Whitehorse, Yukon

Monday, November 5, 1990 - 1:30 p.m.

Speaker: I will now call the House to order. At this time, we will proceed with Prayers.

Prayers

DAILY ROUTINE

Speaker: We will proceed with the Order Paper. Introduction of Visitors.

Are there any Returns or Documents for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Speaker: I have for tabling a report of the Assembly on deductions of indemnities of Members of the Legislative Assembly made pursuant subsection 39(6) of the Legislative Assembly Act.

Speaker: Are there further documents for tabling?

Are there are Reports of Committees?

Are there any Petitions?

Introduction of Bills?

Notices for the Production of Papers?

NOTICES OF MOTION

Ms. Hayden: I give notice of the following motions:

I move

THAT this House congratulates the Conservation Society, R.O.T.S, the Recycling Centre and other volunteer groups that are working to keep Yukon green.

I move

THAT this House supports the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment and its mandate to encourage sustainable development.

I move

THAT this House supports the principle of on site before and after school child care in elementary schools and that this House encourages elementary school councils in the Yukon to consider providing space on site before and after school care for school age children up to the age of 12.

I move

THAT this House supports the Line of Life Society in its quest to make independent living possible for more seniors and people with disabilities.

Ms. Kassi: I move

THAT it is the opinion of this House that the Citizens Forum on Canada’s Future must, as a prerequisite to any meaningful discussion of an inquiry into Canada’s constitutional future, be represented by a diversity of Canadians and that this House urges the Prime Minister of Canada to appoint a representative of the northern territories to the panel of Citizens Forum on Canada’s Future.

Speaker: Are there any Statements by Ministers?

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Trade and Investment Policy for Yukon Businesses

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I would like to inform the House of another new initiative of this government to promote trade and investment that will benefit Yukon businesses.

This government recognizes that an important factor contributing to continuing growth in our healthy economy is cooperation and partnership between government and the Yukon business community. For this reason we have consulted with Yukon business organizations to develop a policy for promoting trade and investment for the territory. The resulting policy enhances the trade and services policy outlined in the Yukon Economic Strategy, and addresses the promotion of business and investment in the Yukon not only nationally but internationally.

This new policy is defined in the document Principles for Promotion of Trade and Investment. These principles include the following: firstly, to encourage economically viable ventures; secondly, promote an accurate image of the Yukon and its investment opportunities; thirdly, maintain communications between sectors to cooperatively attain compatible development; fourthly, focus support for trade and investment in industries and sectors likely to be controlled by the Yukon people; fifthly, assist private sector development by supporting the enhancement of infrastructure, the natural environment, communities, and human resources, as well as providing business and investors with marketing information, research results and other information, and, finally; expand investment promotion to Europe, the Pacific Rim, Circumpolar regions and other new markets.

In many ways, this government has, over the years, already implemented elements of these principles. For example, in 1986 we introduced a trade show policy that assists Yukon businesses to promote trade and investment opportunities at regional, national and international trade shows and investment forums. In 1989/90, 25 firms were assisted, resulting in an estimated $350,000 worth of trade.

Whitehorse has also produced promotional materials, such as the Invest in the Yukon brochure, and supported private sector production of brochures, catalogues and advertising. As well, we have assisted with research projects that promote new Yukon investment opportunities. One notable example is the Klondike Placer Miners Association’s study of Industrial Minerals and Minor Metals and their Potential in the Yukon, sponsored by the industrial research assistance program of the National Research Council.

We have regularly promoted investment in the Yukon mineral industry at the Northern Geoscience Forum, the Dawson Gold Show, the Cordilleran roundup in Vancouver, and the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada Annual Meeting in Toronto.

We have also promoted trade and Yukon investment opportunities nationally and internationally, concentrating on the Circumpolar and Pacific Rim regions. We have sent trade missions, composed of both government and private sector delegates, to Nordic and Pacific Rim countries. We took part in and assisted private businesses to participate in Globe ‘90, an international trade show on sustainable development, the International Business and Investment Exposition and the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce Conference and Trade Show. As well, we recently assisted Yukon delegates in a joint trade mission with Alaska to the Soviet Union.

Principles for Promotion of Trade and Investment will be our framework for enhancing economic development in these areas. This policy is in keeping with the goals of the Yukon Economic Strategy and the priorities of the Yukon business community. It will guide the actions of this government in its continuing promotion of trade and investment for the territory. It also sets guidelines for the development of future policies to meet our changing needs in trade and investment.

Mr. Phillips: I am pleased to see that the Government of Yukon and the Chamber of Commerce have reached an agreement in this matter. It is nice to see an NDP government finally coming out in support of the free-trade agreement and encouraging people to participate.

I would suggest, though, we could be doing a lot more. I would like to see this government working a lot closer with her nearest neighbour and her nearest market, Alaska. We do not seem to have any type of in-depth analysis of benefits we could receive if we increased our trade with Alaska. That is one area we could look at. This government should also be assisting the Yukon businesses in this regard.

Several times in the past I have also suggested that we could develop a made-in-Yukon catalogue similar to the one that has been developed and produced in Alaska. It could be sent out to the potential buyers the Minister mentioned in his statement earlier. This could result in direct benefits to Yukoner suppliers and Yukon businesses.

I am encouraged by the statement made here today by the Minister, and I would encourage him in the strongest terms to consider other initiatives such as the ones I have mentioned here today.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I thank the Member for his comments. I will assure the Member that these are not our only thoughts with respect to trade and investment. We have taken seriously some of the points he has made in the past and we will continue to do so.

We have also made serious intergovernmental contacts with the State of Alaska to improve our understanding between governments. Both governments now recognize that increased trade opportunities will come gradually with time and with increased business contacts.

We are assisting businesses in that effort and will continue to do so. I am sure that will make the Members opposite very happy. The government will also certainly continue promoting the principles of the Yukon Economic Strategy, which I know all Members support.

Speaker: This, then brings us to Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Question re: Budget revenues

Mr. Phelps: I have a few questions of the Minister responsible for the Bureau of Statistics.

I am concerned about a chart that has been annexed to the budget speech of the Minister of Finance on page 48. It is a chart that both the Minister of Finance and the Minister responsible for statistics have alluded to on numerous occasions. I find the figures there to be misleading and deceptive.

Why on earth would the department include the gross revenues for Yukon Housing Corporation and the Yukon Liquor Corporation in determining the total budgetary income of this government?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I believe the Member directed the question to me, as Minister responsible for the statistics branch.

I would have to verify this information, but I am reasonably sure that the information provided as appendices in the budget speech and in the budget book would be the product of the Department of Finance.

Unless otherwise indicated, I would have to verify that. Much of the departmental information that is provided as supplementary information comes from the departments, so I am not exactly sure who is the author of the chart. I would have to ask the Member to restate his question in a way that the Minister of Finance could respond to it.

Mr. Phelps: It is interesting that the Minister responsible for statistics has alluded to this chart in comments he has made. But I will redirect my questions to the Minister of Finance. I would like to know why they would include gross revenues for the Yukon Housing Corporation as part of the total budgetary income. This is a practice the Auditor General of Canada does not follow.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I can only assume that what is being attempted here is to provide comparative information from one year to the next so that, if the information is provided in 1984-85, comparable information is provided in the following years. I can only assume that is one of the reasons for providing the information in this manner.

Mr. Phelps: It is a practice that is not followed by the Auditor General. He does not include any revenues for Yukon Housing Corporation in his figures leading up to revenues for the territory - tax revenues and income - and only the net profit paid from the Liquor Corporation over to the government.

Why would the Minister use completely misleading figures in arriving at this chart? It is part of his speech, after all.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I do not agree that the figures are completely misleading. The entire budget speech is almost completely dedicated to refuting the misleading interpretation of budget figures presented by the Member who is asking the question.

The interpretation of the budget books the Member has put forward to the public is incredibly misleading, and I will be explaining that more clearly in my budget speech. I hope that I will have the opportunity to present even further information, if the Member wishes, in the Committee of the Whole debate.

Question re: Budget revenues

Mr. Phelps: This chart has been used by the Members opposite and the Minister of Finance in particular as proof somehow that we are less dependent on federal transfers than we were a few years back. That is completely false and misleading. Using the gross income for the Yukon Housing Corporation to try and make that weak case leads us to the inevitable proposition that if everyone was living in welfare housing, we would be totally dependent. Does the Minister not agree that is an inappropriate way to mislead the people of the Yukon?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: No, it does not mislead the people of the Yukon. It is an appropriate comparison showing that the assertion made by the Member opposite that the government and people of Yukon are becoming more dependent on the federal transfer payments is wrong. This is wrong and has been wrong for some time.

The many assertions the Member has made that suggest more and more people are working for the Government of Yukon is also wrong. The percentage of the total labour force he quotes is wrong. Consequently, it is up to us to refute the allegations the Members are making, because they are misleading the public.

Mr. Phelps: The Auditor General also includes established program financing as part of the federal transfer payment to this government. Why does this chart not include established program financing as part of the transfer payments from the federal government to this government?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I will have the matter checked, but I can assume that established program financing is financing available to all provinces in the country, and it is provided on a per capita basis to provide certain programs and services on a contractual arrangement between the federal government and the territory or province.

The allegation made in the past is that federal dependence is something we have historically associated with the federal transfer payment, which is our discretionary funding. If the Member is now going to incorporate the EPF, as well as other contract services we provide for the federal government, like other provinces do, then I think that is a terribly misleading proposition.

Mr. Phelps: Is the Minister saying the established program financing is not a transfer payment from the federal government to this government? Is he contradicting the Auditor General?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I said nothing of the sort. Firstly, the Member alleged last week in his budget speech that the EPF was essentially the same as it was this year. The EPF is not the same as it was, from this year to next. There is a $280,000 cut.

The Member opposite may think that that is not a lot of money, but it is $10 for every man, woman and child. We regard it as being a lot of money, and we say so.

The EPF has been cut. The reason we are comparing federal transfer payments here is to demonstrate that the discretionary funding to the Yukon government is declining as a percentage of budgetary income.

Question re: Budget revenues

Mr. Phelps: We say this is completely misleading, and that it is calculated to mislead. Has the official responsible for this travesty been rewarded in any way by the government? For example, has that person gone to Sweden on a free trip?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: That is complete and utter nonsense. The comparative figures here are accurate. They are not misleading. They are very informative. It is a fact of life that the federal transfer payment, as a percentage of budgetary income, is declining. I know that this upsets the Members opposite, because this very graphically refutes the argument that the Government of Yukon is becoming more dependent upon the federal government. Clearly, they are going to do everything they can, through their misinformation campaign, to try to smear obvious and true statistics. I cannot accept that.

As for our treatment of employees is concerned, we treat them fairly. In respect to the people in Finance who were responsible for putting together the information, they are hardworking people, and there is not a dishonest bone in their bodies. They put together accurate and fair information. If the Members do not like the conclusions, that is tough.

Mr. Phelps: Here we have a Minister who could not tell us why they include the gross revenues for the Yukon Housing Corporation in these figures. Would he agree that the Yukon Housing Corporation loses money every year?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: The Yukon Housing Corporation has been deficit financed by this government. Prior to 1985, it was deficit financed by the government. Clearly the information here is to provide for comparable information one year to the next. That is the point of the exercise.

The Members opposite do not like the way the budget itself has been laid out. The the budget has been laid out in the same manner as it was when they were in office. Are they saying now by presenting the facts and figures in such a way as this that they were misleading the opposition of the day, the NDP? I certainly hope not. We do not believe we are misleading anyone. I know we are not. We are providing fair and accurate information.

Question re: Lawsuits

Mrs. Firth: My question is for the Minister of Justice.

The cost of government suing various businesses or firms has increased quite dramatically. The Minister is asking for $400,000 in the supplementary budget to pay for lawsuits. Last year we paid approximately $272,000.

How many lawsuits are actively being pursued by her department?

Hon. Ms. Joe: I certainly would have appreciated some advance warning in regard to the specifics she is asking me for right now. I would be pleased to bring that information back in written form, but I cannot tell her right now exactly how many there are; I can come back with the information.

Mrs. Firth: The Minister is asking us for $400,000. We will be talking about this today. I know of at least four lawsuits that the government has against firms and businesses. I would like to ask the Minister what the money is for? Can she tell us what the $400,000 is for?

Hon. Ms. Joe: It involves a number of things. As I mentioned to the Minister, if she wants specific names and what the money is going to be used for I would certainly be pleased to bring that information back. I would have liked to have the question this morning; I would have had the answers available right now. There are some things you can answer off the top of your head but information like this requires more work. I will bring the information back.

Mrs. Firth: I would have expected the Minister to know how many lawsuits are going on, unless they have hundreds and hundreds of them. This budget is paying for them.

Can the Minister tell us whether the lawyers handling the cases are from her department, one of the five or six, or are they being handled by lawyers from outside of the Yukon, or outside of the government?

Hon. Ms. Joe: I will return tomorrow with that information.

Question re: Lawsuits

Mrs. Firth: Our concern is the Justice department having to pay, out of its budget, for, perhaps, incompetencies in other departments of government.

The Minister does not even know how many there are. If I have to get a written question back from the Minister then perhaps we could ask for all the information.

Will the Minister bring back a schedule of all the lawsuits against the government, and a schedule of lawsuits by the government against firms and businesses, including wrongful dismissal suits, and if she will bring the costs for the legal services, both outside of government and outside of Yukon, for all of those lawsuites?

Hon. Ms. Joe: The Member is asking me for an awful lot of information. I am not entirely sure whether or not it would be fair to bring back the type of information she is asking. She is asking for specific information. I will return with written information on the kind of questions she is asking. There may be some questions I may not be allowed to bring answers to to this House. That is a concern. It could be a concern for the businesses involved.

Mrs. Firth: The public is paying for all of this and the Minister stands up and says she may not be allowed to bring back this information. I would have expected this Minister to know how many lawsuits are actively under consideration.

Speaker: Order please. Will the Member please get to the supplementary question.

Mrs. Firth: I would like to ask the Minister if any of the other departments are helping to pay for the costs of these lawsuits?

Hon. Ms. Joe: She has already asked me for all kinds of specific information. There are some times that you cannot bring information into this House and she knows it. Some of it may be of a very technical nature that may interfere with what is happening in regard to any court cases that might be happening. I will bring back the information that I can but you cannot expect that the kind of information that she asked me for right now would be at the tip of my tongue. I will provide her with the information that she needs but I will provide her with the information that I am allowed to bring back.

Mrs. Firth: Well, the public wants all the information with respect to this - all the information. It is all public information and we want all of it, not some selected little bit of information, excluding things that the government wants to hide and keep from the public, but we want all of it.

Hon. Ms. Joe: She may want all of it but I can only bring back the information that I am allowed to bring back. As I have said, there are things that you do not talk about in this House. She knows it; so does everybody else sitting on the other side of the House. I will provide the information that the House allows.

Question re: Whitehorse waterfront development

Mr. Phillips: My question is for the Minister of Community and Transportation Services, regarding the proposed waterfront development. For over a year now the three parties - White Pass, the City of Whitehorse and the Yukon government - have been developing a new waterfront plan, following their first disastrous attempt. The parties have put off unveiling the new plan several times and now tell us they have arrived at a stalemate.

Is the Minister doing anything at all on this issue to try and come to an agreement by which we can get on with the waterfront development?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: Yes, I am quite pleased to tell the Member that there is considerable activity taking place. As a matter of ongoing discussion, the City of Whitehorse and my department have communicated on the issue. The mayor and I have met on the issue. Clearly, the results of the waterfront exercise that has taken place over the past year and a half, in terms of the tripartite planning exercise, have fallen by the boards and the city and the Yukon government are now attempting to piece together a plan that will work.

Mr. Phillips: I take it from the Minister’s answer then that we are currently sitting down with the City of Whitehorse and negotiating to purchase the land from White Pass. What is the purchase price of the land and have the negotiations to actually purchase the land actually begun?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: It would be entirely premature for me to disclose any details relative to discussions or negotiations that may be taking place. Let it suffice to assure the Member that a series of discussions are planned among the city, me and White Pass respecting the land. Whether the lands will be purchased, leased or some other arrangement struck, remains yet to be seen.

I can assure the Member that given the collapse of the tripartite planning exercise, it is incumbent upon us as a government and upon the city, who are also interested in seeing the waterfront development occur, to try to achieve some progress on acquiring waterfront lands for waterfront development.

Mr. Phillips: A lot of water has gone by the development, you might say, in the last few years in trying to come to some resolution in this matter. The Minister says they are in current negotiations. Do they have some kind of time line set or do they have an actual date set where they hope to inform the public on what is actually going to happen with the waterfront development? Are we going to see it before 1992? What status is it at right now?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: The current status is as I have described it. Discussions have taken place between the city and the government, the Mayor and myself, respecting various options we can pursue now. The Member will recall that the tripartite planning exercise collapsed largely because White Pass could not accept the reduced interest of the land, given that development does not mean the highest commercial return. Given that breakdown of planning, the city and the government are now trying to piece together a doable development plan.

Question re: Tagish Kwan Corporation

Mr. Nordling: I have a question for the Minister of Economic Development with respect to the Tagish Kwan Corporation. Last May I asked the Minister of Economic Development what security the government had for a loan in the neighborhood of $400,000 to the Tagish Kwan Corporation. The Minister said the loan was secured against the new apartment building on Centennial Street and he said, and I quote, “We feel quite confident that no matter what course of action is taken in the future we will still recover the $400,000.” Have we recovered the $400,000 and if not, what is the status of the loan?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: A lot has transpired, as the Member, I am sure, is aware, between the time the Member asked that question and today. It probably requires a long answer but I realize that I am unable to give a detailed answer. The short answer is that the government will be recovering approximately $205,000 on a $350,000 advance to the Tagish Kwan Corporation under an arrangement that was signed between the bank, the government and two other parties who had an interest in the project. The final settlement for this particular project was determined after considerable discussion and in an attempt to be fair to all persons associated with the project, the government undertook to take a smaller share than the $350,000 it had advanced. That is the short answer.

Mr. Nordling: I would like to know what happened to the Minister’s confidence in May. Is that a final settlement, or is the government doing anything at all to recover the outstanding amount of approximately $150,000?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: That is the final settlement. The reasons for a lesser amount, as I said, were to be fair to other partners and players in the Centennial Street project, who stood to lose a great deal of money themselves. By that, I mean small contractors who had an interest in the project.

For its part, the Royal Bank will forego interest as a result of the arrangement. The persons who had an interest in the business, expressed through their lawyers, and which could be legitimized, also received a portion of the funds that would naturally be owing to them if the project was entirely successful.

We did accept a lesser amount in order to allow all legitimate partners to have a fair share of revenue accruing from the project.

Mr. Nordling: My impression of what happened was that the Royal Bank received all its outstanding loan, plus a portion of the interest, while the Yukon government and Yukon businesses took considerably smaller shares.

What role is the government playing now, or is willing to play, in assisting the other small businesses to recover money owing to them from the Centennial Street project?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Through the finalization of this agreement, we have played the role we thought was appropriate to assist the other creditors in the project. Everyone had to take some loss in order for everyone to have some benefit. The government had losses, as I have stated. I believe that was fair to the small businesses that were associated with the project in terms of providing contract services to help construct the project. Under the circumstances, it is also fair to the taxpayers, who provided an investment in the project at one time, as well.

Question re: Mendenhall subdivision

Mr. Brewster: In the debate on the motion regarding the Mendenhall subdivision last Wednesday the Minister of Community and Transportation Services, to his everlasting embarrassment, amended the motion deleting any reference to granting the leaseholders a two-year extension in order to allow them to complete their homes.

In view of the fact the road conditions made it extremely difficult to bring building material into that area, is the Minister prepared to grant the two-year extensions? A simple yes or no, please.

Hon. Mr. Byblow: I believe I already indicated during debate I am not prepared to grant an extension to the agreement for sale holders at Mendenhall. I have not been persuaded, nor am I convinced, that the road contributed to the failure of people to meet terms of their agreement for sale whereby they would be able to build their houses within five years from entering into that agreement. I noted for the Member previously that at least 12 agreement holders have already met conditions relative to those conditions to be met within five years, by doing so early.

The Member can share with me the reasons or the arguments, if he has them, of why an extension should be granted.

Mr. Brewster: If that is a yes or a no... I was trying to help him, but it is quite apparent that if I gave my reasons, Mr. Speaker, you would have me sit down.

Will the Minister be amending the homestead policy in relation to the provision of roads to more accurately reflect what the government is prepared to provide, instead of trying to dupe the people?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: I have to tell the Member that I resent his suggestion that there was some deception on the part of the government with respect to the agreements for sale on any homestead subdivision. The Member knows quite well that there was a prospectus provided to applicants, there was an agreement for sale that had terms and conditions clearly understood and signed off. The Member knows what the government attempted to do in its effort to provide homestead land for a low price. The Member is entirely unjust in suggesting there was anything deceptive about the effort.

What I can tell the Member is that we are reviewing our roads policy. We are reviewing those criteria and conditions that must prevail for maintenance to be provided to roads. I expect to be coming forward with that revised policy shortly.

Mr. Brewster: I will try again to see if I can get a yes or no.

Has the Minister done anything to help the people in the Robinson subdivision improve their road so they can at least get the water trucks in?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: The Member is actually raising another question, in this case on the Robinson subdivision, again a homestead subdivision where roads were constructed to a particular standard to keep the cost down. Those roads have been upgraded, as the Member knows, by a substantial amount of work done on a number of areas identified as being weak, at no cost to the individual tenants of the properties. The Member knows it is not policy for the government to be maintaining or upgrading home-stead roads without a cost-recovery method. The short answer is yes, the government has done improvements to sections of the Robinson road, and the responsibility for maintenance and any further upgrading rests with the residents.

Question re: Capital block funding to municipalities

Mr. Lang: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Transportation. It has to do with the municipalities and the $1 million cut in capital block funding that is represented in the main estimates for 1991-92. I do not understand the reasoning for the cuts, especially in view of the fact that we are receiving an additional $19 million from the federal government in this year’s budget over and above last year. Could the Minister explain why he has cut the capital block funding by over $1 million.

Hon. Mr. Byblow: To correct the Member, it is closer to a $900,000 reduction. The Member should also be aware I am entering into discussions with all municipalities, specifically their mayors and perhaps a number of councillors, in early December, to address details pertaining to the block fund reduction.

I should also point out that on the operations side we have increased all the operating grants by three percent. That effectively amounts to a net reduction of just under $500,000.

Mr. Lang: Talk about voodoo economics. The Minister has not answered my question. This government was given an additional $19 million by the Government of Canada over and above what we received in our main estimates last year.

The economic guru is saying that I am wrong. He is the Minister who stands up and says that if the federal government dies tomorrow we would not need them because they do not give us any money; they only give us $310 million per year.

Speaker: Order please. Will the Member please not use unparliamentary language.

Mr. Lang: I am being attacked on all sides.

I would like to ask the Minister of Community and Transportation Services if he could tell this House why he is cutting back the capital block funding by more than $1 million between the main estimates of 1990-91 instead of increasing it by $500,000 over last year as the legislation states.

Hon. Mr. Byblow: To correct the Member again, there is no increase of $19 million from the federal government. The real figure, in net dollars, without inflation, is more like $10 million. What we have is an overall reduction  beyond inflation.

The Member inquires why this cut is in funding to the municipalities. The short answer is simple; we cannot maintain our level of services provided to the communities, to the people of the Yukon, without sharing the reduction in revenue being provided to us with them. It is entirely reasonable to share that responsibility with the municipalities, and it has been done.

Mr. Lang: The government closest to the people is that of the municipality.

If you take the City of Whitehorse and the City of Dawson and the Town of Watson Lake, the cost to the taxpayer obviously is going to go up. Maybe the Minister of Community and Transportation talks about maintaining the level of service. Could he explain to this House why they are increasing the size of the civil service by an additional 117 positions and at the same time cutting back on the transfer payments to the municipalities?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: Talk about voodoo economics. I want the Member to stand up and tell the House which of the 117 positions that have been added to the civil service he would like to see cut. Does he want to see the 20 teachers who have been added to the civil service cut? Does the Member want to see 15 native language instructors cut? The Member has to stand up and be counted himself. How, on the one hand, can he argue that the civil service should be cut but not offer any particular service cut of his own. The fact of the matter also remains that as a percentage of the budget this government in this year is giving more to municipalities than his government ever did. We have provided more to the municipalities since 1985, far more than the Member ever did when he was Minister. Today it is still higher than any amount than he ever gave to the municipalities, not just in dollars but in percentage increases as well.

Question re: Whitehorse sewage treatment plant

Mr. Lang: I could start listing a number of cuts. First of all maybe the Cabinet, the front bench and even those backbenchers, could maybe stay home for a year. Maybe they could forego Sweden for a year. That might be a start in the right direction. Maybe, we could start with the land claims negotiator who is on a sabbatical for $65,000 a year, who earned over $750,000 in six years, but we felt that we owed him money to kind of get his head together. Maybe we could start by cutting the Member of the Executive Council off who has been appointed to find people who can serve on boards.

Speaker: Order. Would the Member please get to the question.

Question re: Whitehorse sewage treatment plant

Mr. Lang: I am answering a question, Mr. Speaker. I am at your disposal. Sorry Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask a question in respect to the sewage treatment plant. Almost two years ago, March 13, 1989, the Legislature unanimously agreed to negotiate an agreement with the City of Whitehorse outside the capital block funding to fund the most serious environmental hazard that the territory faces and that is the question of the Whitehorse sewage treatment plant. I would like to ask the Minister: in view of the fact that he has, on one hand one day, said he has agreed to the resolution and, on the other hand on another day, written a letter to the council saying that he could not comply with the resolution, of the extra $19 million he has received from the Government of Canada, could he find himself fit to honour this particular resolution that was agreed to by all Members of the House?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: The figure in transfer payments from the feds is not $19 million. The Member is being very misleading to the House in suggesting that it is in fact is. The point should also be made with the Member that his own staff, now in opposition, has increased by nearly 600 percent. When I was in opposition in 1984, we had one clerk and a part-time researcher. Look at the half a dozen people that are supporting their offices now. So they can not have their cake and eat it too. The Members have to be quite clear, when they are talking about increasing the civil service, they should look at their own ranks of increasing back-bench support for the opposition.

The Member did ask me a question related, I believe, to the Whitehorse sewage lagoon. I have indicated in previous responses to the Member that we cannot make a commitment of funds before we know the type of treatment that is going to be provided. We cannot make a commitment of funds before we know the cost of that particular option. The Member knows that my officials are working with city officials in reviewing the various options available to the City of Whitehorse with respect to the sewage lagoon upgrading.

I might also point out also for the Member that in 1984, when he was Minister, he knew the condition of the Whitehorse sewage lagoon.

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

Mr. Lang: In 1984, I did not have $310 million of federal largesse that I could turn around and spend. I would again ask my colleague, the frugal Minister of Community and Transportation Services, about the resolution that passed in this House two years ago - two years ago. Is he going to honour that resolution that stated that we would negotiate an agreement outside the capital block funding provided to the City of Whitehorse? The question is: is he going to honour it or is he not? I ask for a yes or no - or is that impossible nowadays?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: The Member knows the answer. Of course this government will honour that resolution. Of course this government is honouring that resolution. In my numerous meetings with the council of the City of Whitehorse, with the mayor, I have indicated our willingness to cost share anything under existing legislative capability; that is, on anything in excess of two and a half times their current block fund, this government is automatically required to participate in extraordinary funding. So the short answer to the Member is: yes, this government will honour that resolution; yes, this government is honouring the resolution, and when we have some final options costed out, we will continue those negotiations. So the Member should not put words in my mouth that are not accurate.

Mr. Lang: I do not have to; I just let the Minister talk. In view of the very significant commitment that the front bench has made to this very real problem, what I do not understand is that, normally in the budgetary process, if they know that a capital expenditure is going to come up, at least one dollar is voted to give them vote authority.

Speaker: Order please. Will the Member please get to the supplementary.

Mr. Lang: Why has it not been separately identified in the budget in order that vote authority can be given to the government to proceed with the negotiated agreement with the City of Whitehorse? You can get your instructions from the Government Leader. I see him prepping you.

Hon. Mr. Byblow: The Member knows that you do not require a separate line item to provide special extraordinary funding authority, such as may be required with respect to the Whitehorse sewage lagoon. It is entirely possible to create such a vote authority within the framework of the existing budget. I have already indicated to the Member that it does not make sense to try to identity a particular amount when you do not know what the amount will be, not to mention that discussions and negotiations are going on with the city and the government, and on top of which, I am in discussion with the federal government for a possible tri level cost-sharing arrangement on the Whitehorse sewage lagoon. So the Member is trying to calculate a specific amount prematurely, way ahead of where the discussions are...

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

Hon. Mr. Byblow: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am concluding. The answer with respect to the Whitehorse sewage lagoon is quite simple. When we have costs, when we have negotiations concluded, when we have all the arrangements in place..

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

Hon. Mr. Byblow: We will assist in the required funding.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ADDRESSES IN REPLY TO THE SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

Hon. Mr. Byblow: It is rather difficult to change gears but, nevertheless, in my remaining time of 95 seconds, I would like to take advantage of the few moments and extend to my constituents an appreciation for their recent participation in a household questionnaire that I circulated in the community. The advice they gave me, the opinions they provided, and the general information afforded to me through that questionnaire was very useful to me for purposes of addressing constituency concerns.

At the same time, I was extremely appreciative of the very thoughtful presentations, including a petition with some 300 names, which was given to me at a public meeting held a couple of weeks ago. Over 70 people attended the meeting. This totally impressed me.

Speaker: Order please. I would like to remind the Member he has 30 seconds.

Hon. Mr. Byblow: It impressed me because, historically in Faro, to get more than 15 or 20 people at any public meeting was extraordinary. It says to me that people in Faro are very well informed and very interested in their community. To me, this is a sign of a healthy community and, given the history of Faro, it is a particularly satisfying state of affairs.

The fact that housing is a problem, that adequate space is a problem, that a number of road problems exist ...

Speaker: Order please. It is time.

Hon. Mr. Byblow: ... are matters we will continue to address.

Mrs. Firth: I want to begin my response to the throne speech by thanking my constituents for all their assistance and help over the last five or six months. I have been visiting with some of them, and asking questions, trying to find out what their concerns are, as well as reassure them that I will continue to make representations on their behalf in this Legislature and, as usual, come to the defence of the good people in Riverdale South, whom I represent.

I have been thinking a lot about this government and this government’s performance, as well as looking at the government’s throne speech and the announcements they have made halfway into their second term. I could not help thinking about a book I had read some time ago as a school girl, which reminded me and seemed to keep nagging at me about the way this government was performing. The story had a direct relation to the style of government we now have here in the Yukon, as well as a direct relationship to the attitudes of the government.

The name of the book is Animal Farm. It is by a well-known author, a friend of the Government Leader’s. He makes reference to this individual occasionally, and that is George Orwell.

It is a small book and I am going to refer to it occasionally through my presentation today. I had to read it over a couple of more times to make sure I could believe what I was reading, and I could believe what I was living. To tell the truth the analogy was too striking to pass up.

Essentially, this book Animal Farm, by George Orwell, is a story that tells about how animals captured the Manor Farm from the drunken, incompetent farmer and how they changed the name to animal farm and established it as a model community. All the animals in that model community were equal. It makes reference to some characters in the book. I am not, of course, attributing any of these characters to any of the Members across the floor, but in describing some of the characteristics of those animals in the book Animal Farm, if the public, or other Members of this House, or the media draw conclusion that some of these characters may depict some of the attitudes or individuals in the front seat, then I do not have any control over that.

The book makes reference to animals on the animal farm, pigs, horses and so on. In this story when the animals took over the farm, the two key pigs were Napoleon and Snowball. It talks about how these two pigs gained control over the revolution and how they fought each other for the mastery, how the neighbouring humans reacted and counter attacked and were beaten off, and how Napoleon, the more superior pig, ousted Snowball, and how economic necessity compelled the animals to compromise within the human system, how Napoleon negotiated an alliance with the human enemy and exploited it to establish his personal dictatorship, and how the farm learned that some animals were more equal than others, and their state was as bad as their first state, and daily, the ruling pigs became more and more indistinguishable from their human neighbours. The human neighbours were considered the enemy in this story.

Animal Farm is subtitled A Fairy Story, and fairy stories usually have fables, morals or some message they want to get out. My feeling is that there is a message in this book, like all fairy stories have messages, that life is like that and you can take it or leave it. It further extends that message to a political message about power and the use or abuse of power and how power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

We hear the Members in government talk about meaningful words like democracy and equality and we hear this from the government Members time and time again. This little story book illustrates a story where some people are more equal than other people with a political message about the use of power.

I would like to go to the book for a minute and talk about some of the characters in the book so people can understand why I felt so strongly about this comparison and analogy I am making.

I have made reference to a pig called Napoleon. This pig was a rather fierce looking Berkshire boar. It was the only Berkshire on the farm. This fellow had a reputation for getting his own way. There was another pig, Snowball, about whom I made reference. He was a far more vivacious pig than Napoleon. He was quicker in his speech and quite a bit more inventive but was not considered to have quite the depth of character as Napoleon. The best known pig was known as Squealer. This was a pig with very round cheeks, twinkling eyes and nimble movements. He was the brilliant talker. When he was arguing some difficult point he had a way of skipping from side to side and whisking his tail that somehow was very persuasive. The other pigs said that Squealer could turn black into white.

Then there was a mare called Molly who always had ribbons in her hair and silly little things like that. There were a couple of faithful cart horses, Boxer and Clover. These horses had great difficulty thinking things out for themselves, but having once accepted the pigs as their teachers, they absorbed everything they were told and passed it on to the other animals by simple argument. They were unfailing in their attendance and support of the superior animals, the pigs.

The whole objective of this story about animal farm was that these animals were going to take over and make a better life for all the animals in the farmyard. To do that, they listed seven commandments all the animals had to follow. It is not unlike the rules the Government Leader and this government espoused when they were elected some six years ago: all those self-righteous, pure principles and rules that these people were going to stand for and all the good things they were going to do, such as having longer sessions. I believe the previous government was criticized for not sitting long enough. Another big promise was open government. This was another promise and rule the government would abide by. Consultation was another rule. We were going to consult people and make information available. One of the preachings, or the commandments of this government when they were elected, was accountability. They would be there for the people and everyone in the Yukon was going to be treated equally.

Time has passed. It has been six years now and the government is now midway into its second term of office. There is a great cynicism out there about government and politicians in general. We only have to look at the Members of this government who are making the rules and setting the standards, tone, attitudes and atmosphere here in the Yukon, whether that influence is positive or negative. We have to take a close look at the performance of the individuals within government. I am not levying personal criticisms; I am looking at the performance, unlike the name-calling tactics that we get from the side opposite.

I have to look at the Minister of Community and Transportation Services, who is responsible for Government Services. This is the Minister who stands and talks about everyone else in the Yukon not having done their homework. I believe that is one of the favourite little comments he makes. This is the gentleman who stood up at an Association for Yukon Communities meeting, promised that the Smith report would be made available, had to be corrected by his deputy minister, had to turn around and say they will have to make it available after all, as he had promised. That is having his homework done.

This is the Minister who stood up at a chamber meeting and told the Yukon businesses that, in a fuel swap contract, it cost the taxpayers $20,000, when it actually cost the taxpayers $40,000, because they did it two years in a row. This is the Minister who tells the truth; this is the Minister who has his homework done.

He even challenged me at the meeting, because I raised my hand and said it happened two years in a row, so the total cost is $40,000. He insisted it was $20,000.

This is the Minister who stood up at that same chamber meeting and said there was no government money in the Dakwakada Development Corporation. Then, the announcement was made by the Development Corporation that there is $2 million of Development Corporation money in that project. This is the Minister who has his homework done.

He is calling me picky, when this man has a responsibility to stand up in front of the chamber members and give accurate information. Now there is a qualifier. Now it is, “to his knowledge”. The Minister should do his homework before he makes charges that other people have not done their homework. If, to his knowledge, he has not done his homework, he should not be standing up and publicly making statements, and leaving the impression he has done his homework and is giving absolute facts to those people.

Then, we come to the equality issue. The Minister of Government Services has high principles and standards about equality. The fuel contract swap had to be made because that community contractor had to be treated equally and fairly. When I raised the issue about the Mary Lake school being built and the local contractor getting it, as opposed to the Atco Trailer Company in Alberta, all of a sudden there was a whole new set of rules. The Minister could not even stand up and defend his set of rules and his new position. He turned around and attacked me for being against local contractors.

When we were asking for the preservation of a principle of fairness and equality and integrity within the tendering process. We are asking for that principle to be maintained.

This individual, who talks about unfair treatment, also stood up at that chamber meeting and dazzled everyone with his figures about how unequally Yukoners were being treated compared to other Canadians. He had all kinds of fancy figures about how the federal government, the big bad guys in Ottawa, were forcing Yukoners to take a five percent cut, but other Canadians were only having to take a three percent cut when it came to per capita payment or to transfer payments. He had all kinds of other amazing figures but when one person asked him a question about what the per capita payments were per Yukoner compared to other Canadians, he just conveniently could not remember that figure. He just could not conveniently remember that Yukoners get approximately $13,000 compared to $2,500 for other Canadians, and that is just territorial government funds.

We are wrong, everybody is wrong on this side; everybody is right on that side. It just confirms, the story, Animal Farm.

Now, this Minister gets up at the chamber and he comes along with this feeble defence of his interfering with the tender process; he tries to go on and tell everybody how fair this government is. He makes a big announcement about 98 employees from the Renewable Resources department being moved over to the new office complex that Dakwakada Corporation is building. He tells the chamber and all Yukon people that these 98 employees are being moved over there. You know who he does not tell? Nor does he even offer an option to bid on the space again to the person, the contractor, who is presently providing space to government for those 98 employees. And that is fair treatment? This person had to read it in the paper. He knew nothing about it. The Minister better be careful about what he is saying. He better do his homework because the first that person heard of it was when it was announced at the chamber of commerce by the Minister, so he better get his facts straight.

Fairness. There are some people who, by this Minister’s standards, are being treated more equally than other people. Let us take a look at the gentleman sitting next to him, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Education. This Minister has all the high standards and the high principles; this is the Minister who demands top performance from his employees like they were some kind of motor oil or something he was advertising - “We get top performance out of them, or you know what happens to them.” He is not prepared to accept the best that people can give. He wants top performance out of everybody. The Department of Education has undergone more turbulence and emotional stress in the past year and a half, more stress and strain with firings and removals of branches of the department. The staff is demoralized, grief-stricken and some people have even become physically ill because of the way this government has treated the public servants within that department of government.

There has been the largest turnover of staff in the Department of Education I have ever seen. I have to look to the dean of the House who concurs he has never seen such devastation within one department of this government, ever.

This is the Minister who stands and says the union is wrong, this person is wrong, you are wrong, everybody is wrong but this Minister. Everybody else is wrong. If something in his view is okay then that is fine, it must be fine in everybody’s view.

He stood in the House and said that in his view this was the right thing to do. Everybody else is wrong. The Minister saying that only enforces that attitude and impression that the public has of politicians, that attitude of arrogance, knowing what is best for everybody. In his view that is the ultimate view.

This is the Minister, the Minister of Finance, who brought second-hand gossip here into the Legislature and made scathing attacks on Members of this House on this side of the Legislature, with wrong information. That kind of performance only confirms a saying I remember that goes something like this: in the days of the Old Testament it was considered a miracle for an ass to speak, while today nothing short of a miracle will keep one quiet.

I do not want to be unkind. I do not want to attack Ministers personally, but we have to examine the performance of these individuals because these people are making decisions on behalf of all of us as Yukoners and they are very, very costly decisions.

We are speaking about money and it brings us to the next Minister, the Minister of Tourism. This is the Minister who has the attitude that you cannot go around and talk to people, ask them questions, do a survey yourself, do the legwork yourself, fill out the survey form yourself, without getting good information. Do you know why the information was no good? Because we did not spend hundreds of thousands of dollars having some consultants do some kind of survey for this government.

The Minister stood up and tried to defend what he said, and that he did not really mean it, but he said it and he meant it. The Minister stood and launched an attack on all the information that was collected by the Member for Riverdale North, through all his hard work, efforts, and his sincere commitment toward improving tourism here in the territory. He said his information was incorrect; it was not incorrect. The Member brought the correct information into the House a few days later, proved that the Minister had the wrong information and yet the Minister still insists, with that attitude that is becoming very prevalent - we know better, we know best, we have all the answers, we will take care of you, we will pay thousands and thousands of dollars and all our information will be right and nobody else’s information will be right, everyone else will be wrong.

He is free and loose with someone else’s money. The taxpayer really, really does not condone that kind of behaviour. The Minister of Justice, this lady who so depicts that self-righteous attitude of the socialist, that only they speak for the people, and that they somehow have a monopoly on compassion and caring - we have been listening to this Minister for the last six years saying that only they can care about people, only they are compassionate, only they are in tune with women’s issues. This Minister’s intentions may be very good but she just does not deliver when it comes time to deliver. When that happens, it is Yukoners who suffer because the Minister does not deliver. Because of the Minister’s past performance in Health and Human Resources, we lost the window of opportunity for the health care transfer; we never did get a mammography machine that she said she was committed to; we never did get a fetal alcohol syndrome coordinator that she said she was committed to. Those things hurt Yukoners.

On the issue of violence against women, we hear in the media reports about women being attacked in the street yet we hear not one peep out of the Minister of Justice. We hear not one peep out of either backbencher about these assaults on women, assaults that are taking place in the Member for Whitehorse South Centre’s riding. We do not hear one peep from these people.

The Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission and Justice stands up in this House and tells us constantly that there is no morale problem within the Public Service Commission, that everything is fine, that the public servants are all fine, yet I have never seen a time when the morale has been so low. There is a lack of direction coming from the Members opposite. The worst thing that happens is when a mistake is made or it comes time to be held accountable for something; where do these people put the blame? They put it right on the shoulders of the public servants. It is always someone else’s fault. So we have a public service that gets no direction yet that is required to take all the blame for the mistakes of this government.

No wonder people are cynical about politicians. No wonder they are completely demoralized by the lack of direction and the responsibility that these people put on their shoulders.

The Minister made some comments on the radio one morning about the position of the executive director for the Workers Compensation Board. I had quite a few telephone calls after the Minister came out with her comment. The position was temporarily being filled by a woman. The Minister went on the radio and said that the intention and the hope of the government is that they are going to replace that temporary position by a full-time position and it is going to be another woman. It is fine for the Minister to want to do that, just to stand up and say, “Men need not apply for this job because we are going to fill it with a woman”.

If she does that, she cannot stand up in this House and say everyone is being treated equally, according to her standards, because she is not treating people equally. Some have become more equal than others. It goes right back to the rules in the books: the principles of equal treatment.

Now, we come to the main man. He is the main person responsible for setting the tone and leading this government. He talks in the House of poor people and social justice and all the rules about how we were going to sit longer, have open government and be accountable. One of the principles of the throne speech was good government. This is the man who calls a party in the government foyer with a big cake to anoint himself as Premier of the Yukon. There was no big movement or request from the public to have this happen. People were not calling because they felt they were not being treated fairly as Canadians if he did not call himself Premier.

There are a lot of Yukoners who feel they are being treated very fairly as Canadians. They feel this is due to the generosity of the federal government. They do not feel this way because the Minister of Tourism pats himself on the back and says he is good government.

The Government Leader has a constitutional committee that will travel throughout the Yukon. This committee may have recommended that the government change its direction and that the Government Leader should now refer to himself as Premier. Did the Government Leader wait for input from that committee or from Yukon citizens? No, he just one day decided he would be Premier of the Yukon Territory and that was that. The stationery was all changed to read Office of the Premier, in gold letters.

There were not hundreds of people from the public coming to the party to celebrate the new name. People think this is one of the most arrogant things this government has ever done. That will stick with this government.

The Premier - the Government Leader - in his capacity as the Minister of Health and Human Resources, talks about social justice and fairness and how he supports women. We had to badger this individual before he would finally agree to purchase a mammography unit for the women of the Yukon. After the promises from the previous Minister were not delivered on, he had to be badgered to do this. Where were the private Members who stand up to represent women’s issues and fight for women? We never heard one peep or question put forward by them in this Legislature about this machine. Not one representation was made on behalf of women. We had some ridiculous question asked once about government grants alluding to some allegation about racism which was outrageous, but not one question was asked about the mammography unit.

They cannot have it both ways. They cannot espouse all these self-righteous and pure principles and act the way they have been acting.

The Government Leader send a memo to the school that absolutely outraged and incensed people and parents in my constituency, in the constituencies of my colleagues, and the constituencies of the Members in government. There were phone calls to this government en masse complaining about that memo. The memo the Government Leader sent, along with the letter from the Council for Yukon Indians, made representations to essentially politicize the education system and use Yukon children to do it. That is an action people of the Yukon will never forget. The mothers and fathers in the constituency I represent will never forget this government doing that. They were absolutely outraged that this government would be so arrogant and presumptuous as to do something like that.

Let us look at how all these self-righteous rules have changed in the last six years. Sitting longer sessions: big political campaign. “The Tories do not want to go in the House; they only sit 11 days. We promise longer sessions; we are going to do this, we are going to do that.” We have now gone almost six months without being in this Legislature. The government has combined the capital and operation and maintenance budgets, with a hope of pushing that through a little faster and getting out of the Legislature. They do not want to be before the public, where they have to be accountable for their actions, where they have to stand up and answer questions. They do not want to go and come back, and go and come back again.

Open government: We were going to have open government. Everything was going to be made public. We were going to have access to reports, and we were going to be able to get whatever information we wanted to get. Just today in Question Period, the Minister of Justice stood up and told us she would only bring in information she was allowed to bring in. She has denied copies of reports to the press with respect to safety conditions at Curragh Resources, and she has denied me those copies. We have had to go to access to information. All Members on this side of the Legislature have constantly had to bombard this government for information, as well as the media. So much for open government. That is another rule broken.

We talk about the rule of accountability. “We are going to be accountable, we will stand up and take responsibility for the mistakes we make; I am not saying we are mistake-free.” That is what we hear from the Government Leader. It is interesting to note that, whenever the government gets up to defend what happened in one of their departments or areas of the government, it is somebody else’s fault. We have had the blame put on practically everyone from the Public Service Commissioner down to the cleaning staff who clean the waste baskets. It is ridiculous. There is always an architect handy to blame, or a public servant handy to blame, or someone else: anybody other than the Minister responsible.

It is totally unacceptable. If the government is going to espouse the pure principles, then it better stick by them.

We come to another rule here on consultation. Oh yes. That is the one where the Tories never consulted and we consulted, and asked people their opinions. You see that the Minister of Education now has a new line: it is they consult but they do not negotiate. This is a whole new approach. We do not negotiate. We consult but we do not negotiate. Now consultation takes the form of a phone call or a couple of words in passing when at another meeting like, “By the way, this program is going to be annihilated and I thought we better tell you.” The Minister refers to that as consultation. This is selective consultation - selective consultation that the Minister of Tourism enters into at his convenience. The selective consultation that these Members have and the selective results of these consultations that the Yukon public is provided with are always in the favour of the decision of the government.

Another rule can be crossed off on the side of the barn, if this were an animal farm.

These were the people who were going to have good government and be there for the people.

Speaker: Order please. I would like to remind the Member that she has three minutes to conclude.

Mrs. Firth: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. These were the government Members, the politicians who were going to be there for the people. I do not know who the Minister has talked to because the complaints I get are that they cannot even talk to the Ministers on the telephone now let alone get in to see them. They can always go through a secretary or an executive assistant, a constituency worker or someone else, but you do not talk to these Ministers because they are up there with all their heavy responsibilities and busy duties. They do not talk to the people any more. The Government Leader’s little sojourn to the Taku bar, or wherever he goes to mingle with the common people, is not enough to keep him in touch with people. It just does not wash.

The last rule of equality is that everyone in the Yukon is going to be treated equally. Today we have seen that there is a whole different set of standards for the Ministers. There are some people that are going to be treated more equally than others.

I want to finish by saying that the principles this government stood for have been eroded; they have decayed and vanished. They have been replaced by that arrogance and the deceitfulness, deviousness that all Canadians are rebelling against in politicians. This government is the mold of the present disenchantment of the public.

The message was: oh well, life is like that, take it or leave it, we will use the power the way we want to use power. It is just like the pigs in the book, Animal Farm, just like the pigs who broke all the rules. The rules have been broken here and the pigs have moved into the house.

Speaker: The hon. Member will now close debate.

Ms. Kassi: The description by the Member for Riverdale South of the Animal Farm sounds to me like a fight for the leadership within the Yukon’s Tory party.

I have had an opportunity to make some general sense of the replies to the Speech from the Throne and have been particularly saddened by some of the remarks of the Member for Porter Creek East. His comments speak to another time in the Yukon, a time when there was no understanding between the two cultures that make up the Yukon community. I am sorry that the Member from Porter Creek East feels so vulnerable and threatened as the rights of the Yukon’s First Nations are finally recognized in the land claims agreement, which has been initialed by the governments of Canada and the Yukon and the Council for Yukon Indians.

My elders would say that the Member from Porter Creek East and his comments are like a trandu-dye, like a black fly or a mosquito that should be ignored. I am inclined to agree with them. I am proud to be Vuntat Gwich’in and will continue to represent the interests of my people here in this House and anywhere in this world.

The Member from Porter Creek East seems to be suggesting that I do not avail myself of modern methods to be effective. Apparently he finds the idea of being aboriginal and using telephones, air travel and vehicles do not mesh together in his rather limited perspective. Just for the record, when I am in Old Crow I do not use such modern conveniences. I have had a dog team in my time; that is still my favourite form of transportation. Our community has also taken many positive environmental steps, such as the ban on styrofoam and spray cans and other things harmful to the environment. There is strong pressure from the elders to become less dependent on oil and gas and to continue to rely on traditional methods of transportation. So, you see, my community is very environmentally conscious and we are doing something about it. If it seems that the Old Crow area is not as economically diversified as the party opposite would like to see it, the people of Old Crow are very aware of it. If the Member for Porter Creek East thinks about it for awhile, I hope he may figure out that this might indeed have something to do with why he or his party were not re-elected to represent Old Crow in this House. As a specific example, on one of the many discussions on North Slope development in this House, I refer to the motion to support in principle the development of a deep water port on the North Slope. Subsequent to her supporting this motion, the then Conservative Member for Old Crow was not re-elected.

Speaking about such developments, during our recent elders and youth conference in my village, we had an elders storytelling evening. One story stands out in my mind and I found it quite hilarious. It was about the time when everybody and their dog was coming to our lands exploring for oil and minerals and our people did not like what was going on. However, out of respect they cooperated a little bit at the time. Anyway, the story was about a small man coming to our land, looking to get rich. One of our elders was selected to go as a guide on this particular expedition. They had walked a long way through the rough terrain in the hills of brush and muskeg and they finally stopped for a break. The guide noticed the tantrums of frustration and anger by this sweating, small man. He decided to play a joke on him and while the little man was not looking and was not aware, the guide put a huge rock in his packsack. On they went and they walked and trudged on further up the mountain and finally reached the top. Then the small man took off his packsack and it fell to the ground with a huge thud. Everyone looked, and the totally exhausted small man pulled out this huge rock that he had carried all the way up the mountain. Of course he was very upset and embarrassed.

Our people never get tired of that story. It gets funnier and funnier all the time. I thought I would share that with you today. I do not know if that small man remembers how heavy that rock was at the time but for us in Old Crow, while we continue to live as we always have - and in some aspects still live in a healing process - oil and gas development would be like carrying a heavy rock all the time. So you see, apparently the will of the people is not good enough for the Member for Porter Creek East.

Our people are of one mind and one voice on the issue of the North Slope. We will not endorse any non-renewable resource development. Am I now hearing that the side opposite is once again supporting oil and gas development in the calving grounds of the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge and the Yukon’s North Slope? The Gwich’in, as a people, are not interested in non-renewable resource development. I cannot make this clear enough.

Of what benefit are such developments to a community such a mine? What morality has any of this type of development ever had? They come in and they get rich quick and they get out, leaving the land drained and damaged and exploited. That program is not our proposed path for our future and I, as one of the spokespersons for the people, will never endorse any development that will hurt our land, its animals or its people at any level.

The Members seem to think that Old Crow is further from being self-sufficient. When was the last time any of the PC’s Members were in Old Crow to see our healthy little village as it is now? Well, I say to you that the people of Old Crow are very self-sufficient. They have been so for thousands for years. Our people have always been self-sufficient and are much moreso nowadays.

We want to assist each other in making sure that no one goes without food, shelter, or basic necessities of life. That is our culture. In modern terms, the neglect by the previous government has added years of exercise in doing without and, still, my people have survived. The Member for Whitehorse Riverdale North is quite correct in stating he has heard me thank the government for all the things done in Old Crow. He apparently finds such service to the public as foreign to his nature. I believe history proves this observation correct.

I look forward to continuing to thank the present government for real service provided to real people. I will thank them for health programs; I will thank them for education. Speaking of which, I believe education is a fundamental key to self-sufficiency and self-government. That is why we need the new college. I will thank them for sustainable economic development without environmental devastation. I realize this will not fit in with the Opposition’s economic development policy of: “If we cannot sell it, kill it anyway.” For this, I thank the government.

We have heard of the alternatives offered by the side opposite. Not only will heads roll, but positions, such as secretaries, which the Member for Porter Creek East demeaned in his comments last Thursday, will no doubt be exterminated. With the Member’s past record, one wonders whether Indians and vocal women will be far behind?

Prior to my election in this House in 1985, Old Crow was a sad place. It was a town forgotten way up north. The town was normally under three feet of water in the spring time. Large rocks have been dumped everywhere all over town, and those were supposed to be roads. The previous government’s solution to the sewage problem was to issue yellow garbage cans. These unhealthy conditions were reflected in the morale of the community. Once the New Democrats formed the government, in 1985, much happened in that community.

There were jobs created; there were several small businesses that have started up and are running well at this point in time; old buildings were renovated and cleaned up; landscaping was started; a new nursing station was built, and four or five people are now working there. Very few people are on welfare. Our social strategy, which we developed ourselves, is now being implemented. These include treatment camps, ongoing education in healing. My village is much happier now than they have ever been in a long time.

We have a school that we built, and where we have our own language teachers. Our children are being taught in our language and learning their traditions. The Member opposite seems to take the position that it is either his way or just plain wrong. He would like to take credit for the rebuilding of the school when he was a Member of the previous administration. Since the school had burned down, it was big of him to allow the rebuilding of the school, as if we did not have the right to education. Of course we have to have a school. Any government is obliged to rebuild a school that has burned down. I believe there was a Member for Old Crow in that administration at the time, who was instrumental in seeing the school rebuilt.

Let us give credit where credit is due. While forming the government, the Members were not seen in my village. It is nice to see some consistency in that now they are the Opposition, they still are not seen in my village. Yet these same Members claim to voice the concerns of the people.

The Member for Porter Creek East has noticed that I refer to myself as a First Nation Vuntat Gwich’in first. He is very observant of that. I am and I will go back into this earth as such. No one can ever deny me that right. Until the Canadian government recognizes the rights of indigenous people within the Constitution of this country and there is equal ownership of resources and land subject to First Nation government, maybe I will be happy to consider myself as an equal partner in this country called Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I conclude my comments. Thank you.

Motion agreed to

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I move

THAT the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne be engrossed and presented to the Commissioner in his capacity as Lieutenant Governor.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Hon. Government House Leader

THAT the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne be engrossed and presented to the Commissioner in his capacity as Lieutenant Governor.

Motion agreed to

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Speaker: Government Bills.

GOVERNMENT BILLS

Bill No. 16: Second Reading - continued

Clerk: Second reading, Bill No. 16, standing in the name of Mr. McDonald. Debate adjourned, the Hon. Mr. Webster.

Hon. Mr. Webster: You may recall that I was cut off last Thursday afternoon most unceremoniously. You may recall that I was talking about the policy of decentralization. I remarked at that time about the criticism we had received from the Opposition about the decentralization policy of this government. We were accused of being an uncaring government in that we do not care about the well-being of its employees and especially of those in positions that were to be moved to rural communities.

There were claims from the Members opposite that it would be too expensive to provide office space and housing. They claim it will cost millions and millions of dollars.

I made brief mention of the report that was filed by the Advisory Committee on Decentralization, which everyone demanded to see months ago. Upon its release last week, no one has even referred to it. I just want to refer to it briefly to give an idea of the work that has been completed by this committee, including its report on the subject of decentralization. They write that the purpose of the report is to outline proposals for increasing government employment and with it, population bases in communities outside of Whitehorse, by means of major government decentralization moves. The objective is, they claim, to more equitably share the benefits of government employment throughout the Yukon.

The main thrust of this report was to present options showing which units or departments could be moved from Whitehorse.

Just looking at the Department of Renewable Resources, from which I am sure some 110 members of this government will be very interested in learning about the plans suggested in this report, the main conclusion of this committee was that the entire department could be decentralized. At that time there were 91 employees.

This committee developed three scenarios on decentralization. The first was maximum decentralization - scenario number one. They recommended that the Department of Renewable Resources, with 91 positions, be completely moved to the community of Dawson City. That was 91 positions out of a total of 328 total positions under scenario number one.

Scenario number two, entitled medium decentralization, recommended for the Department of Renewable Resources, with 91 positions, that the entire department should be moved to Dawson City. In that particular scenario, 241 positions were being considered.

In scenario number three, minimal decentralization, it included a total of 172 employees of the government whose positions would be moved to rural Yukon communities. Again, the recommendation was that the entire Department of Renewable Resources, with 91 positions, would be moved to Dawson City.

They cautioned that these scenarios may take into consideration criteria noted in other parts of the report and there are a lot of considerations and additions to those noted. One of them, of course, is the time frames. A number of obstacles would impede a speedy implementation of decentralization. The major one would be the availability of office space, housing and auxiliary buildings in outlying communities.

They made an assumption that the government wants to make these implementation moves as painless as possible. This includes provision of an office environment of at least the same quality as that provided in Whitehorse. As high quality office space is not currently available in the target communities it must be constructed by either the public or the private sector.

It mentions that in Dawson City a detailed overview is required. The City of Dawson has pressured YTG for a number of years to comply with the historical development plan by moving the Community and Transportation Services mechanical workshop and the highway maintenance camp out of the city to the industrial area. If this was done a large piece of land would be available for an office building with a lot of parking space.

Based on that information, they concluded that, without moving too deeply in this area, suffice it to say that a minimum of two years would be required to provide the building infrastructure for offices, housing and auxiliary buildings, commencing from the point planning has been completed and funds have been voted for this purpose.

That is, in a nutshell, the recommendations of the advisory committee on decentralization. Beginning in two years from now, the entire department, under all three scenarios, the Department of Renewable Resources would be moved to Dawson City. I do not know, quite frankly speaking, what costs would be involved in developing another area for the highway camp to move to, developing a building for office space for 91 employees. I do not know what it would cost to provide housing and to pay for all the moving. And I really have no idea the extent of the concern that would be voiced, I am sure, by the employees of the entire Department of Renewable Resources at the prospect of moving, all of them, to Dawson City.

But I really do not think they have made other considerations of the effect it would have on Dawson City and the infrastructure of a community that size. For example, the size of the school would have to be increased. Certainly they would have to increase the size of the school and have to do water and sewer extensions. What I am trying to say is the costs for such a program as recommended would be really too much to calculate. I am really pleased to see that our initiative, as announced last week in this House, over a three-year period involving over 100 government jobs, is really, in comparison, a model of common sense. I believe it is sensitive towards the people who work in the service of the public.

I would like to address a few criticisms that were raised by the Members opposite, dealing first with the growth in bureaucracy or the growth in government. The Members of the Opposition, in almost every utterance in this Assembly over the last several sessions, have alleged that the Yukon government has experienced an unprecedented growth in bureaucracy in recent years. The bureaucracy to which they refer never has a human face. They talk about disembodied person years in education as if they are some sort of mindless machines to plug into the system only to drain taxpayers’ pockets. There are new person years in education this year: 53 of them. All those person years will be filled by people, 20 of them teachers. Most of the rest of the position years are not going to be filled by nameless paper pushers but by custodians, returning to learning instructors and school secretaries. Eighteen of the public school teaching positions are not new at all but are conversions of contract positions to full-time positions. That simply means that 18 aboriginal language teachers instructing in schools throughout the territory now have formalized positions within our education system. I do not know which of these positions the Opposition would have us cut.

It strikes me as strange that the Opposition personalizes these positions that they would like to see added to the government, the most recent being a request for a fetal alcohol syndrome coordinator, but depersonalizes those people who are actually hired by the government to teach our children or to look after our senior citizens.

The opposition is crying that government is growing. Well, of course it is growing. Of course it is growing. Our population is growing. We have a strong economy here, and a stronger economy means an increase of population, it means more programs, it means more services to serve those additional people and consequently, yes, you do need more person years for the growth of government.

The Leader of the Official Opposition speaks about the growth of government, and I want to quote him on page 80 of the Hansard. “There is a lot of money being spent by this government, but most of it seems to end up in a growing government, a government growing in leaps and bounds.” On page 79, he states, “They are going to squeeze off the private sector, and everybody is going to work for the government.... If they had their way ...”, and I imagine he is talking about the government, “... there would not be a private sector job in the Yukon, or Canada, or quite possibly the world.” I know that is a bit of an exaggeration, but you get the intent of his message. “We will all dance down to this wonderful world where there is nothing for anybody but government, government, government.”

Later on, he claims, and I am quoting again from page 80 of the Hansard, “We must have a government that will provide incentives for businesses, incentives for mining - that awful word, ‘mining’ ...” It is quite a joy to hear the Opposition make those comments about the growth of government, and there is nothing but government jobs here in the Yukon, and how we should support mining. I want to remind him of this government’s record over the last six years and our support for the mining industry.

We have reduced taxes for fuel for offroad use for the mining industry - five cents a litre off fuel oil, 4.2 cents a litre off gasoline. Incidentally, that was one of the first things our government did when it came into office in 1985. We established the Yukon mineral exploration incentives program; contributed funds to support the first two Dawson City gold shows, which I am pleased to report is operating quite successfully without any financial assistance from government. We have revived and enhanced the prospectors assistance program; established a resource transportation access program, which many large and small mining companies have tapped into. In the past, and perhaps even now, we have contributed to the Klondike Placer Miners Association and the Yukon Prospectors Association to assist their active role in fostering the growth of our mining industry. These are hardly all government jobs.

In conclusion, we have assisted the diversification and decentralization of the mineral sector through the support of geological surveying, the Yukon minerals incentive program, RTAP and the EDA. We have been assisting the development of mineral resources in all regions of the Yukon, and the development of diversified mineral products.

The second item I want to make a comment on, for which we were heavily criticized by the Opposition is that of diversification.

The Leader of the Official Opposition said in his speech last Thursday, in Hansard on page 80, “I feel that there has to be more done in the communities.... There has to be a sense of encouraging the private sectors and individuals to build businesses...”

Let us look at the record of this government in the last six years. Let us look first of all to the support for diversification and decentralization of the renewable resources sector.

This government has supported numerous projects based on all of the Yukon’s natural resources and in every community. Some more prominent examples are: Arctic char farming, salmon roe and caviar processing, salmon speciality products, fish plants, game farming, fur enhancement program, sod farming, northern seed stock development, greenhouse food production, food processing and bottled water.

With respect to support for diversification and decentralization of the manufacturing sector, our government contributed, I believe, a great deal in this area. We supported projects such as a roof truss plant in Haines Junction and Whitehorse, northern windows, cabinet manufacturing, furniture manufacturing, pottery manufacturing, clothing design and manufacture.

There are some examples of how this government has contributed, in a variety of ways, to diversify our economy and also to assist our rural communities.

I guess what was of concern to me, representing a rural community, were the remarks made by the Leader of the Official Opposition with respect to the situation in rural Yukon communities. On Thursday in his speech, with reference to this area, he said, and I quote: “You talk to people who want to get involved in business and find something they can do, whether it is related to tourism or whatever, and a feeling of real hopelessness comes through. They cannot get anything going, for example, with regard to a hotel in Mayo. Though people have been trying, they have been thwarted in each and every one of their attempts.”

Now that is what he says about diversification of business and economic activity in the communities, despite what I just read into the record.

I want to read into the record what our support has been over the past five years for community-based economic development. We have assisted Indian bands and communities to employ economic development workers to assist in further planning and initiation of community-based economic development. We have located business development offices in each region of the territory, along with six government economic development officers in rural areas, to provide better assistance with economic development initiatives put forward by residents of rural communities.

We have established a community development fund, as a single source for community development in approving projects. Through block funding we have given communities greater control over the development of their infrastructure. The resource transportation and access program has also been used to assist community development and community-based economic development projects.

This is a very lengthy record, I would say, and a very substantial example of this government’s assistance to encourage and diversify economic development in rural Yukon communities.

I would like to say a few words about the example that the Leader of the Official Opposition used in his speech last Thursday about the hotel in Mayo. Realistically, the private sector is not going to build a hotel in Mayo. As a matter of fact, the banks are not going to get involved. That is quite obvious. Who else but the government would get involved in such a venture? Naturally, it requires assistance from the government, and at quite some risk. I do not think the chances for success would be all that great.

We tried the same venture in Watson Lake with the Belvedere Hotel. We did try and when the government failed we were criticized. Of course, whenever something fails - a risk venture like that - the government is criticized.

Another example is the MV Anna Maria, which the Opposition always raises as another example of the mistakes and failures of this government in its attempts at economic diversification. I do not know how many more years they are going to use that example, but I think it is a good one to focus on. I think we had a good idea here in the MV Anna Maria. A lot of people thought it was a good idea. Reliving our history, travelling through the Yukon wilderness between Whitehorse and Dawson City on the boat attracted the interest of a lot of investors, Yukon businessmen who have been active here and successful for a number of years who put some money into it. Obviously, so did some banks, but obviously, not enough. This government had to loan some money to the owners of the MV Anna Maria, and yes, it had to give some public grant money to get this going. We thought it was a good idea, as many people did. We took a risk. When the risk failed we were criticized, even though this government assisted in any way possible, not only with grants and loans, but also with getting the boat up here. The Community and Transportation Services department helped a great deal. Because the private sector did not know how to design a boat, because the private sector did not know how to build a boat, because the private sector did not know how to pilot the boat, and the private sector did not know how to get the boat up here into Yukon waters, this government was blamed.

If we had of asked those questions of the proponent of this project we would have been accused of having too much red tape, trying to stifle a project, of not taking any risks, and not wanting to help rural Yukon.

On one hand we get criticized for not trying ventures such as this, but when you fail after taking such a risk, you are criticized again. That is the position on just about everything by the party opposite. They like to have it both ways. They like to speak out of both sides of their mouth. We have noticed that over the past four or five years. That is the position of the PC Yukon party, to the extent that PC no longer means Progressive Conservative. It has not meant Progressive Conservative for a long time. Progressive was dropped many, many years ago for obvious reasons. Recently, with Members on the side opposite tearing up their membership card in the federal Conservative Party, with members of their caucus defecting, some of their own members starting up new parties, people do not know if they all still the Conservative Party. The name of the Progressive Conservative Party has gone out years ago.

“PC” stands for something entirely different, as has been exhibited in this House for the last five years. It is the party of “perpetual contradictions”. On the one hand they put forward one position this government is taking and on the other hand they are criticizing it. Their position is diversification; they want us to take a risk and build a hotel in Mayo, but as soon as we do and fail, they are against it. That is the party of perpetual contradiction.

On decentralization, our government has been criticized since 1985 for not doing enough to decentralize government positions from Whitehorse to rural communities. We have done some decentralization since 1985, but this year we have done it in a major way by announcing a three-year program, and we are now criticized by the Leader of the Official Opposition for this “stupid policy”.

Another example is the question of the growth of government. On the one hand, they want devolution. Everyone knows that if devolution is to occur, the government will grow. In my department, for example, in the last year, the freshwater fisheries unit was devolved from the federal government to the Yukon government. Five positions came over because of that transfer. So, yes, the government grew by five positions. We also took on some new responsibilities recently, such as the establishment of an environmental protection unit, which gave us another three positions.

From what I have heard from the side opposite, I think they are in favour of those new responsibilities and the devolution of the freshwater fishery and, through having heard from the Member for Watson Lake, I think they are in favour of devolution of forestry from the federal to the territorial government. But, on the other hand, the party of perpetual contradictions says that we should not increase the size of government. I do not know how that can be done.

Let us take a look at where the party of perpetual contradiction stands on financial responsibility. They are very much against the dependency on government and grant handouts. When they were in government, prior to 1985, the Yukon might as well have been called “grant city” and the government made no attempt to change that. That is when the dependency on government by the people of the Yukon really started.

What is their position on taxes? Taxes are a very interesting point because, back in the 1982 and 1985 election campaigns, I can remember people from the PC Yukon party...

Speaker: Order please. I would like to remind the Member he has three minutes to conclude.

Hon. Mr. Webster: ...saying that if the NDP ever got into power there would be territorial taxes right away. It is very ironic to see that the only tax we are going to get around here in the form of a territorial tax is that imposed on us by the federal Tory government.

Apparently, the Members opposite are against the introduction of the GST and have voiced this in a motion in this House. However, I heard the leader of the party of perpetual contradiction say on the radio two weeks ago say that they are all in favour of the GST.

I could talk about social issues as well. The party of perpetual contradictions have come out in favour of increasing some programs and services as long as it does not add a person year.

As for day care, who knows? I can recall during the last territorial election campaign one Member of the caucus opposite put forward her policy on child care, which was contradicted the next day by the Leader of the Official Opposition. Again, we do not know where that party stands on so many issues. That is why they are now officially known as the party of perpetual contradiction.

I can say the same thing about the comments made by the Leader of the Official Opposition about the lack of direction of our government. It is really ironic that he would raise that considering we ran on a platform in 1985 on economic improvements, diversification, and we met that. In 1989, we ran a different platform and switched to social issues and finishing land claims. We have a policy in place; we have a platform; the economic and conservation strategies have all given us some direction with the input from the Yukon public. It is very ironic that the Leader of the Official Opposition would put that position forward when they clearly have no direction. That is what the voters told them in 1985 and again in 1989.

In the last minute I have available to me, I want to reiterate that this budget is another fine budget that involves no taxes, does not increase the government spending above that of the inflation rate. It adequately addresses all the goals that this government wants to achieve. I can say with a great deal of confidence that the measures put forward in this budget will address the needs of all people in the Yukon.

Mrs. Firth: I will be brief with my comments in response to the budget speech. I want to emphasize the point I was making earlier this afternoon. I guess the two messages that governments want to get out in their budget speeches are: one, we are going to have a balanced budget, and two, there is going to be no increase in taxes. That seems to be what people are looking for first, and it seems to be what the government is bending over backwards to present so they can reassure everyone they are operating their books in a fiscally responsible way.

I want to go through the news release that the Minister of Finance presented to the media. This is information going to the public, which will help the public understand the figures and get the real facts and truth that this government likes to pat itself on the back for presenting, while challenging the Opposition Members for not presenting that information.

We look at the first sentence. Fiscal responsibility is the key to a balanced budget. This government is patting itself on the back saying how fiscally responsible they are. The first statement the Minister of this government makes is that the proposal of the government is to spend $355.7 million during this 1991-92 fiscal year. Then they compare it to last year and say they spent $370.1 million last year. So the Minister talks about the reduced budget representing their continuing policy of responsible financial management. Blah, blah, blah; toot, toot, toot.

We get the briefing from the department officials, which makes reference to the surpluses that the government is announcing. There is not one word mentioned in this opening statement that there are outstanding matters like: the Yukon Government Employees Union contract to be negotiated; the teachers’ contract to be negotiated; the college contract to be negotiated; or the RCMP contract to be negotiated, which we were told by the officials is going to eat up about $15 million.

When you compare the budget last year with the budget this year, they are both probably going to be the same. When you add the supplementaries that come forward this year, and I know there will be more supplementaries come forward, it will probably exceed the $370.1 million. For the Minister of Finance to refer to this as his reduced budget, representing the continuing policy for fiscal restraint, it can hardly be believable when you start adding up the figures.

They go on to say how they have had to make accommodations; they talk about the fiscal restraint that the federal government has decided to impose upon the people, and how they have managed to give us all these great things in the Yukon without increasing territorial taxes.

Now, we have not yet started through the budget this year, so we have not had an opportunity to examine every department in detail. In past years, though, when we have examined the departments we have found, for example, that fishing licence fees were increased. That is a form of increased taxation. I believe that happened last year.

Then, we had a huge debate about the licence plate issue, and we found out that the licence plate fees were going to increase by a huge amount of money. That is another form of taxation. We may find something like that this year, and we may not. I think it is fair to put the Members on notice that we will be looking for that when they make their claim that there have been no tax increases. We will be looking for areas where licensing fees may have been increased.

They give the big scary message to the public about how much less money we are going to have from the federal government. They start talking about all the good things they are going to do. They then make the big announcement that, in the end result, they have this balanced budget that is fiscally in balance to the needs of the Yukon people.

I have to use as an example the Health and Human Resources budget, because this is one budget that we have had a lot of debate and discussion about through the Public Accounts Committee and with the Minister in the Legislative Assembly. In the briefing, the officials explained the increase in costs in the health budget. First of all in the budget book, there is going to be a two percent increase in the health budget.

All the time the Minister stood up last session and talked about how health care costs were increasing, and how they had no control over it, and how the department had to look at taking steps to improve budgeting, and how it was harder and harder to predict and control health budget forecasts, and how adequate they have been. I took a quick glance through the health budget, and everything is going up: utility grants to seniors, income supplements, chronic disease recipients, health costs. We have a couple of new programs, day care costs are up, and kids in care are up. All the health care costs are up, but the budget is only going to increase by two percent.

The officials then explain to us that, actually, when you subtract the capital costs for the extended care facility, which is the three point whatever million dollars identified in the budget and is now going into the Yukon Housing Corporation budget for a long term care facility for $5.2 million, the health budget is only going to go up by one percent.

I ask you, all the public wants is accurate, trustworthy and useful information they can follow, not half on one side, half on this side, six of one, half a dozen of the other kind of financial management information that this government is bringing in here and trying to pass off as a well-balanced budget with no tax increases, yet providing more services to Yukoners.

I would like to make an appeal to the government to reconsider the kind of information it is bringing forward and that is being passed on to the public. I listened to the Minister of Finance on the radio the other morning. This was the Minister’s opportunity to get his message out to the public. He was going to tell everyone about his great budget. The reporter asked the Minister one simple question, which was where are the spending cuts occurring? I think people have the right to know that. Where are they getting the extra money?

We got this answer from this smooth talking Minister. He said they had focussed their expenditures - whatever that means to the people of Ross River or Teslin - we have shaved in various areas. Then the reporter and the Minister got into a little thing about shaving and close shaving. There was still no answer on where they got the money.

The Minister then said they cut some luxuries. I believe he said they had some luxuries. They cut some luxuries, some little things. The reporter asked like what, like telephone and travel?

Well, how credible is that information to the Yukon public? People in my constituency heard the Minister saying this and they were just in awe of the information he was presenting. He never brought forward one fact, not even one intention of explaining to the people where they were reducing their spending, after he had made this big announcement about how the budget was going to be $355 million, compared to $370 million in his reduced budget. But he could not give us one fact, not one fact, to show where he could put claim to this financial management of his, this fiscal responsibility.

I want to alert the Members that we will be examining the budget very, very thoroughly, that our expectation is like the expectation of the public: we want accurate information; we want open and forthcoming responses to the questions; and we want trustworthy information. The government has a responsibility to defend its policies and its positions and its decisions and the information that it brings forward so that we can make a true and a honest comparison of this government’s track record when it comes to the management of the budget.

I do not think that is an unreasonable request from the taxpayers of the Yukon and from the public. I do not think it is unreasonable at all that the government, instead of trying to make things sound good or make them sound better than they may really be, just come out and tell everybody what the truth is. That is all we ask.

I look forward to debating the budget and I look forward to the the Members doing some soul searching when it comes to the kind of information that they are going to come and present to this Legislature. Thank you.

Ms. Hayden: What I have learned over the past few days of debate is that, like the old cliche, it is indeed possible to please some of the people some of the time but absolutely impossible to please all of the people all of the time. Perhaps that is as it should be in a democracy. The Opposition’s role is to oppose and oppose they most certainly do, and sometimes quite indiscriminately.

We are accused of not running this government properly if we do decentralize and we are accused of not serving the people of the Yukon if we do not diversify the economy. We are accused of mismanagement if we do not offer government services on a broad scale and we are accused of mismanagement when we deliver these services. Yet still, the Members opposite repeatedly make requests for programs, policies and person years that, if implemented, would mean even greater costs and a larger government payroll. Perhaps that is their job too.

In the midst of this, however, are the very real needs of very real Yukon people: people with children to raise or parents to care for, people with homes to pay for or with no homes at all, people with hope and laughter in their lives and people with no hope at all.

This government has accepted its responsibility to implement and deliver programs and services on behalf of all the people of the Yukon. We recognize we must play a lead role in diversifying the economy if the economy is to remain stable, if it is to meet the needs of our people.

This government has promised to help and is helping by facilitating a partnership type of relationship between the public and private sector. We are providing infrastructure and support, and loans, to Yukon business. We understand how important jobs are - not just for purchasing power, although that is important, but jobs are important for the enhancement of the self-esteem and self-worth of our people. If you have lived on the other side of the economy for awhile, you know what it does to your self-image to be without work. A stable economy is the best insurance there is.

To build that stable economy means taking some risks, but this government believes that loan programs are needed to stimulate the private sector. There is some risk that the private sector cannot or will not undertake, but which may be necessary to achieve diversification and economic growth and stability. These risks may be related to the establishment of a business in rural Yukon. They may mean backing first-time business people in Whitehorse or in rural communities. These are prospective business owners who are traditionally disadvantaged in terms of access to financing. Women, for example, are traditionally at a disadvantage when seeking private sector financing, yet research shows we are some of the best small business people around.

Risks may also mean supporting the development of innovative ideas, and risks may mean supporting economic development in areas that are tailored to the north.

Surely the time has come when we can look at living in the north as an advantage. We can turn our thinking around from always feeling at a disadvantage to one of looking for the advantage in circumpolar services and industries, for example.

We have much to offer our polar world, including our creativity, knowledge and learning, not only in our college, but in our long experience, long years of living in this subarctic territory. There is no doubt that we love our part of the world. There is no chauvinist like a northern chauvinist. I use this word in its original meaning.

Why would we not take risks to better the lives of northerners? It makes sense. Many Yukon businesses have benefited from government loan programs. We have invested over $7 million in people who had business ideas for the Yukon. The creativity and ingenuity is here. It just needs to be nurtured. So often we just hear about the failures but figures show that only 3.5 percent of loans have failed, compared to institutional lenders whose loss rate is two to three percent on what are considered to be safe loans by the private sector lenders - private sector lenders, whose sole purpose is to make money on their loans. The word “safe” means that it will bring back more money to the lender. It brings to mind that several years ago one of the safest so-called stock investments was in private homes for old people.

Owners of these places made money, not only by providing a needed facility, but by charging a little bit less than some other homes, and providing almost no service at all.

There have been too many cases of true exploitation of someone’s parents and grandparents, and of the people who paid for their so-called keep in the cause of safe investment. I use this example to explain that “safe” does not always mean good or even better, and certainly not best. Let us face it. We will not have growth and diversification without some risk taking and, without growth and diversification in tight economic times, we will not have jobs.

There are many ways to help communities. Whole communities, including Whitehorse, have benefited from this government’s community development fund. It is one of the most direct ways of meeting a community’s, a neighbourhood’s, or a society’s need. Often creating jobs, a new or renovated facility, and a very vital sense of accomplishment for those who have seen the project through from start to finish.

We sometimes forget that our complicated society does not often lend itself to the satisfaction of seeing a project through from concept to completion. All communities benefit from government spending. This government has not grown unreasonably when we consider the services being brought to the people of the Yukon in terms of education, language agreement implementation, health care, libraries, social services, aboriginal justice programs, and many other programs. Yet, we have achieved a balanced budget with no tax increases.

As an MLA in Whitehorse, I am pleased this budget has made provision, once again, for work on a Capital City Commission. Fifty thousand dollars was budgeted for the project last year, and the same amount has been set aside in this budget. We have the opportunity to enhance Whitehorse as a capital city, one the whole Yukon can be proud of. Personally, it is my hope that, for example, the waterfront can be developed as a people area, with walkways, small shops, benches and historic artifacts to attract tourists in just a comfortable riverside space. Other cities do it - perhaps we can, too.

Parks could be built in the downtown area. Land suitable for parks could be used for parks, and not office buildings, other commercial development, or parking spaces.

We are a community of neighbourhoods, and neighbourhoods are people, real people. We are not just population statistics to be manipulated for perceived political gain.

Much has been said about the increasing violence in our city. I, too, am  concerned. One of the things Whitehorse can learn from other cities’ mistakes is that we must keep the downtown residential, as well as commercial. People living in an area 24 hours a day, seven days a week, help keep it safe for others who merely shop or work there.

Many government departments’ spending is people-oriented, too. We are investing in healthy communities with projects like the Skookum Jim AIDS awareness program, health investment fund, support for nonprofit groups like churches, service groups and child cares, the education appeal tribunal, aboriginal justice programming, family violence prevention programs, and many others. The visitor reception centre will benefit both tourism and trade in Whitehorse and throughout the Yukon.

As well, work will be done on the Two-Mile Hill. The fire truck to the Golden Horn area will be replaced and there are many improvements to the Whitehorse library. Schools in Whitehorse, Jack Hulland and Selkirk Street School in particular, have been renovated and the South Highway school has been constructed. No doubt parents in Porter Creek are looking forward to the construction of a new elementary school there.

Provision has also been made for renovation to Macaulay Lodge and for equipment for the communications disorders clinic.

I have touched on just a few of the projects in this budget that will benefit Whitehorse. There are many more.

All in all, I have to say that this government has done a good job developing a budget that is balanced while continuing to provide top services to the people of the Yukon without raising taxes. The sign of a responsible government is one that can keep program expenditure in line with the rate of inflation in spite of a growing population and a growing demand for more and more services.

This government has again managed to walk the line between meeting the needs of the people of the Yukon and being fiscally responsible. The budget is directed at meeting the four priorities: land claims, building a sustainable economy, investing in healthy communities and ensuring good government. These are the areas the people of the Yukon told us are their priorities. There is more than $2 million to support the implementation of land claims. This money is earmarked for a training trust fund, outfitter compensation, fish and wildlife enhancement trust, band-by-band negotiations and the implementation of boards and councils.

This government is living up to its commitments to build a sustainable economy through other programs, such as the business incentives program, museum program and airport upgrading.

In Whitehorse, over $2 million has been budgeted for the construction of a new visitor reception centre. There is $150,000 in funding set aside to host the 1992 Arctic Winter Games in this city. A paper recycling project in Whitehorse is receiving $60,000. Another $100,000 will be used to clean up abandoned metals in the territory. Any of you who have heard about the hundreds and perhaps thousands of oil drums abandoned around the territory over the years know how important this is. We all know how disconcerting it is to think you are in the midst of a pristine wilderness and suddenly discover someone else’s garbage.

I want to conclude my remarks by saying I am looking forward to the challenge ahead of us in the coming months and years. It is a challenge to truly represent all Yukon people and meet the change the 1990s will inevitably bring. I am confident we can all work together to build a more caring, compassionate, non-racist, non-sexist, accepting Yukon society - a society that is accepting of all people: male, female, aboriginal, Caucasion, people with disabilities, old or young, rich or poor, shoppers and street people - and one that also accepts newcomers to our country and to our society.

Hon. Ms. Joe: I would like to first of all thank my colleague, the Minister of Finance, and his department for the excellent job they have done with this budget, which has suffered cutbacks from the federal government, cutbacks that are very real regardless of what the side opposite says. If you have an increase to a transfer payment, it is not due to the commitments made under our old formula but rather because this government has worked to devolving programs such as the airports and roads from the federal government to the Yukon government. We have been able to live within our means while continuing to maintain our level of service. The Minister of Finance should feel very satisfied in the way he has managed to bring a budget before this House that is fiscally responsible. Not only has he been able to hold off on any tax increases but has also been able to present a balanced budget. This is what good financial management is all about. Everywhere in the country there is concern over the economy due to the recession that is being created by the Conservative government, but here in the Yukon we are able to continue with a good healthy economy and Yukoners can be hopeful that this trend will continue.

During the past week, we have heard a lot of talk about the growing government. I would like to know why the side opposite would feel that government employees do not contribute to the economy and social well-being of the Yukon. The population of the Yukon is growing and this government is acting accordingly. We have developed new programs, we have implemented programs, we have hired new people and those people are there to do a good job. Are the Conservatives saying that the employees are not worth more than the mining industry or the tourism industry? We are not talking about person years, we are talking about people - people who live here, have homes here, raise their children and work right here in the Yukon. There are many new businesses right here in the Yukon. Right here in the Yukon, we can see a small mall being built, new stores opening up, many businesses expanding. I cannot imagine why business people would be doing so well if it were not for the people here in the Yukon. The side opposite have been questioning the person years as if they were just figures on a piece of paper. These are real people. They are doing real jobs and they are helping with the economy here in the Yukon. I am telling Mr. Performer that he has done a good job, and I am very proud to be a part of his group here.

The Member from Porter Creek East stated during his response to the Speech from the Throne that we do not fire employees but instead we give them another job in the public service, such as a secretary. This statement shows that in fact the Member from Po