their jobs.
Mrs. Firth: The Minister indicated there was a morale problem within the advanced education branch. He never made any reference last May to a few people - he was very general - it was the department. He said he had been working with the department to try to alleviate the concerns.
It is obvious that the union did not recommend that this program be eliminated because they, too, have raised concerns about it. Were there requests from the communities to have the program eliminated?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: The Member must have just dropped into the Legislature because we have been discussing the fact that this service is not being eliminated, nor abandoned, nor cancelled. In saying that the Member for Porter Creek East was wrong in his assumption, I must also say that the spokesperson for the union is equally wrong, and now say that the Member for Riverdale South is equally wrong. The service is not being abandoned. In fact the service will be enhanced and will be enhanced for rural people. People in rural Yukon have been asking for better services and career counselling for some time. We feel that the first step - which was to provide the service in Whitehorse - was a good first step. It is our intention to provide even a better service by decentralizing this position to communities like Haines Junction, Watson Lake and Mayo.
Mrs. Firth: The Minister did not answer the question so we can only draw the conclusion that the communities did not recommend this program be eliminated, and the union did not recommend this program be eliminated. The Minister has already stated that in his view the service will be enhanced, but he has not stated how the service will be enhanced.
Whose idea was it? Who came up with the idea to eliminate this program in Whitehorse and have it put to three separate positions within the communities? Who initiated that idea?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I am very glad the Member has finally come to the conclusion that the program is not being eliminated but is being decentralized to rural Yukon communities.
There are career counsellors in the City of Whitehorse through Yukon College, or because CEIC, which has a Whitehorse office only, has a mandate to provide career counselling; the service can be provided to Whitehorse through those two organizations.
The service to be provided to rural Yukon will be enhanced because the people who are providing the service will be living in those communities. Consequently, they will be more sensitive to the needs of those communities and will be more immediate to the needs of those communities by their physical location, and will be in a position to speak to not only those in need of counselling but also to the employers about their training needs as well.
I believe this is something very much desired by rural Yukon, and I would put it to the Member that if she can find a significant organization in rural Yukon that believes that it is not in the interests of rural Yukon, I would certainly like to hear her put it forward.
Question re: Alaska Highway corridor study
Mr. Nordling: Last April the Minister of Community and Transportation Services said he expected to receive final recommendations in May with respect to the Alaska Highway corridor study. Can the Minister update us on the status of the study and, specifically, whether or not an implementation plan has been prepared?
Hon. Mr. Byblow: The implementation plan respecting the Alaska Highway corridor is a large project to assemble. The Member may or may not have attended, at my invitation, a review of the corridor plan earlier this summer.
At this point, the study proposes a number of suggestions respecting traffic flows, street lights, and other features respecting improved traffic flow and safety on that corridor. Currently, my department is reviewing the recommendations of the plan and assembling an implementation plan, which can only be revealed through the availability of funds.
Mr. Nordling: This implementation plan was to be ready for presentation to the three levels of government by the end of December 1989. We are well over a year behind. Have the other two levels of government been involved in this implementation plan?
Hon. Mr. Byblow: I can only make an assumption from my previous knowledge of where the plan was headed. All three levels of government are to be involved in the assembly of an implementation plan, largely because the costs related to any kind of implementation would have to be shared. Particularly and specifically, the federal government would have to be involved on the financial side of it.
The short answer is yes.
Mr. Nordling: I thought this was understood when it was announced in August 1989, and the implementation plan was to be ready in December 1989.
The people of Porter Creek West are concerned about the intersections at Kathleen Road and MacKenzie RV Park to Crestview. Another winter has come, with the accompanying darkness and slippery roads. I would like to take something back from the Minister with respect to time lines on when they may see something done with that area of the highway.
Hon. Mr. Byblow: I do not have the specific recommendations at my fingertips for those specific areas of the highway, as cited by the Member. He will recall that the Alaska Highway corridor study was broken into a short, medium and long-term set of proposals, spanning the period from three to 10 years. On the specific question of that particular intersection, I can only undertake to get back to the Member.
Question re: Office accommodation
Mr. Phillips: Regarding the future office space for this rapidly growing government, the government tabled a decentralization policy last week, which would see 100 jobs go out to the communities over the next three years. At the same time, this government is renovating and renting any and all available office space in Whitehorse. We have just rented 30,000 square feet from the new Dakwakada project. As well, we are renovating another 35,399 square feet at the old Yukon College.
Can the Minister of Government Services tell this House why we are expanding so much in Whitehorse if the government is really serious about decentralization?
Hon. Mr. Byblow: I do not think the Member could have been present last spring when I tabled the office space plan for the whole government, nor at the time when I tabled the office space strategy, which outlined the intentions of how the government is going to acquire space. Nor could the Member have reviewed the series of proposed moves under that plan, and I doubt the Member paid any attention to why certain space was being acquired. He has probably forgotten that we intend to give up inferior, or less than adequate, space. The Member is probably not aware the government has undertaken quite a number of devolution programs that have incorporated additional employees into the government employee ranks, that we have inherited a considerable measure of overcrowding for employees, and that the space plan that was tabled here, and was presented and discussed, is an organized effort to address employee space needs. It is a job far better done by this government than ever done before.
Mr. Phillips: It is interesting to note that this government, which has such high standards, has all kinds of inferior space rented throughout the City of Whitehorse, and other areas.
Since it has such a well thought out policy on decentralization, could the Minister provide this House with the total real costs for the expanded office space for the outside communities?
Hon. Mr. Byblow: That question was asked earlier today, and it was answered. I will attempt to do it again.
The Member is raising the issue of space. In every case where there is decentralization taking place, Government Services has assessed the available space in those communities. It is continually doing so because, in some cases, those are changing targets, depending on the availability of space in the private sector. In other instances, the government has already acquired space. Those costs have been tabled as part of the decentralization costs. If the Member wants a more specific breakdown, I will have to bring that back for him.
Mr. Phillips: I can thank the Minister for his answer and I can tell the Minister that we do want that information. I am sure that the data to support this move is close at hand and I would like to ask the Minister - since they have already announced the policy the data must be in place - if the Minister could provide the House with that data tomorrow?
Hon. Mr. Byblow: I will not give the Member the undertaking that I will table it tomorrow. I will table it when it is available in a form that is final and that I will be pleased with. Members will be quite free to see it then.
Speaker: The time for Question Period has now lapsed. We will proceed to Orders of the Day.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Addresses in Reply to the Speech from the Throne
Ms. Kassi: I move that the following Address be presented to the Commissioner of the Yukon:
MAY IT PLEASE THE COMMISSIONER:
We, the Members of the Yukon Legislative Assembly, beg leave to offer our humble thanks for the gracious Speech that you have addressed to the House.
Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Member for Old Crow that the following Address be presented to the Commissioner of the Yukon:
MAY IT PLEASE THE COMMISSIONER:
We, the Members of the Yukon Legislative Assembly, beg leave to offer our humble thanks for the gracious Speech that you have addressed to the House.
Ms. Kassi: It gives me great pleasure to reply to the Speech from the Throne today. On behalf of the Vuntat Gwich’in, I think I can say that it is a source of pride to be where we, as a nation, are today, to recognized where we have been and to realize a vision of our tomorrow, in which we all have our own parts to play.
I thank the elders for the advice and the support I have needed and received. I look forward to their continued support to do that which is right for my people. I am happy that our government realizes this also. We are thankful for their understanding and supportive measure in helping all Yukoners play their rightful parts in the Yukon.
I would also like at this time to extend a warm welcome to those government employees, including the new teachers and the RCMP, to our Gwich’in homeland.
On behalf of my nation, I would like to thank the government for its responsive nature regarding our concerns for the health of our communities. Old Crow has seen great changes for the better. With the combined program of our government and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the long-standing sewage problem is being resolved.
The changes are so visible. Six houses in Old Crow now have sewage facilities and running water, out of the survey that was done. Ten more have been contracted out to be completed this winter. The street improvement project has done good things. The extension on the road to the mountain has allowed access to the land for the elders and the children. Our first sweatlodge ceremony was able to be attended by elders because of the road, and the community is very grateful for that. With the general clean-up and the landscaping, Old Crow is looking great. I have no doubt that these improvements will also be reflected in the lives of our people.
I am very happy with this government’s decision to implement the changes in legislation allowing the prohibition of alcohol in Old Crow. These changes are much needed and are wanted by the whole community. This request was based on a community consensus in the form of a resolution unanimously passed according to our tribal constitution and with very strong encouragement from our elders. We would expect all Members of this House to support such a request and desire for healing.
The pain and suffering have added a heavy weight to the spirits of my people. We have lost loved ones and we have lost sources of traditional values and cultural knowledge. With the new legislation, we can begin to heal our communities, to gain confidence and self-respect. We can begin again to go forward.
It is exciting to see that the healing process has begun. We have further to go yet, but we are on the right trail and I am certain that we can look to our government to continue to assist us, and other communities, on the path toward health.
We are very pleased also to hear today about the proposed transfer of health care responsibilities to the Yukon. I would like to congratulate the Premier, the Department of Health, and of course the previous Minister of Health, for successfully concluding this long process. During the Health Act consultations, and speaking on behalf of the First Nation communities, I am sure this government will take into consideration the recommendations and concerns of the First Nations. These include the recognition of the traditional healing process and local input regarding the policy of local health care delivery systems.
Health is not only of the body but also of the mind. Yukon College has provided for the new education centre community college campus to be opened shortly. Our own people are building the centre, which will lead to more control of, and participation in, our own education in our village. We are very happy and excited about this.
We are very grateful to both the Department of Education and the Department of Community and Transportation Services for the ongoing employment in my village as well. The repairs to the school roof will continue in the new year.
Also, the new Education Act, which has become Canada’s most state-of-the-art legislation, has gone to great lengths to consider First Nation concerns. We, as aboriginal people, can look forward to having a greater voice in the education of our children and in how we view our culture and traditions in the modern society.
It is easy to see that this government has a serious commitment to upgrading the community services from which the quality of all our lives will benefit. We look forward to the government’s continuing commitment to assisting community initiatives in the future.
The Gwich’in people are happy the Government of Yukon recognizes the concepts of sustainable development and the land use planning process as fundamental to any development proposal in the Yukon. The Gwich’in have traditionally used these concepts in an indigenous land use plan, which is thousands of years old and has been passed down from generation to generation. It, too, is based on conservation and preservation. We do live in a finite world and must maintain a global perspective when we develop our own environmental and economic plans. We must not take short term development at the cost of long-term devastation and environmental damage.
We respect the land and we must respect Mother Earth if she is to nurture us and our descendants.
We look forward to the protection of our unique and fragile ecosystems such as the North Slope and the calving grounds of the Porcupine caribou herd within the new Environment Act. We are happy to see that the Cabinet has made a commitment to increase its lobbying efforts on behalf of the wilderness designation in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in protection of the Porcupine calving grounds. I am pleased to see the Ministers will make this a priority agenda in their travels. We are glad our government seeks the linking of economic development goals with high environmental values and the guarantees of consultation and recognition of the concerns of the Gwich’in people. This decade must be the turnaround point of our attitudes in everyday living if our world is to survive in the future.
Our government is committed to the preservation of our historical and archaeological heritage, as is reflected in the Historic Resources Act. Indigenous cultures incorporate such heritage in day-to-day culture. I am sure every effort will be made to preserve artifacts and heritage sites, but not at the cost of our culture.
I am happy that this government has indicated it will continue to foster an atmosphere of trust and negotiation in the land claims process, and that it will not take the approach of participating in negotiating by adding an arbitrary deadline to its participation. I am certain we will continue to see the Government of Yukon play its part in the land claims process in a timely, honest and fundamentally just fashion, and to recognize and make available the resources that are necessary to do so.
We are pleased to see the government support the aboriginal positions of self-government and non-extinguishment of aboriginal rights. I am sure we can look to our government to view, with understanding, our desire to ensure the ratification process is done in as cautious and careful a manner as possible. All that is being asked is that in dealing with the individual First Nations all parties act in a manner as though they were dealing with the extinguishment of their personal rights over their own livelihood and culture.
My community commends the government further on its humane, fair and equitable treatment of people as employees. The policy on decentralization is a welcome one for the communities. The position of a part-time interpreter in Old Crow will be of great benefit to the community. Not only recognizing the importance of our languages and enhancing our languages, it will add to the economy of the community, and most importantly it will add a local community voice to government with advice on local and cultural concerns. We look forward to working with a public service that is more representative and has a better delivery of programs by having people within the communities.
It is very nice to see an employer offering real concern and choice to those people in positions that are affected by the decentralization policy. I am sure they will see the needs, the benefit to the communities, and will be able to make a personal choice regarding their possible relocation to where they can make their greatest contribution to good government.
It is also good to see that our government is committed to the needs and concerns of the people and to ensure all Yukoners have equal access and equal opportunity. As a diverse people we must choose our path together in solid partnerships. As a group of individuals we must see each other with respect and respect each other’s cultures and differences as enriching the whole. Together we will walk many miles and all can contribute.
Mahsi cho.
Mr. Phelps: I am always pleased to follow the Member from Old Crow on these occasions and I am always happy to know that she and her people are pleased with the government’s performance, although I thought we would be getting a bit of a negative reaction from Old Crow with only one position being decentralized to there, but if they are happy that is always good to know.
I have already expressed my disappointment about the Speech from the Throne. As I said, there was very little new in it. It really is a disappointment to many Yukoners. It is kind of like unveiling a new car model. Yukoners want a sleek new energy-efficient, powerful model that will take us into the nineties. Instead we get an old tired retread, a battered old gas guzzler, like the Edsel. We can muddle through with it, I suppose, just so long as the O&M, the cost of repairing and maintaining it and buying gas for it, does not send us into financial ruin. But before I get into the negative, let me be positive, as positive as I can.
There are a few positive things contained in this speech. For example, it speaks about completing the Indian land claims and we on this side certainly hope that this will happen. We have been concerned for some time, particularly over the past number of months, because there has been so little progress on land claims and we really hope that things will be up and running again as soon as possible.
The Speech from the Throne addresses the issue of entrenching self-government, the self-government portion of the land claims, in the Constitution. That has always been our party’s position. In fact, you may recall yourself, Mr. Speaker, that the entire 1984 agreement was to be entrenched in the Constitution, not just part of it. We feel badly, and have said so openly and publicly, that the position of the federal government has changed and that the self-government agreements contained within the land claims negotiations apparently now cannot be entrenched because of federal government policy. We certainly add our voice to that of this government in saying that we would like to see the entire package entrenched, as was always the position of this government with regard to land claims, the entire land claims package.
I see that a Yukon environment act is promised. We think it is long overdue and we look forward to debating the act in a constructive manner when it finally does appear in this House. Unfortunately that legislation is but a small step in protecting the environment in the Yukon. The federal government still owns most of the land and controls the important areas of jurisdiction in regard to the environment. Without changes to federal laws, the territorial act can do very little to assist us. It is a step; it is a very small step and I think that is understood by certainly most of the people who have taken a keen interest in the issue of an overall environment policy for the Yukon and in this proposed act.
Other positive aspects, from where I sit, include the proposed historic resources act, the long overdue agricultural policy, and the creation of two new hamlets: the Ibex Valley hamlet and the Mount Lorne hamlet on the Carcross Road.
I am also pleased - especially pleased - that the government is finally going to act on my motion regarding the home owners grant. We expect the amendments to be in place in time for residents to be able to deduct the grant at the time they pay their property taxes and not to have to pay the extra money and wait months to have it returned by government with no interest paid on the unconscionable use of their capital.
Finally, we remain encouraged by the emphasis being placed on Yukon’s children. They are our most important resource and we will support measures designed to better their education, their care and general well-being. We will speak, as we normally do, about the importance of family with regard to children, and ensure that the rights of parents and of families are maintained throughout.
Having said all this, I reiterate - I am sure it is no surprise to the side opposite - that I am, as are many Yukoners, extremely disappointed in the Speech from the Throne, overall - disappointed because there was little that was new in the speech but also, and, more importantly, disappointed because of what is lacking. Overall, we really did not have a sense of a new vision for Yukon, of a new sense of direction, and that is really what this kind of speech is supposed to portray.
I say that particularly on the economic front, we know that the economic diversification program of the government has failed miserably and one gets the impression from this speech that the government has given.
One has to look back at the life of the government and consider the money that has been spent. We tallied that up with the latest figures that are available: in 1985-86, the Public Accounts were for $208,699,000; in 1986-87, $266,513,000; in 1987-88, $278,754,000; in 1988-89, $288,150,000; in 1989-90, $334,000,000; in 1990-91, the estimate is $346,000,000. That adds up to $1,722,000,000. That is a lot of money - an awful lot of money - that has been spent.
When one travels throughout the communities, one has the sense that not very much has changed in that period of time, despite the money that has been spent in such a fashion by this government.
Many of the communities are hurting on the economic front. Many of them, if anything, are more dependent on government. There is not a sense in the small communities that there is much opportunity for small business. One does not get that feeling in Carcross, one goes not get that feeling in Mayo, one does not get that feeling in Pelly, one does not get that feeling in Teslin, and the list goes on.
Hence, there is a new sense of urgency with regard to a policy of decentralizing government positions from Whitehorse to the communities. We support the concept. We have always felt that some jobs moved out to the rural communities would be a positive thing, that such jobs would increase stability, that such jobs would - and in fact will have - a beneficial impact on the social environment in the communities: the community club sports, recreation, the schools. So, of course, we have always been calling for decentralization. I guess our concern is that it has come so late and only after the government pulled in two important jobs, one from Dawson and one from Watson Lake in the Department of Human Resources, as the Speaker, I am sure, will recall.
This seems to be the only idea left in this bankrupt government - bankrupt not in cash yet, but certainly in ideas - the only weapon left in the arsenal with which to try to give some stability and some hope to those who live in the communities regarding the future.
If one looks at the throne speech, and if one considers the policies we have heard, one cannot but be struck by the lack of direction, which is the fault of the political arm of the government.
Think about, for example, the sudden emergence of a decentralization policy. One hundred jobs are to be moved out of Whitehorse to the communities. Yet, just prior to doing this, the same government is increasing office space by leaps and bounds in Whitehorse. We have over 30,000 square feet going into the new convention centre in support of that. We have more than 30,000 square feet being provided for in the renovations of the old Yukon College in Riverdale. There is a concern in the private sector as to what is going to happen when all the empty offices become a reality, because, coupled with the decentralization, we also have the federal government moving into new office space.
One cannot help but be struck by the simple fact that the right arm of this government does not seem to know what the left arm is doing.
Consider the $8,000 program to make all in the Yukon aware of the deleterious effect on the environment of burning fossil fuels. You switch on the radio now and hear someone saying if your car is inefficient, it burns more gas; that is really useful information. If your furnace is inefficient, it burns more fuel. That is really important information. I am glad that it is being communicated at a mere $8,000.
At the same time, there are no new hydro initiatives in the works. Here we have a government that has been doing very little on the supply side to cut down on the use of diesel to generate electricity. In the past five or six years, we have had a government that has been increasing the demand side by installing electrical heat in the Yukon housing projects - a practice they have just stopped - when the hydro capacity in the Yukon cannot possibly meet the demand even on the grid - the grid that links the main generators of hydro electricity together.
The right hand is saying that we must not burn too much gas in our cars and we should make sure we go for a tune-up. The other hand is busy doing things to encourage additional demand for and reliance on diesel-generated electricity. We all know that is one of the least efficient uses of diesel power.
The government used to talk about stopping leakage in the economic system of Yukon. The Government Leader or Premier gave a cute speech years ago in the House - something about “a hole in my bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza. There’s a hole in my bucket.” We have this same government, in its Yukon 2000 process, getting most of the printing done outside Yukon. All the consultants doing marketing for tourism and so on are based in Vancouver and other southern parts. The government is spending millions of dollars on them. Perhaps the branches should get their acts together.
There is a sense of frustration among those who work for the government about a lack of direction. They do not know where we are going, so they cannot really be expected to pull together. One gets the impression we have a government content simply to be in power. That seems to be what counts. They do not do a hell of a lot. They spend a lot of money putting out any political fires that might spring up.
This is a cynical, manipulative government at a time in our history in Canada when people are increasingly distrustful of government and of politicians in all levels of government, in all places in Canada. Cynical and manipulative. Consider the Watson Lake sawmill. The other side is giggling. Some of them at the sawmill took the actions of the government to heart. There were a few people who thought they were less than perfect on this score. One can recall that the true losses of Hyland were hidden from the public until after the general election and were revealed only then. Yet, the government saw fit to reveal the idea of cutting electrical power rates and did that before they were able to by contract. They certainly announced that decision well in advance of the election call.
We have the hasty sale of the Watson Lake sawmill because of the embarrassment of the government regarding the losses. We have the fact that this hasty sale was entered into negligently and has cost Yukoners - not only taxpayers but businesspeople as well - millions and millions of dollars. Not just on the lost money we can glean from ledgers and court cases, but through lost opportunities in the forest industry where the government has apparently thrown up its hands and walked away because “once bitten, twice shy”.
The power rate is going up again and the government is going to try to pretend it is because of the GST and is going to spend some money offsetting that small portion of the increase. That is not the reason. The reason power rates are going up is because the parent corporation needs money to sustain all the losses at the sawmill in Watson Lake.
It is going to be interesting to find out where all the millions of dollars in losses have come from. We know there was $8 million in the last books we saw that was paid from the Yukon Energy Corporation to the Yukon Development Corporation in dividend payments. We suspect that a lot more have been paid.
By way of illustration on this point with regard to the cynical, manipulative government, we have the “warm bodies memo” from the Minister of Education. That was under the glare of what was happening in the Department of Education - the workplace harassment. This memo was to Mr. Workplace Harassment himself, the deputy minister. It is amazing now that the three positions in career counselling have been moved from Whitehorse out to the communities. It is such a wonderful coincidence that those were some of the warm bodies that the Minister apparently referred to in his memo.
We have the increasing sense this has become a closed government - a government that has been hiding the facts surrounding the losses at the Watson Lake sawmill. We are going to court on December 10 in a desperate attempt to pry information loose from the Minister responsible, and from the corporation. The Public Accounts Committee has been stymied in its attempts thus far to delve into the situation as was called for by an amended motion in this House, a motion amended by the Minister responsible.
We have the phony court cases to try to prevent the information from coming out while it is still fresh and while the issue is still in the mind of the public.
We have a government that has said to reporters on several occasions that it was unwilling to tell Yukoners about the plans of the Yukon Energy Corporation for hydro, because they are worried about the not-in-my-backyard syndrome - they can spend thousands of dollars going around asking Yukoners what they want to see from this corporation and get a handle on where the hydro should go or if there should be hydro - yet they will not divulge background information about what kind of hydro sites might make some sense.
We will debating that issue very soon - on Wednesday - because we are going to ask that the Minister responsible table all of that information so that Yukoners can see what their government plans.
We have the situation surrounding the Smith report, which the government held onto for over a year and finally released, only after a rather embarrassing about face when one Minister pirouetted and said, “we will give it to you”, and then someone unscrewed himself from that position. It took a long-distance telephone call from Newfoundland, I think it was. At least it was not from Sweden, where Mr. Workplace Harassment, the Minister, and his executive assistant went this summer - it was a hasty telephone call from Newfoundland when he said that he thought they could have it but they really cannot - now they have it and it is great.
The economic programs regarding economic diversification have failed. We have become more and more dependent on a growing, more costly government, a government with O&M commitments that are rising by the day, if not by the hour. At the same time, we are concerned about the waste - all the money that has been wasted by this government in the past almost six years. Yukoners know about that: the MV Anna Maria, the Watson Lake sawmill, the Ross River arena, the Belvedere Hotel, the streetscape program - how about the curling rink in Elsa that has never been used or the community club in Elsa that all kinds of money was spent on and then the roof collapsed?
There are lots of examples of waste and I am afraid there will be lots more coming up during this session. We will be focussing on this, of course, in the weeks and months to come. As well, we will be urging the government to try to get its act together and get back into the devolution game - not just with the health transfer, which is long overdue and which sat with nothing being done for months and months and months.
How about forestry? How about developing a careful policy with regard to managing forestry, with regard to allocation of harvest and how the harvest should be calculated for each year, obtaining the devolution of responsibility for forestry from the federal government and using that as one of the cornerstones for economic diversification.
How about if we move ahead and get our act together with regard to some hydro development and not play politics and run scared because to talk about hydro development may scare off some of the environmentalists’ support that this government is so busy courting, but just do our job and tell us what we can expect with regard to the future and where hydro comes in and what sites have been examined and what sites might go ahead after public consultation.
How about overhauling the wasteful government grant programs over at the One Stop Business grab? How about overhauling those and trying to get some meaningful money out to the private sector, by way of loans. How about making private sector growth a priority, rather than government growth, for a change. That would be kind of nice.
We have waste; we have a government that is bumbling along, not knowing where it is going; we have money running out. People in the Yukon deserve to know how this government is going to try to do a better job, how this government is exactly going to, once it has tripped and fallen on its duff, pick itself up, brush off the dust from the seat of its pants and tell us how it is going to get moving again to try to make Yukon a place where there is some hope in the economic field in the communities, where we have our economy diversified and where the private sector will once again play a meaningful role with regard to developing our great future.
Hon. Mr. Penikett: It is always interesting to follow the Leader of the Opposition. He has given us much thought-provoking comment in his speech. He has not, as is his wont, given us a prescription or any sense of direction himself, but he has attacked us with all the weapons and energy and force at his disposal. I have to tell him that we are not convinced.
In the last territorial general election, this party campaigned on a platform that included four main planks. Firstly, we wanted to complete land claims negotiations. Secondly, we wanted to implement the economic strategy and the conservation strategy and achieve sustainable development in the Yukon Territory. We wanted to work toward the development of healthy communities with a whole series of initiatives in the health and social services field. Finally, we wanted to provide good government.
The throne speech for the House provides a vivid and dramatic expression of the initiatives we are taking on every one of those specifics. I would argue that we are moving forward effectively to implement the agenda on which we were elected.
The Leader of the Official Opposition describes the agenda as boring, that it is old hat and that he has heard it before. It is not new, he says. I happen to think the agenda that we are implementing and the program in which we are engaged is an exciting one. It is an agenda that the people of the Yukon endorsed at the last election. It is a rare thing in Canadian history for a government seeking its second term to increase its popular vote, but that is what happened in 1989.
The Leader of the Official Opposition suggests that somehow the public wanted a sleek, energy-efficient machine. I do not know what kind of flashy automobile the Member had in mind but I do not think the public wanted a machine at all. They certainly did not want a political machine the like of which governed this territory until 1985. What the people of the Yukon wanted was a group of ordinary citizens who had a clear agenda about making some changes, bringing in certain reforms, improving life for the people of the territory and bringing in for the first time the voice of people who had not been represented in the previous government offices: the voice of aboriginal people, the voice of women, the voice of people who care about the environment, and about whom the Leader of the Official Opposition has just sneered about. Characteristically, the Leader of the Official Opposition one moment says we should have an environment act and the next moment says we should not listen to environmentalist because they might stop us from building dams. All the contradictions of the positions of the Leader of the Official Opposition are bundled up in that little phrase.
I was fascinated by the way he talked about how he shared the government’s objective of the constitutional entrenchment of the self-government arrangements. He talks about a change in government position. He is absolutely right. It was a change in the government position from the federal Liberal position to the federal Tory position. I happen to not be convinced by his argument that he is for the Tories when they are doing wonderful, popular things and against them when they are not. In my experience, a Tory is a Tory is a Tory. It is the Tory government that has said it will not entrench the self-government agreements except by way of a First Ministers Conference. It is a Tory Prime Minister who said that there will be no more First Ministers Conferences because Quebec will not attend.
The Leader of the Official Opposition talks about his motion on the home owners grant. Since he has been reading my speeches I am sure he has been reading the comments, questions and speeches I wrote on that subject going back a number of years and it is appropriate we should be applauded for taking an initiative at this time.
The Member talks about the focus on children. There is a focus on children. We are taking a number of initiatives, including child care, to which the party opposite used to be opposed until suddenly having a conversion in the middle of the election campaign last year when they discovered how popular what we were doing was.
The initiatives we took in the Education Act are reforms that would not have been contemplated by the Members opposite. They have been enthusiastically endorsed by the people of this territory. We are going to have our hands full with the Children’s Act. The Children’s Act, since the Member opposite mentioned the protection of families, is severely flawed on that score. It is a piece of legislation we opposed when we were in opposition and has been found wanting by the courts and by people working in the field. We, too, in the life of this Legislature, are going to be addressing that bill. We will be talking about a fundamental difference in our attitudes toward children and the family between these two sides of the House.
The Members opposite were part of this Legislature when that legislation came before this House. I remember that debate very well. We will have a chance to discuss that matter again.
The Member says that what is lacking is a sense of vision. Then he goes on to say the throne speech should have a new vision, a new direction. Are we supposed to have a new direction every year? We go north one year, south the next, east the next and west the next. So we end up going around and around in circles and going nowhere. Is that what the Members opposite are offering? I reject, and this party and this government absolutely reject that approach. We established a direction in our platform before our first term, and we established a direction in our platform in our second term, and we are not changing direction every year. What we are doing is doing what we told the people of the Yukon we would do. We are implementing our platform. It cannot be done overnight. It cannot be done instantly. You cannot create healthy communities after generations of social problems. In four or five years, you cannot diversify a community economy that has been focussed and concentrated on one or two sectors for all their history. You cannot build sustainable development or protect the environment. Not only because we do not have the responsibility for land, but because the Tories have left us no legislative base whatsoever on which to do that. Rather than argue that we have done nothing on the environment, I would point to initiatives in land-use planning or initiatives in terms of purchasing, government services, energy management, environmental health initiatives, environmental initiatives that add up to a very substantial agenda. I am not just talking about the conservation strategy or the Environment Act, but a whole range of things that give a very decided green colour to our agenda.
The Member talks about lack of direction, yet he proposes changing direction. This direction was established, this direction was offered to the public, this direction was mandated by the public and this is the direction we intend to pursue.
The Member talks about hundreds of millions of dollars spent, as if somehow it was thrown onto a bonfire somewhere. The Member says it was. The Member is wrong. This government has put hundreds of millions of dollars into education, hundreds of millions of dollars into transportation, hundreds of millions of dollars into the health of the territory. Many, many dollars have gone into the development of the economy of the territory.
It is true that not every initiative we have undertaken has been successful. Is that a surprise in a country where 50 percent of small businesses go broke in the first five years? Is it a surprise that every effort we have made to bolster the community economies has not been a perfect success? I will tell you what is a surprise: that anybody on the other side who claims to be even handed and fair minded only talks about the negative side, only talks about the problems, and never talks about the big or complete picture, which is a very substantially good record. I want to return to that in a moment.
He says the government is running out of money. That is not the case. We have had cuts and we may have, in real dollar terms, less money available for new initiatives than we did a few years ago. Unlike governments of the Tory stripe everywhere in this country, we are not cutting back social services; we are not contracting out and privatizing government jobs; we are not slashing and burning; we are going to maintain the public services to the people of the territory - not public services we have added on a whim, but public services that have been demanded of us by the citizens of our communities.
The Member says we have no consistency when it comes to office space. Just today I heard the Member opposite talk about how we are going to be moving out of this private sector space into proper space - space which he argued in Question Period should meet government standards. His colleague, the Member on his right hand, the Member for Riverdale North, talked about the space the government is now occupying being substandard. What would they have us do? Continue to operate out of substandard space? Or have us to do the right thing - which I know the Member opposite supports because he said so in Question Period today - and make sure our employees are properly accommodated so they can do their jobs.
He says there are no hydro initiatives. I am not going to satisfy the Member’s appetite tomorrow, because I know in the course of this session I am going to be able to bring forward the plans of this government on this score. It is interesting that we have built, successfully and under budget, a new hydro project. We can talk about the Mayo one, for example, where we have to address one of the major leakages on the Yukon economy - the imported oil problem. In the community we propose to take off oil, Dawson City, by using the surplus power available from the Mayo Dam, the Member opposite is on record as opposing.
The Member opposite is opposed. The Member for Porter Creek East will have an opportunity to address this during this session, probably several times.
Mr. Lang: (inaudible)
Hon. Mr. Penikett: I beg the Member’s pardon. Would the Member care to repeat his last remark?
Mr. Lang: On a point of order, I would like to correct the record here.
Speaker: Point of order to the Member for Porter Creek East.
Mr. Lang: The Member opposite refers to the dam in Elsa. He had better look at the record. The replacement of a number of penstocks in that particular dam was done in order to service the mine in Elsa. All of a sudden, the Minister is standing up to rewrite history.
Speaker: Order please. I find there is no point of order, just a conflict between two Members.
Hon. Mr. Penikett: We just had a wonderful example of how well informed the Member for Porter Creek East is. He said we replaced penstocks. Of course, no penstocks whatsoever were replaced. He is dead wrong, as he often is.
The Member ...
Mr. Lang: What do you call yourself this week?
Hon. Mr. Penikett: The Member opposite can call me anything he likes, and I will be happy, in turn, to refer to him as the territorial councillor for Porter Creek East, if that is what he likes.
The Members opposite have a convenient memory on all sorts of things. The Leader of the Official Opposition talked about cynical and manipulative government. He then complains because, in the case of the sawmill, we did not announce the losses for the year’s operation. That is a fascinating statement, since he says we should have done that before the election. The election was in February, and the year end did not happen until March 31. Somehow, in an entirely novel intervention, we should try to anticipate ...
Some Hon. Members: (inaudible)
Hon. Mr. Penikett: I clearly hit a nerve. In this case, they do not like the facts.
Let us examine the facts on another subject: power rates. I very clearly heard the Member opposite say we are increasing power rates but are pretending it is because of the GST. On December 31 of this year, a rider instituted by the Public Utilities Board is coming off. The people of rural Yukon will still be paying less for their basic rate of power than they were on April 1, 1987, when we took over the power company. The people in Whitehorse are going to be paying approximately the same.
He now says that, somehow, the GST has no impact. That is fascinating and gets back to my point that a Tory is a Tory is a Tory. He is now denying that the GST has an impact. Perhaps, in his own backhanded way, this is an endorsement of the GST and support for his federal cousins.
The GST is going to cost people seven percent on their power bills. We are doing something to try and moderate the impact for the first quarter of the next year, because there are people - elders and poor people - who are going to be negatively affected. It is a temporary cushion we can provide, but that is all we can do.
The Member opposite talks about phony court cases, and then wants to try them right here on the floor of this House. We all know the validity of the court cases initiated by the Development Corporation will be tested in court, as will the validity of the Member opposite’s case.
The Member opposite talks about international travel, and he mentions Sweden. We all know what the Member opposite’s true position is, because he has said it on the record. He is opposed to any international travel, unless he is doing it and is part of the trip. He made that very clear and is being very consistent on that score.
The Member talks about economic record. Let us take a look at the economic record of the territory. I would be very surprised if the Member opposite can tell me of any jurisdiction in the country that has consistently had the same rate of growth as the Yukon Territory has over the last five years. If we do not have the best record of economic development in the last five years, we certainly have one of the best in the country. The majority of the jobs that were created were private sector jobs, not public sector, and that is a matter of record.
There has been significant diversification of the Yukon economy, and it continues, but it will not happen overnight. We will not magically have a southern Ontario, or southern British Columbia, a balanced and diversified economy in the space of two or three years. Everything we are doing in terms of the Yukon 2000 process, the economic strategy, and the implementation of that, will take many years.
The Member talks about cynical and manipulative. I doubt there is anything I have heard that is quite as cynical and manipulative as the Member opposite’s claim that he and his government somehow arranged for the opening of the mine at Faro. When we talk about the balanced agenda, it is interesting that, on one hand, he says we are to blame for everything that has gone wrong and, somehow, they are to be credited for everything good that has happened. It is wonderful, because I have been through the record. I say to that Member opposite, “Humbug.” There is not a single agreement in connection with the re-opening of the mine at Faro that has that Member’s signature, or shows that he had anything to do with negotiating. There is nothing: not the housing package, nor the energy package, nor the transportation package, nor the financial package. There is nothing. He did not even meet the new owners of the mine until we brought them here to the Assembly at the end of the negotiations.
Humbug, Mr. Speaker, humbug.
I am absolutely convinced that if we continue on this way, it will not be very many years until the Leader of the Opposition is going around the territory, God forbid, claiming credit for the Human Rights Act.
I know that the Member for Porter Creek East, who is a man of very right-wing views, but a man of principle, will never support the Human Rights Act, but the Leader of the Opposition has demonstrated a different kind of flexibility, a different kind of creativity, a certain kind of convenient memory. I know that I will live long enough to hear him claim credit for that piece of legislation; I am sure of it.
We all know what the Leader of the Opposition’s position is on some of these questions. We have wide reports and many, many calls about his recent statement about “heads are going to roll in the public service”. It is an interesting thing because it reminds people, of course, what happened when the Conservative government came in in Saskatchewan after there had been a NDP government for a number of years and fired hundreds of civil servants, some of them because they were alleged to be NDPers, which I understand is the claim that the Leader of the Opposition makes about anybody in our public service who perhaps does not hold a Tory card; therefore, they are guilty. In Saskatchewan, as a matter of record, there were some people who were fired simply because they had the same name as former NDP MLAs, even though they were not relatives.
The Member can talk all he wants about the public service, but I know that we in this territory are taking steps to build a much more professional and much more representative public service, one that will serve this territory very well in coming generations, no matter who is in government. This is not a party that required deputy ministers to attend a leadership convention and wear silly hats in violation of the law; it is not a party that did that. This is not a party that vilifies the former leader’s principal secretary as has been done to my former principal secretaries; rather, we have appointed that person to very important public boards - certainly as evidence of the ugly patronage that is at work in this government.
I am quite happy to compare my record, the record of our government, with his on that score, on any day. On the public service question, which is central to us now, which is the question of decentralization, we have just been through a Question Period today that is fascinating. After listening to the Member in Question Period, I still do not know if he is for or against it. What is their position on decentralization? It seems to be: it was done too fast but we took too long to do it. We should have taken more time, but we should have done it a long time ago. Well, some of the Members opposite were in government for a good number of years. I know what the perspective in the rural communities is on this question. It is that they did nothing on this subject - nothing during their time in government. I happen to know that because some of those people in the rural communities have accused us of not doing enough in our first term. Even though I believe that we located something like 100 jobs in rural Yukon in our first term, I think that that is fair comment; it is fair comment that we did not do enough. I will accept that criticism, but we have also responded to that criticism by making a very firm commitment to locate 100 jobs in the next three years, and in terms of the percentage of our public service, this is the most significant decentralization initiative taken by any government in the country, and a large number of governments are doing it, whether in Saskatchewan or Manitoba or Ontario - governments of all stripes - but this one is very, very significant.
When I listen to the Leader of the Opposition talk about heads rolling, I can think of nothing more than the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland, running around going, “Off with their heads; off with their heads; off with their heads.” Perhaps it should be the Blue Queen, not the Red Queen. His whole speech, I must say, had a distinct sort of Alice-in-Wonderland feel to it; it was sort of schizophrenic, dream-like, arbitrary, but also, as he recommended we do, constantly changing, equivocating all over the map, changing direction every year. Are we going to have a throne speech with a new direction every year, just like he suggested?
He suggested that somehow we should be trimming the bureaucracy - good right-wing stuff - hack the bureaucrats. Well, let us talk about who these bureaucrats are. Let us talk about the people who have been added to the public service. Somehow the Members opposite suggest that these are faceless automatons sitting in offices, twiddling their thumbs, doing nothing. Well, quite the reverse is true. We are talking about the people who are teaching our kids in the schools. We are talking about special education teachers. We are talking about family support workers. We are talking about people who are out there building our roads, educating our kids, looking after the health and social services of our citizens, developing our economy. I am talking about those people; real citizens: taxpaying, thinking, contributing citizens, who enrich the life of the territory, not only at work, but after hours, too.
These are the people who eat in the restaurants, who shop in the stores, who buy tickets to the movies, who contribute very substantially to the local economy. There are an awful lot of merchants in this town who depend on those people. There are a lot of merchants in rural Yukon who like an opportunity to have access to those kinds of payrolls and that kind of purchasing power. That is why we proceeded with the decentralization as we have.
The Member opposite talked in one of his recent public statements about how we have missed a golden opportunity to develop the Yukon economy. Well, I would argue that the record shows that in spite of the things that have not gone well, we have a better record in economic development than any other provincial administration in this country. The economy is diversified. It is strengthening, and hundreds and hundreds of private sector jobs have been created.
There is a recession going on. We will have an opportunity to talk about this during the budget debate. Believe me, we are taking the steps to try to provide the stability that the Yukon economy and the Yukon people desperately want.
The Member opposite has occasionally said that we have taken too long in policy development. That is a fascinating critique since I think the more common critique that we are getting from citizens in the community is that we are trying to do too much too fast; there are too many consultations; they wish we would take more time. In fact, I doubt if any fair critic would talk about this government having a thin or poor or intellectually-impoverished agenda in front of them. In fact quite the opposite is true. This government has been elected to do a very big and complex job.
The Member criticizes devolution. There has been very substantial devolutions in the life of this government, whether you are talking about NCPC, fresh water fisheries, mine safety, B and C airports, interterritorial roads or the health transfer. He then says somehow we should instantly do Forestry.
Now I happen to know that just the personnel questions surrounding the forestry issue will be complex and will take time. The magic midnight transfers, the way that it was done in the Northwest Territories in terms of the hospitals, leave problems for months and years afterwards. We prefer the approach of trying to deal with those problems beforehand rather than later.
In 1985 and in 1989, the people of the Yukon gave us a mandate. That mandate was to settle land claims, to build sustainable development, help foster the creation of healthy communities and provide good government and that is the mandate that we are still respecting, honouring and living by.
The throne speech that we have heard and we are debating now is an expression of that mandate. It is not the mandate such as the Member opposite suggests, of wandering all over the map, changing direction every year just for the sake of being fresh and new and different. It may be, from his point of view, that we are boring and dull, but we have a big job to do. The five people in this Cabinet and the nine people in this caucus and many dozens of people in the public service with leadership roles in the departments are helping us with this the agenda. It is a daunting task. We are not afraid of the task. We think it is a challenging job. It is a challenging job. We have made mistakes but, in the final analysis, I am prepared to put our record against the record of the Members opposite. I am prepared, when the day comes, to have both records judged by the people of the Yukon Territory. I have no doubt what their conclusions would be.
Thank you.
Mr. Lang: I would like to begin by making an observation that the Government Leader, in his haste to rewrite history once again, gave the impression to all Members in this House that prior to his forming a cabinet there had neither been women nor people of native ancestry represented in positions such as the Executive. The record can be checked to see that that is incorrect. If we want to talk about gender balance, we were the first party in the Yukon Territory to have a woman leader. The Member should at least acknowledge that all political parties are doing their best to get representatives from all segments of the population so that this House can be adequately represented. I can say as a Member of this House back in 1976, when there was an electoral boundary commission, there was a stipulation by all Members of this House that there should be redistribution in such a manner to ensure there would be some native representation in this House. All Members of all political stripes supported this. To see the vindictive attack on Members on this side with respect to matters of this kind really leaves a bad taste in everybody’s mouth. It is clear it will be a nasty session if this kind of attitude continues by the Government Leader and the front bench.
We are here as duly elected Members to ask questions. The Government Leader has the responsibility to answer those questions and do it well. He must give the information the public needs to assess whether or not the government is functioning in the manner it should.
I would like to begin with some observations I feel are due. I think the government should be commended on the change in the medical travel requirements and the initiatives taken for the purposes of offsetting the costs for those who must travel away from their homes, whether from Yukon or from rural homes to the City of Whitehorse for medical care. This is long overdue and it is fortunate we had this session called at this time. It may have prompted a public declaration being made.
I also want to give the City of Whitehorse some credit, particularly in the area I represent - Porter Creek East and I guess in Porter Creek in general. Over the course of the past year they have made considerable capital investment in that part of the community, such as the installation of water and sewer in some areas. The grassing of the public areas along the roadways has really been a great step in raising the quality of life in that area as has been the paving and installation of curbs and gutters and other projects. The City of Whitehorse deserves much credit, as does this government, as it indirectly does provide a significant amount of money to allow the City of Whitehorse to proceed in that manner.
The other area I would like to touch on is to give credit to a couple of individuals who were honoured here the other day. One is Joe Mason from Dawson City, who was inducted into the hall of fame. I was pleased to see that not only was he inducted into the hall of fame but that it was done in his home community. I know Joe was very proud as was his family. The other is James Fowler, who has put in countless hours in hockey for our youth. It was a step in the right direction to acknowledge his past and continued work in minor hockey. To some degree, he can be credited with some of our young players gaining accreditation either at the university level or in a quest to become a professional hockey player.
I listened to the Speech from the Throne with a great deal of interest and I listened to the Government Leader slapping himself on the back continuously saying how well we were doing as a society. I want to bring up an area from a social point of view I have become very concerned about, regarding law and justice. It has to do with the way our communities are changing. I point especially to Whitehorse but it also affects our other communities.
In the last year we have read about assaults on women who are walking in our communities in the evenings. We have seen this happen not only once or twice but on numerous occasions.
That, to me is a bell-weather of what kind of community we are building, when we see this type of thing happening in our community, when we have women, largely single women, who say to us they are afraid to go out in the evening unaccompanied. It is not the Whitehorse I used to know, it is not the Yukon I used to know. It is important we take a look at our programs and our justice system if this type of action is going to be considered a norm for everyday living. It concerns me very much when I see the lack of respect for the justice system.
I will tell you of a situation that happened in my riding, and my riding is not the only one in which it has been happening. It happened in two or three streets around where I lived, and in other communities as well. It is the question of break and entry by young offenders. We had a rash of break and entries that took place approximately a month and one half ago. Young people as young as 13 and as old as 20 were going into people’s homes and taking things they felt were their just due. I give the RCMP full marks because it did not last long - they were caught. They were apprehended and steps were taken through the court system. I am very concerned with the lack of respect that these young people have for the authorities. One mother went to court and followed the proceedings all the way through. One of the young lads who had broken into her home was wearing a shirt he had stolen from her son’s room when he went into the court room. They are smart alecky. They go in chewing gum. There is no respect for the judge. At times, the judge has to intercede and tell the attorney representing these young people to tell their client - 13, 14 or 15 years old - to remove the gum and the smile from his face while he hears the case. What does that tell you? It tells you there is no respect for society. There is no respect for the authorities.
I want to forewarn the Minister of Health and Human Resources that I want to see a good debate over the course of this House and probably during the budget mains with respect to how we are handling young offenders and what changes are going to be implemented in the future in the program to counteract this lack of respect.
The information I have is that young people hit the receiving homes for one reason or another - many times it is not of their own making and I will get to that - and they subsequently graduate to these various crimes. As time goes on, it becomes more and more serious; they advance from break and entry to assault and more serious crimes against society. There is a responsibility on us as government, as representatives of the public at large, to review our programs to see what we can do to try to capture these kids so they can, and maybe will, be rehabilitated, as opposed to accepting the status quo and saying we cannot do anything and send them to the receiving home or Na Dli.
We have a young offenders facility here that on the average takes three to six kids a day. It is costing hundreds of thousands of dollars to run. What is the ultimate outcome? What happens to these kids? Anybody serious is sent outside; we cannot handle them ourselves. This particular facility was supposed to do that but has not.
I want to alert the Minister that I intend to speak on this. Perhaps he can tell us what alteration in programming is going to take place in order that these young people are taught to have some respect for the general public and the authorities. If it continues the way it is going, we are not doing our job; we are ignoring it. It is an easy thing to ignore because there are not a lot of votes out there from those particular people.
Another area I want to touch on where I see substantial social changes taking place in our society is the question of single parents. Over the past month, we have read a number of newspaper articles on violence in the school grounds. There has been some going on, contrary to the attempt to rebut some of the public statements that have been made. In the majority of cases, it boils down to the fact that a lot of these kids are coming from single-parent families.
I have an example. For anybody in this House who is working at a full-time job and is a single parent, I do not have to tell them how difficult it is. I could not imagine being a single parent. I could not imagine going home, after an eight- to 10-hour shift, and cooking for four children, being cheerful, ensuring they get to their soccer games, basketball games, gymnastics, and ensuring they get their homework done, and then pretend this is fun.
We are going to have to reassess our social calendar, as we see it in today’s society. We are looking at classes where 50 percent of the children are coming from single-parent families. There is a social revolution that is occurring before our eyes, and I question whether we are addressing it.
I do not believe buying day cares with taxpayers’ money is going to solve the problem. I have no problem in assisting and helping a single parent or spouse who wants to go out to work and lead a professional life, or upgrade their credentials. However, I think there is another role we should be looking at that is just as important. We should be looking within our government resources and how we could distribute it. That role is the parent who would like to stay home.
Not just here in the Yukon, but across Canada and North America, the emphasis is to provide day care so the single parent can go to work, and must go to work. At the same time, the most important job we have as parents is raising our children. That is the most important job we can have as a parent. We cannot do that if we are not spending some time at home. I do not understand how we can expect the single mother with two children to maintain a family life by getting up at 6:00 in the morning, getting the kids ready for school and herself ready for work, coming home at 5:30 and having to cook.
We have to start looking at how we can offset and implement a program within our existing resources that will allow those single parents who wish to stay home to do so with enough financial resources. That is not being done.
On the same subject, I believe when these divorces are taking place and these people are separated, at least one spouse is getting off too lightly. It has to be expected that if a spouse leaves and he or she is the major wage earner they should be paying a good portion of the cost of raising those children. In many cases, that is not happening. When you take a look at the cost of raising a child today, you think you have a good deal at Woolco when you get runners for $50 because they were on sale. Anyone raising children today knows how expensive it is. In many cases, the spouse who has left pays something, but I think it is minimal compared to the actual cost. The justice system is going to have to look at that, if it goes that far and a judgment has to be made.
I want to make some observations on what is happening to our community on the proliferation of buildings. I just spoke about parents and kids who are in some very tough straits. I wonder where government planning is going when I heard last spring that $300,000 was awarded to look for a community centre downtown. I believe there was no city consultation on that. All of a sudden, there was a grant for that particular endeavour.
I believe these people intend well, but I question what we are doing when we have an arts centre in the process of being built up the hill, a convention centre coming in downtown, and various other facilities being built in the City of Whitehorse. Now, we are looking at yet another structure. I feel we should look more intensely at the questions being raised by people looking at insurmountable problems unless we, as government, are prepared to work with them. I do not necessarily think building another building is going to solve the problem. It may make a politician feel good to cut a ribbon somewhere, or eat a cake, but are we really addressing the problems out there?
With respect to the question of wildlife, I know the Minister heard me this morning. I put on a motion to address the serious problems in game zones 7 and 9. We have raised this concern continually over the past six years. The concern is that particular area is being decimated. The moose and caribou populations are to the point where we are on a draw now in that area. It used to be a 10-day open season. Those that can be regulated are no longer hunting in that area.
I submit the Minister and government have not done their job in that area. I feel strongly that the results of this inaction, and of the Minister of Renewable Resources not being prepared to face his obligations because of what he deemed to be environmental flack, are that we have a situation where the majority of hunters in the Whitehorse area have to go elsewhere. I had the opportunity to go into the Ross River area this year. We flew in on our hunting trip and ran across four other hunting parties in the space of three days. All those hunters were from Whitehorse.
I can sympathize with the people of Ross River when they see this influx of traffic in their small community going out and hunting in what they think, to some degree, is their own preserve. Not only did that area suffer the onslaught of Whitehorse hunters but, also with the community of Faro back in production, there are that many more hunters going into the North Canol, Ross River, north lakes and Pelly Lakes area. In part, I believe it is the inaction of the government that has caused that.
As a person who does enjoy the wildlife and goes hunting once a year, I would prefer not having to go 300 to 350 miles away from home. I would prefer to be able to go within 50 to 100 miles of Whitehorse and feel quite satisfied that I will not run into other people, because that is one of the major reasons I go out. I do not want to see a telephone, nor do I want to see other people. Secondly, I want to feel I have a fair chance at a fair chase for game. That is not happening anymore. All the platitudes are being said. All the political posturing is being done yet, at the same time, there is no action.
I do know the Minister is going to be receiving some sort of recommendation on game zones 7 and 9. I want to alert him it will be my intention, as the critic in that area, to pursue that with a great deal of zeal over the course of this session if the government chooses not to enact a comprehensive game management program.
If it is not enacted, there will be a problem throughout the territory. In smaller communities, there will be more anti-Whitehorse feelings than there are now, as they see these people coming into their community. It is not fair to the rural communities, and it is not fair to those who happen to live in Whitehorse. I realize the side opposite plays the Whitehorse versus the rural community song very well. As a representative of Whitehorse constituents, who in part live up here because of their enjoyment of the outdoors, I believe they have a right to be able to go out and hunt in close proximity to their home. If they are not able to do that, we are not doing our job as game managers.
The question of land disposition is another area of concern. I have had a number of situations develop where I have had people come to me because they cannot get land. I believe the land disposition policy for the purpose of agricultural land has to change. I do not believe the government is exercising its prerogative when it permits an application that has been vetted and asks an Indian band to make the decision on whether that land should be awarded, whether it be the Tatchun Indian Band or the Teslin Indian Band. I have no problem with other interests being consulted, but I do not believe the government should take that position.
One case comes to mind - and it is a constituency question, and I want to alert the Minister of Community and Transportation Services he is getting a letter on it - is that an Indian band should be able to block a transfer of land if it meets all the criteria that the government has laid out. The government has to reassess its policy. When this is done, and the government takes that position, there are real hard feelings between individuals on the social side, where they blame the Indian people for the fact they cannot get a piece of land.
I submit to this House that that is not right. If the government does not want to release a piece of property, then say so and give the reasons why, but do not blame it on a third party. It is a total abrogation of one’s responsibility when you do that. On top of that, it is not good for our community. In this example about the people who have come to me, do you think they are happy when they are told the Indian people will not let them have their land? They are not happy, and do you know who they are mad at? They are mad at the Indian people, and that does nothing for the social relations in our community.
As an MLA, there is another area of major concern to me, which has to do with the feelings within the public service and the politicization of it. There is a real feeling within the public service that they do not have the right to freedom of expression. There is a reason I say that. A couple of weeks ago, within our riding, we decided to do a phone poll of our constituents. The idea was not partisan. The call was on the behalf of the MLA, asking if they have any outstanding problems they would like me, as the Member, to raise in the House.
I had a number of supporters who said they would like to have done it, but they were working for the government and did not feel comfortable calling and giving their name. As a member of the public service, they could be identified as one of Danny Lang’s supporters.
There was an individual in business who is directly reliant on government for his work. He said he would prefer not to call. Those are just two people, but there were others as well. In talking to the public service, there are many who are concerned about what the government is doing within the public service. I know many of them, and they are good people.
There is an atmosphere of fear and intimidation. As an MLA phoning within the public service, I do not have as many problems as the Members for Hootalinqua or Watson Lake. The City of Whitehorse takes a lot of those responsibilities, being a larger municipality. When I phone, as soon as they find out who is calling, I find they are very reserved in what they are prepared to speak to me about - if they are prepared to speak to me. In some cases, I am led to believe there are orders you do not talk to anybody unless they are from the Executive Council Office.
If that is correct, and if that is the policy direction of the government, that means we as MLAs have fewer rights than an individual citizen. That is an area that myself, as well as many members of the public, are very concerned about.
I want to move on to some other comments that were made by the Government Leader. It is too bad we cannot have a national podium, because I listened with a great deal of interest as he pronounced to the general public how he is the great economic guru of Canada, of how he is the leading edge of economics for all of Canada, and of how our growth rate has grown over the past years since he took office.
The Minister has not stood up and said there is over $600 million per year spent in the Yukon Territory by government - that is municipal, territorial and federal. The Minister stands in his place and says he can take full responsibility for this growth within the territory. Right now, we are the most fortunate place in North America and the world from a financial point of view and as far as transfer payments are concerned. Right now, it figures out to over $20,000 being spent by government per man, woman and child.
The Minister says how difficult it is to govern. He has had a bucket that has been full every year - so full there are so many consultants now in town they have their own organization. They cannot get into the trough to wallow deep enough in it and get enough out of it at any given time. Even now, with the idea of leakage, a great deal of that is going to people in Vancouver and to various other firms outside of Yukon, because Yukoners do not have the qualifications, nor the ability, to understand how to spend this vast volume of money.
The point this side is making, and this is where I challenge the government opposite, is what investments have we made that will return something to the taxpayers for that $1.7 billion spent - not million but billion dollars - in just six years? I am not talking about the Piers McDonald memorial curling arena, the one that will never see ice nor a rock. I imagine it will turn into a warehouse or maybe a horse shed, or it could be a home for the Minister when he decides to retire. It might be large enough. I am not talking about that. I am talking about how we have invested $1.7 billion, and what we have that is going to encourage further private investment. By private investment I mean people, and I am talking about generating an industry.
No, what we have is a forestry industry in Watson Lake that is a total flat tire. We have the Government Leader standing up and talking about how he was so pleased and proud to introduce us to Mr. Frame from Curragh Resources. I notice that, in the same breath, he did not talk about T.F. Properties and how pleased and proud he would have been to introduce us to this individual who had done such a good job on his behalf, and who just happened to sign all the legal documents but forgot what his name was and did not know he existed.
He also forgets the question of Curragh, and we all know the reason Curragh was put together: in good part, because of Mr. Nielsen and the steps the Government of Canada took, through the Government of the Yukon Territory, in order to get that mine going.
So, in deference to rewriting history, I would like to ask that the next time the Government Leader talks about Curragh Resources and how he started the mine, if he would stand in his place and acknowledge, or just even touch on - because you would not give those terrible, terrible Tories in Ottawa any credit - how Mr. Nielsen maybe did have something to do with it, although I realize you could probably have done it yourself, with no help.
Actually, it is very fortunate the Government of Canada was involved in that, because it is working. If it had been done on the same initiative Watson Lake Forest Products was done on, one would have to wonder how it would have turned out with Tony Timber running the mine at Curragh Resources.
The point that we are making on this side of the floor is we have had a window of opportunity I think is going to very difficult to repeat, quite frankly, as far as access to what could be called free money.
The question we are asking is how we are spending and investing that money. I think the government has the responsibility to tell the people in the territory how that money has been invested and how it will bear a return to them.
The area I caution the government on regards the buildings being built and the commitments being made. These are not capital commitments. They are O&M commitments on an ongoing basis, and the clock cannot be turned back. I say to the side opposite that they must look at this very closely, because the end result will be that we will not be able to pay for it if we do not find something to provide the government with tax dollars to pay for the operations and maintenance. Right now, we cannot see that happening.
The Speech from the Throne was derelict in the question of the sewage treatment plan for the City of Whitehorse. We have given it platitudes in the Legislature, or smoke and mirrors, if you like. We are talking about an Environmental Act and yet every day we have a situation right here that is creating the worst environmental mess we can imagine right outside these windows. At the same time, I note that the Minister of Community and Transportation Services is saying to the City of Whitehorse that he may or may not help offset costs. The City of Whitehorse is now wondering who is going to pay for it. It seems to me this should be a higher priority than it presently is. The public expects us to meet our environmental obligations. It is a very real problem out there. I want to tell the government now that we will be pursuing this subject over the course of this session. We want to ascertain just exactly how firm a commitment the government has to resolving that problem in conjunction with the City of Whitehorse.
Another area that concerns me is the question of financial cutbacks to municipalities. I will be examining that budget closely, because I do not believe there should be cutbacks to municipalities. If there must be cutbacks in the government, there are other areas where this can be done. I do not think the junior levels of government should be the ones hit if there are to be cutbacks. The government talks about cutbacks over the course of this last year from the Government of Canada. If the media looks closely...
Speaker: Order, please. I would like to remind the Member that he has three minutes to conclude.
Mr. Lang: ...they will find that the Government of Yukon got an additional $4 million over and above the previous year. There was an increase in funds, not a decrease. Unfortunately, the Minister keeps trying to intimate that the big bad federal government is not helping him out the way it should.
I want to conclude by stating that the Government of Yukon is going to have to accept responsibility for its actions. I think the public is sick and tired of hearing the Government Leader and the front bench blame Ottawa for everything and that any financial problems are due to Ottawa not giving them enough money. We have white elephants all through the territory for which this government is responsible. We can start with Watson Lake and work our way up. In Watson Lake there are at least $13 million of expenditures by the government. You can go all the way up to Elsa with the Piers McDonald memorial curling rink, which sits empty and idle as he had the foresight to build a building where nobody was going to be. This is going to be a good session. I hope the government can account for its actions.
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I thank the Members opposite for their applause, although I think it is premature. I have not spoken yet.
It is a pleasure to speak to the throne speech at a time when the Yukon economy is currently one of the healthiest in the country. Generally speaking, the government’s financial position is among the healthiest in the country. It comes at a time when there is a clear vision for the economy embodied in the Yukon Economic Strategy, its goals and action plan determined through extensive consultation with the Yukon public. It comes at a time when there is a clear vision for the protection of the environment, embodied through the document, Yukon Conservation Strategy, also a product of extensive consultation with Yukoners throughout the territory.
It comes at a time when there is a clear vision for education embodied in the Education Act, which is also a product of extensive consultation with Yukoners. It comes at a time when our programs for health and social services are amongst the most progressive and extensive in the entire country.
The message of the throne speech rings true, because it is the result of a Yukon consensus and extensive consultation with Yukon people. If it sounds as though Members have heard it before, it is because this is what the people have been saying for the last few years, and what they are continuing to say.
The Government of Yukon has gone a considerable distance to meet the major obligations of our era, including the completing of the Indian land claim agreement. In some respects, equally important, it is treating Yukon Indian people as territorial citizens in a practical sense. It was always a surprise to me, being a new Minister of Community and Transportation Services back in 1985, that members of the department who were responsible for dealing with community governments and meeting the needs of the Yukon public had never entered some of the Yukon communities in their entire lives, neither professionally nor even on their vacations. They had never gone into communities, such as Pelly Crossing. They had never gone into the Indian side of the communities of Teslin or Mayo, because they had never been asked to. That was another world, the world of Indian Affairs. It was not the responsibility of the Yukon government. I am proud to be a Member of the government that changed that view.
There was a time when members of the same department regarded the citizens of Elsa in the same light. There was a time when they felt that the citizens of Elsa - hardworking, mining people - were not deserving of any care and attention by the Yukon government. There was a time when the people of Elsa could simply fend for themselves, no matter what they paid in taxes or where they lived in that community. If they are lucky enough not to be around to hear the comments by Members opposite, they would be rolling over in their graves if they heard the kind of snide, sneering remarks that come from Members opposite about the obviously belated but serious attempts to redress the wrongs that had been wreaked by the previous Conservative government on that community.
There will be accounting for such projects. There has been accounting for such projects as the Elsa curling rink. I will say to the people who are now returning to Elsa and working there that I will never apologize for sticking up for that community when the government ignored it.
We have gone the distance to improve much of the basic services in all Yukon communities. In some cases, the services were no better than you would find in Third World countries. We have been spending the last five years improving the infrastructure of each and every one of those communities. There is not a single community that has been left out. We have improved the infrastructure for the lives and vitality of those communities, as well as increased their prospects for the future economic development and social vitality.
That is a government that puts its money where its mouth is when it comes to making a commitment to rural Yukon and to all communities of this territory.
We talked about the City of Whitehorse and the tremendous investment that this government has put into this city to improve the fortunes of the capital city of the territory that far outstrip that of the predecessor government that was sitting in this Legislature. In 1985, with capital funding, with myriads of strings attached, the City of Whitehorse would not even have reached $1 million. Five years later, the block fund alone, with no strings attached, is well over $5 million. You cannot account for that by inflationary increases. That will not compute. This government has provided tremendous commitment, never mind the total dollar volume spent, but as a percentage of the total budget, the total commitment outstrips that of the previous government.
The major objective of the government, as outlined in the Speec