28th Legislature, Session 1, Thursday, December 17, 1992

Whitehorse, Yukon

Thursday, December 17, 1992 - 1:30 p.m.

Speaker: I will call the House to order. We will proceed at this time with Prayers.

Prayers

DAILY ROUTINE

Speaker: We will proceed at this time with the Order Paper.

Is there any Introduction of Visitors?

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Mr. Phillips: I am very pleased today to introduce a long-time Yukoner who is in the House. I am not going to let the cinnamon bun out of the bag yet. I would like the House to welcome Ellen Davignon.

Applause

Speaker: Are there any Returns or Documents for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Hon. Mr. Phillips: I have for tabling the document Our Land Too - Women of Canada and the Northwest 1860-1914. This supplementary text for high school students is a result of a cooperative effort between the Women’s Directorate and the Department of Education with input from a number of individuals and community groups.

I also have for tabling one other document, You Make The Choice. This booklet is for junior high school students, and it profiles 10 Yukon women in occupations traditionally dominated by men. The booklet was a cooperative effort by the Women’s Directorate, the Department of Education, the Canadian Congress for Learning Opportunities for Women, Industry, Science and Technology Canada, the Council for Yukon Indians, Northwestel and the Yukon Advisory Council on Women’s Issues.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I have a legislative return.

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I have for tabling the annual report of the Yukon Development Corporation and the annual report of the Yukon Energy Corporation. I have already provided copies to the Clerk, and I do not have my copies at the desk right now, so I shall table them later on in the day.

Speaker: Petitions.

PETITIONS

Petition No. 1

Clerk: I have had the honour to review a petition, being Petition No. 1 of the first session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislative Assembly, as presented by the Hon. Member for Faro, on December 16, 1992.

Pursuant to Standing Order 66(1), of the Yukon Legislative Assembly, it is my responsibility to report whether petitions conform to the rules recognized by the House. This petition does not conform in the respect that it is addressed to the Yukon territorial government, rather than the Yukon Legislative Assembly.

Speaker: Petition No. 1, accordingly, may not be received.

Petition No. 2

Clerk: Mr. Speaker and hon. Members of the Assembly, I have had the honour to review a Petition, being Petition No. 2 of the first session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislative Assembly, as presented by the Hon. Member for Riverdale South on December 16, 1992.

This petition meets the requirements as to form of the Standing Orders of the Yukon Legislative Assembly.

Speaker: Petition No. 2, accordingly, is deemed to be read and received.

Speaker: Are there any further Petitions for presentation?

Introduction of Bills.

Notices of Motion for the Production of Papers.

Notices of Motion.

Statements by Ministers.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Yukon writer-in-residence program

Hon. Mr. Phillips: I am pleased to announce that, for the first time, a Yukon writer has been chosen as the territory’s writer-in-residence, to provide writing workshops in a number of communities and guidance one-on-one to aspiring Yukon writers. Before I tell you who our new writer-in-residence is, allow me to provide a bit of background.

The residence program is now four years old. After a number of short-term contracts, longer residencies were undertaken by Patricia Robertson in 1990-91, and Gertrude Story last winter. Yukon writers benefitted greatly from the experience and skills of these outside professionals, whose own work was considerably influenced by the experience of working and writing here.

Now, in consultation with the newly formed Northern Writers’ Circle, the foremost association of Yukon writers, my libraries and archives staff have developed an expanded development program to meet the needs of both established and aspiring Yukon writers.

In addition to the writer-in-residence, this program will include an intensive two-day retreat with two Yukon writers as resource people, shorter workshops in a number of Yukon communities, and two two-day workshops dedicated exclusively to First Nation writers.

While the Northern Writers’ Circle will be contracted to organize much of the program, the writer-in-residence will work directly under departmental supervision. Every second year, we will attempt to secure Canada Council funding to provide a six-month residency for a noted outside writer, who can give Yukon writers the fresh literary stimulus they require.

Between these residencies, we will give established Yukon writers a similar opportunity, a two-month contract to share their skills and work intensely with the colleagues right here in the territory. I am delighted to tell you that our first choice for this task is not only a favourite of readers territory-wide, she is renowned among cinnamon bun afficianados. I refer, of course, to one of the Yukon’s best-loved story tellers, the long-time Queen of Johnson’s Crossing, Ellen Davignon.

When Ellen came into my office today, it was the first time that I didn’t recognize her because she didn’t have cinnamon in her hair and berry stains on her hands. Ellen has been busy this past summer, often called on to recount tales from her teenage years during the construction of the Alaska Highway. And now, we are going to keep her busy sharing her considerable skills with other writers across the territory. Her residency will be from February 1 to March 31, 1993.

I could not have made a more popular choice as our first local writer-in-residence. It bodes well for the future of our new literary development program, and the Yukon, which has a tradition of fostering great writers, and it cannot help but continue to do so.

Mr. McDonald: As Members know, we are very supportive of the writers-in-residence program. The inspiration behind the idea of establishing opportunities for aspiring writers to work with distinguished colleagues actually came from the Member for Whitehorse West - a sometimes-author himself. The program has proven to be very successful in allowing Yukon writers to share manuscripts and bounce ideas off authors who themselves have often made a tremendous impact on Canadian literary circles. As the first Yukon author chosen, we feel that Ellen Davignon was an inspired choice. Many Yukon people have read her work, followed her articles, and felt common cause with her experiences. In fact, having been sitting in the Legislature for the past few days, I can relate to people who lead lives of quiet desperation. I would like to wish our new writer-in-residence well, and assure her that she will be continuing a fine and established tradition.

RCMP auxiliary/reserve policing

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I am pleased to announce the creation of an RCMP auxiliary/reserve police program for the City of Whitehorse. The new pilot project will take effect over the next few months once recruitment and training details are finalized. The purpose of this project is to supplement existing RCMP resources in areas of pro-active community policing. This means participation in the Neighbourhood Watch program, vandalism prevention, special event crowd and traffic control, building security, search and rescue, and public education programs. The 10 candidates for this auxiliary force will be members of the general public who meet certain selection requirements and pass local RCMP training courses. They will serve as peace officers on a volunteer basis, wear RCMP working uniforms and serve with regular police personnel. They will not carry firearms.

RCMP auxiliary/reserve policing has been very successful in other parts of Canada for almost 30 years. During this time, many auxiliary members have gone on to successful careers with the RCMP, while others have enjoyed serving their communities on a part-time basis.

Here in Whitehorse a number of citizens have already indicated their willingness to participate in a Yukon program once it becomes operational. It is also hoped that many more will come forth when the recruitment campaign begins in the new year.

I want to emphasize that this program will not cost the Yukon government any additional funding. Under the terms of the arrangement, the RCMP will be responsible for uniforms, training and indemnification. In return, it will be able to focus more of its existing resources on those law-and-order matters that need as much full-time attention as possible, such as ongoing criminal investigations and the general protection of life and property. To that end, successful auxiliary/reserve candidates will be sworn in as supernumerary special constables under section 7 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. That means these constables will not be paid for their services, but they will have a unique opportunity to make a valuable contribution to their community.

We all know these are difficult times, both from a fiscal and social point of view. Much is asked of our police force, but the resources to pay for these demands are very limited. So we have to look for innovative solutions. It is this government’s policy to encourage new, more efficient ways of providing service to taxpayers without compromising the safety and security of its citizens. We believe this auxiliary/reserve policing program is an excellent example of the growing partnership between Yukoners and the RCMP on the value of enhanced, community-based police services.

Thank you.

Ms. Joe: I am very pleased to hear this ministerial statement today. A few weeks ago I had the opportunity to sit down with Chief Superintendent Henderson, and other people, in regard to the problems of vandalism and crime in Whitehorse. One of the things that we spoke about was the Neighbourhood Watch and auxiliary/reserve policing. Knowing at the time that it was going to happen, I am pleased to know that it will take place and that things continue to be supported by the Minister of Justice, in terms of what it was that we were discussing when we were in government.

Crime Stoppers is also another good program that is done by volunteers and I think that is another support group. Many volunteers do take part in helping the RCMP to do many different things, and I pay tribute to all of those volunteers who take the time and make the commitment to try to help in ways that they can.

I would like to just mention a concern that I have right now. In my walk around my riding, high-speed chases have been mentioned at least three times. We have had a couple of chases in the Yukon during the last few months and although it could be a good thing that the police may be pursuing someone for a certain reason, people in my riding have spoken to me about the danger that these chases may cause; for instance, the death of people who are in front of the chased vehicle or somebody who may be an innocent bystander on the street.

I only mention that because it is an opportunity to do it at this time, but I commend the Minister and those people who volunteer the time to do these kinds of things.

Transporting firearms

Hon. Mr. Brewster: My officials within the Department of Renewable Resources have advised me of news that may impact on every trapper, every person who lives on subsistence hunting, every outfitter, every farmer, every surveyor, prospector, hunter or pilot who feels it is necessary to carry a rifle or firearm in a vehicle during their travels throughout the Yukon.

Federal firearm regulations, which will come into effect in January 1993, will now make it a criminal offence to carry loaded firearms, with shells in the chamber or magazine, in a vehicle or conveyance. This, of course, will impact on our Wildlife Act which, for many years, permitted hunters, trappers and outfitters to carry loaded firearms in a vehicle.

The Yukon Wildlife Act permits firearms to be transported by vehicle with shells in the magazine as long as a shell is not in the chamber.

According to information provided to us, it may now mean that hunting from boats, as is now the practice by the people of Old Crow, could be a criminal offence. The regulations are so confusing that even these basic questions have not been properly answered. I intend to insist on clarification.

I have been advised by my departmental officials that we were not consulted in the drafting of these regulations and that they may have an impact on everyone living in rural and remote communities, or who work in isolated locations.

While we can appreciate the concern to control the use of firearms in large populated urban centres, such as Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, we feel this regulation was drafted in ignorance of the daily lives of millions of other Canadians who reside in rural and remote communities.

Confirmation that these regulations would be put into effect this January 1 was only recently brought to our attention. I will be forwarding letters to the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs to register our displeasure with a very short-sighted regulation, and demanding that the federal government initiate a public awareness campaign to ensure Yukoners are not made criminals simply by imposition of this arbitrary regulation.

Mr. Harding: I can say in response to the ministerial statement that there are also a number of concerns with the regulations that are soon going to come into effect that have been expressed in my riding, certainly concerns of people who are against the legislation. There have also been concerns expressed by people who are in favour of the legislation. Some people feel that the legislation has gone too far and some people say it has not gone far enough.

There was a public awareness session sponsored by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Faro where upward of 50 people attended on a weekday evening, which is a pretty good group for the community. There was a lot of concern in the community about this issue.

This is an issue that I think everybody in the Legislature - and I know everyone in the Official Opposition - shares a concern that adequate safety regulations for firearms in this country and in this territory be ensured.

However, there is some concern - and I would say that perhaps we concur to a degree with the government - that perhaps there should be some options explored with regard to how it is going to affect the particular way of life here in the Yukon. This way of life is different from some of the more urban, rural and heavily populated centres in the south.

We would certainly support some initiatives to explore other avenues and other options that perhaps the Yukon could look to and also support the public awareness campaign.

Speaker: This then brings us to the Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I rise today to correct a word that I used on page 28, December 16, in the Blues. I said a person in high authority had “quit” the government. I should have said that the person in question had “left” the government.

Question re: Health services transfer, hospital construction

Ms. Moorcroft: The Yukon Territory stands to lose $50 million for the construction of a new hospital if this government procrastinates in the decision to build a new hospital by their review of the hospital transfer agreement - $50 million committed by the federal government that is destined for the pockets of Yukon workers. Will the Minister of Health and Social Services assure this House, so that we do not lose this money because of a pending federal election, that he will complete his review of the signed agreement before Christmas?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: It was a fortunate choice of the side opposite to select a new Member as critic of Health because I take great delight in recounting, at this point in time, to some of the other Members opposite how long the side opposite dragged its feet on the transfer when they were in power. Many times they were criticized for doing so.

We do intend to review this issue. It is coming up very soon. I hope we have the review completed before Christmas; that is our intention, at least.

Ms. Moorcroft: Unemployed workers in the Yukon are going to have a lousy Christmas. Millions of dollars are just sitting there waiting to be used to construct this long-overdue hospital. This Tory government has axed the Tagu Ku project; there is no help going to Faro; and now the Minister is saying he has to look it over while Yukoners are out of work.

Does the Minister not have confidence that his government can build a desperately needed hospital, providing desperately needed jobs, with $50 million?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I can only hope that our experienced colleagues are not guilty of trying to help the Member with her lines.

The fact is that even if we review and proceed with the transfer negotiations, they are not complete. There are certain agreements in principle that have been reached but if we proceed as quickly as we can, there is no guarantee that there will be a satisfactory conclusion, and there is no guarantee, of course, that the hospital would get off the ground this year. We would hope, in the event that we decide to push ahead, that we would be able to have it in place for the coming building season, but I would want to caution the Member that it is not all in black and white and completed. Ratification has still not been received from other parties.

Ms. Moorcroft: At the very least, can the Minister tell this House if the $2.5 million the federal government has already committed to the design of the facility is going to be spent? Is the design work going ahead?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: Some work has been done and as soon as the review is complete and if it has a positive result, we will be moving ahead with design, and all those things, as quickly as possible.

Question re: Health services transfer, First Nations health committee

Ms. Moorcroft: The hospital transfer includes a specific agreement concerning the First Nations health committee. Is the Minister telling the aboriginal people of the territory that he does not respect their rights by denying them access to healthy lives through traditional medicine, traditional diet and designated funds for education and training of First Nations people, in this area, that was part of this agreement?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: Of course not. I have met with the representatives of CYI and explained that we are reviewing this very important issue as quickly as we can. The government certainly supports the work that has been done with respect to ensuring that the demands of CYI are being met in the pertinent agreements. The issue remains as to whether or not we are fully satisfied with the prudence of going ahead and taking on this huge responsibility in a climate where we see our southern counterparts, the provincial governments, going deeply into debt due to rising health costs.

Ms. Moorcroft: Are the goals and objectives of the First Nations health committee, such as employment equity, which recognizes the unique health and social needs of First Nations people, simply noble goals, which, as the Minister indicated when he appointed the Justice of the Peace in Faro, were something that time and circumstance do not allow him to achieve?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I would hope that the Member would not even have to ask that question. I am sure that she, herself, believes they are more than merely noble goals. I am certainly of that opinion. I am surprised that she is not.

Ms. Moorcroft: When, then, will the Minister respond to the expressed needs of the people of the First Nations, as per the signed tripartite agreement among Canada, the Yukon government and the Council for Yukon Indians - one of those agreements the Minister has said he will honour?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I guess this is just another way of asking the question: when are we going to complete the review of the transfer negotiations? We are going to do that as quickly as we can - it is hoped before Christmas.

Question re: Whitehorse sewage financing

Mr. Cable: I have a question for the Government Leader on the Whitehorse sewage treatment problem. As I think all the Members know, this problem has been outstanding for several years and was discussed very actively in the last campaign. Will the Government Leader spell out, for the record and for this House, what the government’s commitment is to the City of Whitehorse in relation to the financing of the Whitehorse sewage system?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I thank the Member opposite for the question. As the Member stated, this is a very serious and very difficult problem. It is a problem we discussed during the election, and we still maintain it has to be resolved. The Yukon Party has made a commitment, and we intend to honour that commitment. We will pay up to $25 million toward a new sewage treatment facility. The actual cost will depend upon negotiations with the city.

Mr. Cable: It is my understanding that the predecessor government has made arrangements with other communities whereby a 90/10 cost-sharing arrangement has been entered into. The Yukon government would be paying 90 per cent and the communities paying 10 per cent. Is this government prepared to enter into that sort of commitment with the City of Whitehorse?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I cannot assure the Member at this time that that is the formula that will be arrived at. I do believe that the Yukon Party, during the election campaign, made a very substantial commitment - almost twice as much as the previous administration had made to try to get this problem resolved.

Mr. Cable: In view of the fact that the issue has been outstanding for some time, is the government in a position to indicate to the House when, in their opinion, they feel the construction of a sewage system will begin?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I understand the city is dealing with the problem now. The question may have been better directed to the Minister of Municipal Services. I am not certain if negotiations have started at this point or not.

Question re: Game ranching

Mr. Penikett: I also have a question about honouring of Yukon Party commitments. I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Renewable Resources.

During the CBC election event, the Government Leader said he supported game farming in the Yukon, as well as game ranching. How will the Minister of Renewable Resources be implementing this Yukon Party policy?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: We already have a committee that either met last night, or is meeting tonight, which is advancing on game farming. I have had a couple of talks with people in the CYI and with the Yukon Fish and Wildlife Management Board, and this subject has been brought up again. There are two or three preliminary papers, but they are not in agreement, in any case.

Mr. Penikett: I know about game ranching and farming, and I know about the discussions. How is the Minister of Renewable Resources planning to implement this radical new policy in favour of game ranching? Is the moratorium recommended by the Yukon Fish and Wildlife Management Board on game farming therefore at an end?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: No, the moratorium is not at an end, and we have not got down to looking at the facts surrounding game ranching, just the game farming.

Mr. Penikett: We do not know if the Minister is going ahead, going back or stuck in a rut.

Since the Government Leader has committed his party to a policy that, everywhere else in the country, is regarded as not only environmentally disastrous but economically foolish, could the Minister of Renewable Resources tell us how he is going to be living up to their election commitment to establish game ranching in the Yukon Territory?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: We did not commit ourselves. We said we would support it and look at it.

Question re: Chateau Jomini

Mr. Harding: After that last answer, I do not know if I should change my line of questioning - I guess I will stick with the original plan. I would like to address this question to the Hon. Minister responsible for the Yukon Development Corporation - or what is left of it.

I would like to know, given that housing, office and retail space is badly needed in Faro and that a solid commitment was made to Faro by the previous government for the Chateau Jomini facility, when can Faro expect the Hon. Minister responsible for the Yukon Development Corporation to get the project back on the rails so that Faro’s legitimate housing, office and retail space needs can begin to be addressed?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I have had a conversation with the honourable gentleman from the other side and I explained to him that Yukon Development Corporation will not be going ahead with any projects - I do not know if I have to spell it out for him, but I am sure he knows what I mean.

Mr. Harding: I am in a quandary. How can the Minister responsible for the Yukon Development Corporation justify the decision to destroy this critical project, with no discussion, no consultation and not even any notification to the municipality of Faro, the board of the Yukon Development Corporation and the MLA of Faro - no one, not even the people of Faro - especially in light of the previous rantings in the Legislature, by the Hon. Minister responsible for Yukon Development Corporation with regards to arms-length distance by government from boards.

Hon. Mr. Phelps: It is a very simple situation. This is a new government that was elected by the people. It was voted in on certain commitments. One of them is very clearly that the Yukon Development Corporation is no longer going to be used as a tool by the government to circumvent the Legislature and spend money raised from rate payers - not tax payers - to pursue the agenda of the Government Leader and the Ministers. It is very simple; we are changing the mandate of the Yukon Development Corporation.

Mr. Harding: I have a question that I would like to direct to the Hon. Minister of Education.

Speaker: New question.

Mr. Harding: No, it is regarding the same issue.

Speaker: The Yukon Development Corporation?

Mr. Harding: Yes. Chateau Jomini.

I have a question for the Hon. Minister of Education, as I stated before.

The municipal government in the Town of Faro has given temporary zoning allowance to the Faro campus of the Yukon College to operate in an area not zoned for institutions in Faro, only because space for the Chateau Jomini project was supposed to be made available to the Yukon College in Faro.

I would like to ask the Minister if he intends to take a strong position within in his Cabinet to ensure that we do not lose our community college in Faro.

Hon. Mr. Phillips: I thank the Member for Faro for his question.

I have met with the board of governors of the Yukon College, and it was indicated to me by the chairperson of the Yukon College board that they had some strong concerns about occupying Chateau Jomini and about the costs that would be involved in it.

I understand that the community campus is in a bit of a dilemma. I have the Department of Education working on this issue, trying to find accommodation.

This government has no plans at this time to close down the college - none at all. We are exploring all avenues to find better accommodation.

Question re: Yukon Development Corporation, windup

Mr. McDonald: I have a question for the Minister responsible for the Yukon Development Corporation, in reference to the matter that we have been discussing regarding the matter of the windup of the Yukon Development Corporation, and the fact that the Member has been reported to have said that the party is going to windup the Yukon Development Corporation’s operations, even though they did not make any mention of this particular initiative during the election campaign.

I would like to know what procedures the Minister is going to be using to windup the Yukon Development Corporation?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: All of that is currently under review, and no final decision has been made in that regard.

Mr. McDonald: I beg to differ with the Member as decisions are being made virtually every day.

First of all, we understand that the Minister has simply told the Yukon Development Corporation that they will not proceed with a project that they have already approved.

Apparently, this is a breach of the etiquette between the Minister and the board. It also appears that potentially - I have recently been reading the Yukon Development Corporation Act - there could be a breach of the act, not that the Members opposite have any particular respect for the acts.

I want to know if the Minister intends to come to the Legislature to change the Yukon Development Corporation board objects through debate in this Legislature or will he simply direct the board to abandon projects or to restrict discussions at the board level to something that respects only Yukon Energy Corporation matters?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I am sure that the hon. Member would be extremely surprised to know that we fully intend to come before this House and discuss completely, and in detail, our intentions with respect to the Yukon Development Corporation. If the preferred route is to amend that act, that is what we would be doing. I am leaning toward that, but no final decision has been made.

Mr. McDonald: Given what has happened in the last few days, I am very surprised that the Members are choosing to come to the Legislature to amend that act rather than simply break the law on a temporary basis.

While we are sitting in the Legislature, the decisions are being made as we speak with respect to the relationship between the board and the Minister. Can the Minister tell us whether or not he is going to be undertaking any public review of the board’s operations or is he simply going to come to the Legislature and spring legislation on the public and on this Legislature in the spring?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: The Member’s question did contain one element of fact: we are sitting here right now. With respect to breaking the law, I would like to advise him that I have discussed the issue, which was raised by him, with respect to the Workers’ Compensation Board. The law has not been broken, in the opinion of that department.

With respect to the public review, we are making up our minds about how exactly we are going to proceed in the very near future. I can reassure the Member that I would be delighted to debate this matter at length in the session in the spring.

Question re: Yukon Development Corporation, windup

Mr. McDonald: I would love to be able to pursue at greater length the matter of Ministers wantonly breaking the Workers’ Compensation Act because I think that is a serious issue that deserves more time. I must go back to the Yukon Development Corporation Act and the decisions that are being made, and the decisions that have already been made, by the Minister responsible for the Yukon Development Corporation. The Yukon Development Corporation Act does lay out the objects for the corporation very clearly and does give certain powers to the corporation. What particular right does the Minister of the Development Corporation have, under the law, to put an end to the Chateau Jomini project, which was a decision of the board, without any consultation with the board at all?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I am not here to act as counsel for the hon. Member across the floor. I would be delighted to, though, because apparently he does need good counsel. In my view, there has been an election and, in my view, the government has changed. The people did not ask us to continue on in the same erroneous ways as the Members across the floor. We are expected to live up to our campaign promises and to signal a shift in the way that the government is going to do business, and that is what we are doing.

Mr. McDonald: The shift that is being conducted here, quite clearly, is that the Ministers across the floor feel that if they have made some allusion to some election promise during the election campaign that may be at variance to the law, then the law can be ignored. That is simply unacceptable behaviour.

Speaker: Order please. I would ask the Member to limit his preamble to the question and to one sentence. It should not provoke debate on several other subjects.

Mr. McDonald: Well, Mr. Speaker, on that point I have a very difficult time, wanting to provoke debate on this very important subject but, nevertheless, I would like to ask the Minister responsible for the Yukon Development Corporation and responsible for respect for the Yukon Development Corporation Act: irrespective of election campaign promises, is the Minister going to be taking any other actions with respect to the Yukon Development Corporation that would contravene the spirit and intent of the Yukon Development Corporation Act?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I am not sure if the Minister is being spiritual when he talks about the law; he certainly is not being very factual. I would submit that if he wants to make those allegations, at least he should come forth concisely with exactly what he means.

Mr. McDonald: I think I have been as exact as I possibly can, both with respect to this law and other laws that have been debated in this Legislature in the last few days.

I would like to ask the Minister - we have reversed our roles here, Mr. Speaker. He keeps referring to me as the Minister. Perhaps he thinks that is my natural right, or something.

Is the Minister going to undertake any public consultation process of any sort whatsoever in determining any changes to the Yukon Development Corporation Act? If he could describe it, that would also be nice.

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I have answered this question once before, and I would expect the ex-Minister across the way to try to ask the same question only once or twice during an afternoon here.

I said we were firstly determining which way we intended to proceed with respect to the Yukon Development Corporation. I will be making the announcement once we have determined the direction we are going to take.

It is interesting that he is asking me more questions as I answer the first one. I thought the election campaign was a rather interesting exercise in consultation of the people.

Speaker: I would remind the Minister that the answer should be relevant to the question and should not provoke debate. I think the Minister has answered the question.

Question re: Riverdale 32-suite apartment development

Mrs. Firth: All this time, I thought the election was over. It does not sound like it, from the questions in the House.

The Minister responsible for the Yukon Housing Corporation has received correspondence from, and met privately with, some of the residents of Riverdale South regarding the building of a 32-suite apartment block on church property.

The city has passed a resolution blocking the issuance of a development permit temporarily. In correspondence I have received from the Minister, he has indicated that he would work toward resolving the problem. Exactly what is the Minister going to do to resolve this problem?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I have met with the proponents of the project and with the City of Whitehorse and suggested a possible compromise to the initial proposed building.

If they liked the compromise, I have asked them to get back to me. I would be quite willing to have some of our people consult with some of the neighbours in the area.

Mrs. Firth: The Minister’s department, the Housing Corporation, has already put $90,000 of the taxpayers’ money into this project. I would like to ask the Minister if part of this compromise and consulting is going to involve the expenditure of more of taxpayers’ money in the Yukon Housing Corporation budget?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I think that other than a bit of staff time, it will not be an additional cost. I should remind the hon. Member that $90,000 does go into the mortgage for the project.

Mrs. Firth: Nevertheless, it is still $90,000. Perhaps the Minister could stand up today and share this compromise with us, so I can tell the constituents, on whose behalf I am asking this question.

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I will quite happily share the compromise after I have heard from the proponents of the project and from the City of Whitehorse.

Question re: Land claims, rumoured referendum

Ms. Joe: My question is for the Government Leader and it is in regard to land claims. We now have four First Nations land claims finalized. We have two bills before the House. One is asking for approval of the land claim final agreement and the First Nation self-government. A committee has now been struck to provide more information to Yukoners who seek information. We understand that the government may be considering holding a referendum on land claims. My question is: what would the government be asking the people to decide in such a referendum?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: This is news to me. This is the first I have heard of a referendum. I can certainly assure the Member opposite that it is not anything that has come up for discussion within our caucus or Cabinet, or even within our party.

Ms. Joe: This is a bit of a concern to the people of the Yukon because we have been in a land claims process for 20 years and there have been a lot of agreements finalized. I would like to ask the Government Leader if he would give this House an assurance that we will not be proposing or supporting a referendum at this late date, 20 years later, to ask the people to decide whether or not they want to have a land claims settlement.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: For the information of the Member opposite, we just went through an exercise in the Legislature last night appointing a committee to go around the Yukon to listen to the concerns of Yukoners and to explain the land claims process and the self-government process. I believe that is the role we want to continue to pursue.

As I stated in my first answer, it has not been the intention of this party to hold a referendum. No thought has ever been given to it. I certainly do not support a referendum.

Question re: Game ranching

Mr. Penikett: I would like to go back to the other election promise about game ranching. The Minister of Renewable Resources just said that he was not committed to game ranching, he just supported it. Could he explain to the House exactly what the difference is between being committed to something and supporting it?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: Yes, I can explain it, although my language is not as fancy as yours. By supporting it, I mean that we will look at it. We have not had any committees look at it at present. We are, at the present time, not even thinking of forming a committee; we are just interested in game farming.

Mr. Penikett: I would like to ask the Minister, since his leader apparently does not, does he not understand the potential for disastrous diseases from domestic livestock spreading to indigenous wildlife populations if game ranching were introduced in the Yukon?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: Yes, I understand it to some extent, although in other places it has been successful. I am not saying that we are even attempting it here. We are listening to people and we will have committees that will travel around and find out what people think about it. We will also take advice from the biologists.

Mr. Penikett: His leader’s support for game ranching in the CBC debate is on tape; it is unequivocal. I was so shocked I asked him twice. The Government Leader confirmed twice that it was his policy.

Can the Minister for Renewable Resources tell us in this House exactly what steps this government, and he, as the responsible Minister, will be taking to implement his leader’s policy?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: As I said before, we will simply go back to the people, seek biological evidence and see if game ranching is practical or not.

Question re: Seniors drop-in centre

Mr. Cable: I should say that I have not quite gotten used to the vaulting out of one’s seat when the previous speaker sits down. You have to be a quick jack in the box.

I have a question for the Minister of Health and Social Services.

During the last election campaign I became aware of the fact that the seniors drop-in centre in Whitehorse is run down and that a number of seniors groups are looking around to have a new drop-in centre constructed.

I understand that the present facility is in very poor condition. Will the Minister tell the House whether or not he supports the building of a new drop-in centre, to be operated by the Golden Age Society?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: My understanding with respect to that issue is that the seniors have gone to the City of Whitehorse and that an official of the city is preparing some plans and proposals about how the seniors might go about obtaining financing, and that sort of thing, for that building.

That process has not been completed and we have no idea exactly what the seniors have in mind or what kind of financing they are looking for and from what agencies. I suspect that the City of Whitehorse may be prepared to finance a fair portion, given the interest of the mayor in this project.

Mr. Cable: I will be looking forward, with great interest, to receiving the document that is being prepared and getting a firm understanding of the amount of money that the city will be contributing and what other agencies are being contacted to contribute money to this project, before we even begin to answer questions about it.

I understand that these organizations, which include the seniors information centre and the Golden Age Society, have made a specific request for land owned by the YTG. Has the Minister considered whether there is land available in the City of Whitehorse, owned by the Commissioner, that could be made available to these seniors groups?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: The Member obviously has a direct link to City Hall. I met with the mayor and some representatives of the Golden Age Society, who brought me up to date on what meetings they had had with the previous Minister, prior to the consultation process that concluded on October 19 of this year.

They asked us to try to find the map that had been prepared by the previous Minister as a first step to see what kind of land is owned by the Commissioner in the city, and that is something we are trying to get.

Surprisingly enough, very little of the Minister’s material remained behind when she left office. I suspect somebody might have shredded it by mistake.

Question re: Deportation of Faro resident

Mr. Harding: I have a constituent in Faro who is facing deportation from Canada. The woman facing this terrible consequence had a representative write the Government Leader for assistance in having her hearing moved from Vancouver to the Yukon.

The Government Leader’s response was a terse letter from his executive assistant, which I have before me, offering no assistance. How can the Government Leader send someone facing this dire consequence such an unhelpful and uncaring letter?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I thank the Member opposite for the question. My staff was relying on advice from Department of Justice personnel who are familiar with such matters. I guess that is the danger of listening to advice from lawyers.

My staff then communicated that advice to the lawyer acting on behalf of the Member’s constituent. I would like to tell the House that when this came to my attention last night, I took immediate action on it. There is a letter of support being drafted in my office at this time for my signature.

Question re: Government employee position review

Mrs. Firth: I have a question for the Government Leader regarding employees. I have written a letter asking for an answer, but I have not received a reply. I would like to ask him what exactly the policy is with respect to term and auxiliary employees. The Minister has said in the House in the last couple of days that they go to Management Board to get authorization for positions. I would like to know if that means that the policy is that all term positions and auxiliary positions are automatically terminated, and then if someone cries for help and says they need a position filled, they will go to Management Board.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: It is not an exercise in crying for help and going to Management Board. As the Member opposite is aware, there is a hiring freeze on. It is not something we wanted to do. It is something we felt we had to do. I would just like to tell the Member opposite that the objectives are for better management that will be achieved through attrition, reorganization and better utilization of all government employees. This includes auxiliary and term positions.

The deputy ministers have been given a directive that any positions that will be required to be filled are to come before Management Board. Management Board will look at them and fill them as required.

Mrs. Firth: From that answer, the policy is that all the term and auxiliary positions, as of this government being here, no longer exist.

I would like to ask the Government Leader if he can tell us exactly how many people are affected.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I thank the Member opposite for the question. I expected the question and researched it this morning. My department gave me the following figures: 22 term and auxiliary positions have expired or been deleted. Of these 22 positions, 16 of them were vacant when we took office. Of the remaining six positions, three of the people who were in them are still working in government in other positions and three terms have expired. The respective departments involved can make submissions to Management Board if they feel these position have to be filled again.

I have to say that the Member opposite is trying to cause alarm in the community. The number of positions that have expired is very small. I have related all the information to the House.

Mrs. Firth: I am not being alarmist at all. It is Christmas time and people are out of their jobs. There are a total of 113 term person years and there are hundreds of auxiliary positions in this government, so the answer that the Minister has brought back is completely unsatisfactory. I would like know - if he cannot tell me how many real people are being affected by this - how much money is the government saving with this initiative?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I have told the Member opposite how many people have been affected so far. I would like to say for the record, we truly believe in auxiliary and term positions. These positions are very important as it gives the government the needed flexibility of being able to maintain government services to all Yukoners, as the demand may arise. I do believe that we are fulfilling our mandate. As these positions expire, the deputy ministers will make their recommendations to the Management Board.

The other thing is that auxiliary positions often exist for one specific program. When this program ends that position no longer exists.

Speaker: The time for Question Period has now lapsed. We will proceed to Orders of the Day and Government Bills.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GOVERNMENT BILLS

Bill No. 13: Third Reading

Clerk: Third reading, Bill No. 13, standing in the name of the Hon. Mr. Brewster.

Hon. Mr. Brewster: I move that Bill No. 13, entitled An Act to Amend the Liquor Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Hon. Minister responsible for the Yukon Liquor Corporation that Bill No. 13, entitled An Act to Amend the Liquor Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Motion for third reading of Bill No. 13 agreed to

Speaker: I declare that Bill No. 13 has passed this House.

Bill No. 98: Third Reading

Clerk: Third reading, Bill No. 98, standing in the name of the Hon. Mr. Phelps.

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I move that Bill No. 98, entitled Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act (No. 2), 1992, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Hon. Minister of Justice that Bill No. 98, entitled Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act (No.) 2), 1992, be now read a third time and do pass.

Motion for third reading of Bill No. 98 agreed to.

Speaker: I declare that Bill No. 98 has passed this House.

Speaker: We are now prepared to receive the Commissioner, acting in his capacity as Lieutenant Governor, to grant assent to the bills passed by this House.

Commissioner enters the Chamber announced by the Sergeant-at-Arms

ASSENT TO BILLS

Commissioner: Please be seated.

Speaker: The Assembly has, at its present session, passed certain bills. In the name and on behalf of the Assembly, I respectfully request your assent.

Clerk: An Act to Amend the Liquor Act; Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act (No. 2), 1992.

Commissioner: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Clerk, I am very pleased to give assent to the bills as enumerated by the Clerk.

May I take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to wish all of the Members and the staff of the Yukon Legislative Assembly a very, very marvelously peaceful Christmas break.

Commissioner leaves the Chamber

Speaker: I will now call the House to order.

GOVERNMENT MOTIONS

Clerk: Item No. 1, standing in the name of the Hon. Mr. Ostashek. Adjourned debate, Mr. Penikett.

Motion No. 4 - adjourned debate

Speaker: The motion before the House is as follows:

THAT Standing Order 45 be amended by:

(a) adding the following new provision:

“(4) At the commencement of the first session of the each Legislature a Standing Committee on Appointments shall be appointed to review and report on appointments proposed by the Executive Council to those boards, commissions, councils and committees identified in the motion appointing the Committee.”,

and

(b) renumbering the remainder of the Standing Order accordingly;

THAT the Honourable Members Doug Phillips, Margaret Joe, John Devries, Jack Cable, Mickey Fisher, Trevor Harding and David Millar be appointed to the Standing Committee on Appointments; and

THAT the terms of reference of the Committee be as follows:

(1) The Committee may review appointments proposed by the Executive Council to:

(a) Yukon Development Corporation Board of Directors,

(b) Yukon Energy Corporation Board of Directors,

(d) Yukon Lottery Commission,

(e) Yukon Recreation Advisory Council,

(f) Yukon Fish and Wildlife Management Board,

(g) Yukon College Board of Governors,

(h) Yukon Electrical Public Utilities Board, and

(i) Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment.

(2) The Committee may also review such other appointments proposed by the Executive Council as are referred to it by the Executive Council or as are referred to it by separate motion of the Legislative Assembly.

(3) The Committee shall prepare a report within 45 days of receipt of a proposed appointment and such report shall contain:

(a) the decision of the Committee as to whether it would review the proposed appointment,

(b) where the committee has decided to review the proposed appointment,

(i) the recommendation of the Committee as to whether the proposed appointment should be made, or

(ii) a statement that the Committee has chosen not to make a recommendation,

and

(4) The right of the Committee to report on a proposed appointment continues in those cases where the Commissioner in Executive Council or, if applicable, a Minister has found it necessary, due to legal requirements or operational needs, to make an appointment prior to the expiration of the 45 day period.

(5) The Chair of the Committee shall present all reports of the Committee to the Legislative Assembly; if the Legislative Assembly is not sitting at the time a report has been prepared the Chair shall forward the report to all Members of the Legislative Assembly and then release the report to the media and the public.

(6) The Committee shall hold its meetings in camera and is empowered to call proposed appointees as witnesses; the Committee may also invite Ministers to appear as witnesses.

Mr. Penikett: I had just begun my speech yesterday when I was so rudely interrupted by the clock. Lest anyone forgets, I would just like to recap the central point I was trying to make before I go on to make my second, third and fourth points.

The proposal before us, in my view, is not a significant reform at all. Indeed, as compared with the provisions of the Public Government Act, which was voted for by all Members of this House in the spring sitting, I believe it is a giant step backwards. I was explaining yesterday that the Public Government Act was intended, in its very first sections, to facilitate the participation of everyone in this territory in public policy debates, administrative tribunals, advisory boards and commissions of this government.

As I mentioned yesterday, the act also directed that the government should use its best efforts to write and communicate with citizens in plain and inclusive language. It directed that the boards and commissions of this government should be as representative and as open as possible. The act made it clear that men and women were to be considered equally for appointments to boards. We were to take steps to make sure that aboriginal and non-aboriginal people were included in our boards and that individuals from all regions of the Yukon were represented. As I mentioned, it was clearly the intention of the government-of-the-day to suggest that the boards be representative of people of all political stripes and persuasions.

Of course, this was not simply the government’s view. It turns out that this was a view adopted by all Members of this House.

The act goes on to take another major step forward, in another quite aggressive reform, by taking away the exclusive power of Cabinet to nominate people of their own political persuasion, of their own liking, and of their own ministerial preference, to boards and committees. It gives the right to every single citizen of the territory to nominate fellow citizens to boards and commissions.

I do not want to pass lightly over this provision, because it is a major reform and is extremely inclusionary in its intent. Its purpose is to distribute some of the power of the Cabinet - which, in a modern parliamentary democracy, is quite considerable - among the citizens. Its purpose is to get back to the most fundamental idea in our democracy - going back to the village or town hall meetings in New England, or the democracy in the ancient Greek cities - where every citizen had a say, and every citizen had a right to nominate every other citizen for some office, whether it was to an appointed office on a board and committee, or to a public office.

As I have said, the act also wanted to make the boards of Crown corporations more directly accountable to the citizens because, obviously, boards and corporations make many decisions within their legal rights. Ministers are often held accountable for those decisions, even if the Minister knew nothing about them and may not even have agreed with them. It is quite appropriate to see Crown corporations as not being owned by one shareholder - the government - but by a large number of shareholders, namely, all the people of the territory.

The forum we proposed there was that boards like the Liquor Corporation, Development Corporation and Energy Corporation would, once a year, have to have a public annual general meeting that any citizen could attend and exercise the rights normally exercised by a shareholder of a public corporation. They would be able to ask questions, to listen and participate in discussions about the activities of that board or corporation.

There are other major reforms in this bill, the like of which have not been Icarried out anywhere else in Canada. One of these was something I deeply believe in, a prohibition on the government being able to do opinion polls at taxpayers’ expense; and by requiring the government that did any of this kind of research to make it public within a certain length of time.

Also in this bill, there are very good democratic reforms, in terms of great improvements in the access-to-information provisions, and, of course, the conflict-of-interest provisions dealing with the case of former deputy ministers and former senior officials. Under this bill, it was proposed that there would be a conflicts commissioner and an information commissioner - perhaps even the same person. This person would not be appointed by the government, but would be appointed on the vote of a special majority of this House, by a number - which I forget - that was either two-thirds or three-quarters of the Members; a number we deliberately designed to be larger than the majority any party has ever enjoyed in this House, and a number that was intended to guarantee that the conflicts commissioner and the information commissioner would be someone who would enjoy the support and respect of both sides of the House. I would say to the Government Leader that this person would be one who would require prior consultation among the Members of the House before an announcement. This neutral, objective person would be able to mediate in questions of access to information, as well as advise Members and former employees about potential conflicts.

As I said, an essential part of this bill dealt with the structuring, the composition and the nomination process for public boards and committees.

What the government is proposing here, as I understand the motion, is not to do what they voted for in June and, in essence, what they promised the people of the Yukon they would do when they stood up and voted for that measure this past spring, not what they promised to do in their speeches and their votes earlier this year, but to take a step backwards and reserve exclusively for themselves the right to nominate people to boards and committees, and then have them reviewed by a committee in this House, but a committee that would be controlled by the government, on which there would be a government majority, and which, even more insidiously, is a committee that would meet in secret.

What would be the likely dynamics of that committee, based on previous experience? I hope the Members opposite will not be offended when I say this, but, based on previous experience - as I was here when they were in government before - all but two members of all the boards were Conservative Party supporters. Women were hugely under represented. There were practically no aboriginal people on any of the boards. No one who did not share the government’s view of things was ever appointed to a board, unless the government was required to consider, by statute, nominations from some third party, such as when the federation of labour got to nominate someone to the Workers’ Compensation Board or the Employment Standards Board.

I am not going to assume that the government is going to behave the same way as when they were in office before, but let me assume, just for a second, that they did, for the sake of argument. What would happen? Nominations would come to the committee. The government has a majority. The committee meets in secret and the Opposition Members say “Hey, these people are all Tories; when are we going to get some people who perhaps you do not regard as real Yukoners, but who live in Faro or are people who do not agree with you?”

The government could then say, “Well, they were nominated, you can vote for them or not, you can talk to them or not, but in the end we are going to vote for these people; we are going to get our way.”

What is the result of that committee? It meets in secret. The government has a majority; it can do exactly what it likes. There is no public review - there is a report, but there is no public review - in the sense that ordinary citizens can look in and see what the qualifications for these citizens are or why they were being nominated or why someone else was not being nominated. There is no right of citizens to present nominations and have their nominations considered. There is no transparency to the committee proceedings, as there are in most committees, where the general rule of this House is that committees meet in public unless there is a requirement that they do otherwise; that is the ancient parliamentary tradition.

Where does the idea that is before us today come from? Well, it is a reform that was argued and promoted by some Conservative backbenchers in the House of Commons. It was intended as a sop to the critics in Parliament who said that the government appointed these people by Order in Council and that there was no oversight and no review process.

Other people in Parliament argued for the American system, where Congressional committees get to review nominations in public. For a long time there were parliamentary reformers in Canada who believed that was not a bad system - for instance, that you nominate Jack Cable as chair of some board, Jack Cable comes to appear before a committee of the House and Members ask questions about Jack Cable’s qualifications, his interests, experience and his general intentions about the conduct of the duties to which he has been nominated.

Of course, people have had second thoughts about that process since the experiences of Judge Borke and Judge Thomas, where the inquiry was not limited only to professional experience and the members’ qualifications, but to a large number of other issues - which some people believe should be personal and private; other people, in the case of Judge Borke, believed that the issues were relevant; namely, their political activities.

I am not going to reflect on the wisdom of the United States Senate committee’s judgment in respect to Judges Borke or Thomas, but I do know that many constituents whom I represent, many of whom live in my own neighbourhood of Hillcrest, were quite appalled by the television proceedings about the Bourke and Thomas nominations.

However, I think it would be a serious mistake to respond to those sorry events by saying the solution is to go in camera, to go behind closed doors and to meet in secret about these matters, and I want to explain why.

It is my experience, having served on committees of the Legislature for a number of years, as well as having done a lot of reading on the subject and having served on boards and commissions outside of government, that it is quite likely that the desired effect of having polite discussion about someone’s qualifications would not be achieved.

The argument may be made here about what happened in the House of Commons committee when the federal government decided it would respond to the critics’ pleas of its patronage by creating an all-party Parliamentary committee to which certain nominations for certain public boards would be directed and, if they wished, Members could review them.

Some of the same kind of nastiness as transpired in the Bourke and Thomas case also happened in Ottawa - perhaps not as bad, but in miniature. Before, in this House, I have cited the case of a prominent Yukon Conservative who was nominated for an important appointment on a national board, and who was subject to what I thought to be a quite vicious and inappropriate attack on their character and credibility by a member of my own national party.

I thought that was regrettable. For the record, I told the particular member who offended against the Yukoner what I thought. However, the suggestion that this problem can be addressed by going behind closed doors is entirely wrong-headed. In all my experience in boards, commissions and committees of this House, and those elsewhere, it is quite likely that much worse and much more slanderous things are said about people in private and behind closed doors than are said in public, and perhaps with as devastating an effect. Someone who may be nominated to a board and may be considered by this committee, and who has their character assassinated by the Member in committee in private, may have no right of reply because they would never know that the charges had been made. I think that is unfortunate.

For myself, this motion is a step backward. As I understand it, the Liberal Member of this House, the Hon. Member for Riverside, has, on some previous occasion, suggested that all MLAs have a right to nominate people to boards and commissions, not just government MLAs. I do not have a problem with that, but I would go further. I would argue that all citizens should have the right, not just the people on one side of the House who happened to win an election.

Yesterday, the Government Leader made a big point of saying that 60 percent of the people in the territory voted against my party. Exactly the same statement is true of his party, yet he has the right to govern in a parliamentary system. More than 60 percent of the people of the Yukon voted against the Government Leader and his party.

If one argues that, in a democracy, a party with 36 percent of the vote has the right to appoint all boards and committees, there will be dispute with me. During our time in government, we took the view that we should invite nominations from everybody, and we did invite people to do so.

We also took the view that all variations of political opinion and every region should be represented to achieve as much gender balance as possible and to radically increase the representation of First Nations citizens on boards and committees. This was done, and we were criticized by many people, including some Members of this House, for doing it.

I do believe in representative boards. I believe that in this day and age we have a responsibility to try to make our boards representative to include people from all walks of life.

I believe, as we did in the Public Government Act, that we should do as much as we can to achieve gender balance, aboriginal representation and regional balance. We should not have the case that used to exist that hardly anybody from Faro was on any public board. This may have been because some people felt that the people from Faro were not real Yukoners. They are real Yukoners that contribute to society and I think they have something to say and should be heard.

I believe that there should be political balance on boards and that the proposal we have before us is a step backward. When we were in Opposition - at that time the present Government Leader was not in the House - I believe the official state religion in those days was the divine right of Tories. It was believed that the only people who should be on boards or were fit to be seen on boards or deserved to be on boards, were people of the same political persuasion as the government.

The problem with that approach is that you end up with echo chambers, people who repeat back the same views that the Cabinet or the government have,and I think you seriously diminish the usefulness of boards.

The real value of boards and commissions, even in a small community and with a small government like the Yukon’s, is that it gives Ministers an opportunity to get a sample of Yukon opinion, a variety of Yukon opinion, not only of the people who supported the government. You receive different views, including the views of business, labour, women’s groups, community, environmental, aboriginal, mining and tourism. These views give you a sense of the great, complex shadings of opinion throughout the whole territory, and I think that is useful.

I want to say to the Minister of Justice that I think he made a serious mistake, regardless of what he may feel about the wisdom of his decision, on Chateau Jomini. I think it was a disastrous decision - not to the Minister of Justice who is well-represented in this House, and who is attending at this moment to his parliamentary and Cabinet duties - and say to that Minister that he made a serious mistake when he made the kind of decision about Chateau Jomini that he made without consultation with the board. I think the decision was wrong. In fact, I think it was probably wrong in law, but I think also that it is also wrong from a process point of view.

As I was listening to him in Question Period today, it reminded me of that wonderful story about the Duke of Wellington. He went home after his first day on the job as Prime Minister of Great Britain, and wrote in his diary: “Met the King this morning, was sworn in, met my Cabinet later, gave them my instructions, and then the damnedest thing happened; they began discussing them.” Well, the point of course is that ministerial power in our system is not absolute. Lord Acton is often quoted as talking about absolute power corrupting absolutely. Lord Acton also had another aphorism that I think is as relevant, but less well-known. He said, “There is no greater error than to think that the office sanctifies its holder.”

Ministerial duties, effective ministerial conduct, require good advice. Good advice can only come from representative boards. Representative boards are only likely to be achieved by the input of a great many people, of a great many opinions, from various walks of life. That is why whatever we did in government we decided in the end to get the Public Government Act to put into law some of these principles so that no matter how arrogant or how elitist some government may become in the future, how much patronage-ridden their impulses may be, that there would be a check and a balance on ministerial power, and not only the Legislature, but the citizens in this democracy would have some rights to participate in public discussions.

Having read the motion of the Member opposite, and having thought about this resolution, which is one of the longest on such topics we have ever seen - it is long and wordy but in the end not very consequential - I would like to compound that problem by moving an amendment to the motion.

Amendment proposed

Mr. Penikett: I move

THAT Motion No. 4 be amended by:

(1) deleting paragraph (a) in the first section of the motion and substituting for it the following:

“(a) adding the following new provision:

(4) At the commencement of the first session of each Legislature a Standing Committee on Appointments shall be appointed to review and report on appointment to boards, commissions, foundations, corporations and other similar agencies established as agents of the Government of the Yukon.";

(2) adding the following new paragraph in the third section of the motion:

“(2.1) When a proposed appointment has been referred to the Committee any Member of the Legislative Assembly or any resident of the Yukon has the right to nominate any other resident of the Yukon for consideration for appointment to the position under review.”;

(3) deleting subparagraph (3) (b) in the third section of the motion and substituting for it the following:

“(3) (b) where the Committee has decided to review the proposed appointment,

(i) the recommendation of the Committee as to whether the proposed appointment should be made,

(ii) the recommendation of the Committee as to whether a person identified by the Committee should be substituted for the proposed appointment, or

(iii) a statement that the Committee has chosen not to make a recommendation,";

(iv) adding the following new paragraph in the paragraph in the third section of the motion:

“(3.1) The Committee shall prepare an annual report to the Legislative Assembly which shall assess whether best efforts have been made to make appointments which are representative of the population of the Yukon as a whole, including:

(a) men and women,

(b) aboriginal and non-aboriginal people

(d) individuals of all political persuasions;"

and

(5) deleting the expression “in camera” where it appears in paragraph (6) in the third section of the motion and substituting for it the expression “in public”.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition

THAT Motion No. 4 be amended by:

(1) deleting paragraph (a) in the first section of the motion and substituting for it the following:

“(a) adding the following new provision:

(4) At the commencement of the first session of each Legislature a Standing Committee on Appointments shall be appointed to review and report on appointments to boards, commissions, foundations, corporations and other similar agencies established as agents of the Government of the Yukon.";

(2) adding the following new paragraph in the third section of the motion:

(3) deleting subparagraph (3)(b) in the third section of the motion and substituting for it the following:

“(3)(b) where the Committee has decided to review the proposed appointment,

(i) the recommendation of the Committee as to whether the proposed appointment should be made,

(ii) the recommendation of the Committee as to whether a person identified by the Committee should be substituted for the proposed appointment, or

(iii) a statement that the Committee has chosen not to make a recommendation;

(4) adding the following new paragraph in the third section of the motion:

(a) men and women,

(b) aboriginal and non-aboriginal people,

(d) individuals of all political persuasions."

and

(5) deleting the expression “in camera” where it appears in paragraph (6) in the third section of the motion and substituting for it the expression “in public”.

Mr. Penikett: I would just like to say a few words about the proposed amendment.

First of all, Members will notice that in (2) of the proposal, it has been suggested that not just the government, but any Member of the Legislature, can nominate people for certain positions on boards and commissions. In my own caucus we refer to this as the “Cable clause”, because it is the understood wish of that great national and local institution, the Liberal Party, that all Members of the Assembly, not just the privileged few who have seats in Cabinet, should have the right to - and perhaps the duty, the obligation, the opportunity - to nominate worthy citizens to boards and committees. That, I hasten to add, includes people who do not have party status - people who may be treated as complete pariahs by the Members of the Legislature. There may be someone - I cannot think of anyone at this moment, but in some future Legislature - who is actively disliked by the government side. The intention of this clause is to make sure that that person would have the right to still nominate people to boards and committees. Of course, this does not guarantee that their nominations would be chosen, but it would at least give them and the people they know, and their constituents, an opportunity to serve.

Now, I have the quaint view that even if the Members opposite, as they bragged in the last election, - I think it was an IQ of 300 - knew almost everybody in the territory, there were probably some people who may be known to the Member for Riverside - members of the bar who do not hang out at the same places as the Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes - who would be valuable additions to boards and committees. The Member for Riverside should have the opportunity to bring those names forward, just as the Member for Riverdale South should.

The intent of clause 2, the Cable clause, is to bring forward recommendations for boards and committees.

The second part of the clause is one that our caucus is particularly fond of. This states that every resident, citizen, and person sitting in the gallery will know people whom they think are worthy of appointment to boards and commissions. These people will have a chance to participate in public business and to advise the government on important economic social matters, and to participate in bodies, such as the Social Assistance Appeal Committee, the Yukon Energy Corporation Board, the Assessment Appeal Board, and any number of other boards.

Of course, the government will still be able to use the hammer of its big majority and deny these citizens their right to a voice and a chance to serve on a committee. The government will still be able to use the crushing weight of its overwhelming support of 36 percent of the population to impose their will and make sure that nobody except those who support their particular view of the world is appointed to any board or committee.

However, at least in our proposal, people with other points of view, people from the far corners of the territory not represented in government caucus, close personal friends of the Member for Riverside, or advisors of the Member for Riverdale South, would at least have a chance to have their names put forward and sit on these boards with their credentials, recommendations and experience opposite the credentials and experience of the nominee of the party opposite and would be able to be judged on their merits by the committee.

The next clause, which is one I call the people’s-choice clause, gives the committee at least the possibility of deciding to choose someone other than the government nominee. It gives the committee the chance to consider the Member for Riverside’s nomination, the Member for Riverdale South’s nomination or perhaps the Member for Vuntat Gwich’in’s nomination and to consider them in the light of the other nominations. Perhaps the committee might have a moment of spirited independence or be struck by a democratic impulse one day and decide to nominate or recommend someone to a board other than those that have been put forward by the government. That would be a great day for democracy and for this Legislature. It would be a great day for the Yukon Territory.

The third point I want to make is that even Conservative governments in the provinces and even the Conservative government nationally now recognize, in the closing days of the 20th century, that it is desirable to have representative public boards. They recognize the need to get women involved in the public business, to try and get gender parity if possible, to make sure that significant minorities - and particularly the first peoples of this country - are represented on boards and committees in proportion to their numbers in the community.

I want to compliment Prime Minister Mulroney on this, because his nominations to the Supreme Court of a number of women have been exemplary. More and more governments in this country - and even quite right-wing governments - have been making an effort to make sure that their boards are representative and have people of all political stripes, and even people they do not particularly like, involved in advising the government and in consultations.

We, on this side, do take a radically different view from the Minister of Justice, who expressed the view today that consultation is something that happens every four years on election day, and that is enough. We share the view of the Minister of Renewable Resources today, who said they were going to consult on policy matters. We think that consultation has to go on every day in a modern democracy, not just once every four years.

My last point is the question of this in-camera business. It is the fundamental belief of every Democrat that the public business must be done in public. I do not think you should have any backroom, closed-door proceedings, especially in matters as sensitive as this. I do not think there should be the opportunity for any Member of this House to bad mouth or denigrate any fellow citizen without being able to be held to account for what they have said by a record being kept of the proceedings and those proceedings being held in public.

The conduct of Members of the committee, the quality of the inquiry, the dignity of the proceedings, the sensitivity and proprietary of the questions that are put, is more likely to be of a high level if the hearings of such a committee, especially when there are witnesses before it, are held in public than in secret.

I strongly believe that the proposal here to hold any deliberations of the committee in camera is a fundamentally wrong-headed notion and cannot even masquerade under the name of a reform in any modern legislature anywhere in the English-speaking, or even western, world.

Therefore, I respectfully submit to the Members opposite that the only way to salvage any dignity from their proposal, any claim that this is a reform initiative, or any claim that this is polite patronage with a friendly face of patronage under cover or closed-door-committee patronage, would be to adopt the amendments that I am respectfully, constructively and positively proposing.

There may be other amendments coming from others later in this debate, but I would hope that the House and the Members opposite will give serious consideration to the proposals that I have put forward in this amendment.

Mr. Cable: I think the operative comment that was made in the last sentence was “serious consideration”. I appreciate the flattery identifying this amendment as having a Cable clause in it, but I must say that I have drafted contracts that are shorter than this motion and the amendment, and I am wondering whether we are giving serious consideration to this very important matter.

The issue of appointments to boards and committees was very much in the public’s mind over the past year. I think it is fair to say that it was very much an election issue.

There is a perception in the public that governments can, on occasion, make appointments based on political considerations, rather than other qualifications. Whether that proposition is true or not perhaps is beside the point. The perception must be dealt with and the public must have the confidence that boards and committees to which this House has delegated decision-making authority and responsibility are in fact operating at arm’s length and that the people serving on them are chosen on the basis of merit.

While the government has made an effort in this direction, both through the main motion and as amended by the proposed amendment, I think that as long as the Executive Council is the generator or nominator of appointments, whether solely or in part, it will be difficult to dispel the perception of partiality.

My party’s position is that these appointments should not only be vetted by the House committee but also proposed by the House committee. In that sense, the substance of the amendment is satisfactory.

I Must say, also, that I do not share the Leader of the Official Opposition’s opinion of the Public Government Act. There are too many obtuse provisions in the act to be operative. I do not think it addresses the process problem. What I would like to see this House consider - and I do not have a formal motion to bring forward - is putting this issue out to the people where it belongs. If ever there was an issue that cries for public consultation, this is it. We should ask people “what do you want to see, people, to determine how appointments should be made to your boards and your committees.” I think this would be genuine delegation.

I have considerable difficulty in supporting either the motion or the amendment. I do not think we have had time to consider this properly, and I think we need further input from our constituents.

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I have been listening to the debate with a great deal of interest. I must say that I share some of the concerns that have been expressed by the last speaker with respect to the amendment to this motion. I, too, have seen good contracts that are much briefer than the proposed amendment. I, too, must say that I sometimes think that perhaps - and I could be wrong - the good Leader of the Official Opposition was speaking with his tongue in his cheek at times this afternoon.

The original motion was put forward by the Government Leader as a serious attempt and a serious step toward trying to ensure that there will not be, particularly in the minds of the public, blatant patronage when it comes to appointments to public boards and committees. I believe it is on par with standing committees and processes that have been developed both at the federal level and in Ontario.

The government, in putting forward names, knowing that they would be scrutinized by an all-party committee, would be very careful to ensure that they would put forward the names of persons worthy of consideration, that they would take into account gender balance and the appropriate numbers of persons from various ethnic and racial backgrounds.

The Leader of the Official Opposition has said that this step is rather hesitant, and in fact, a step backwards from the provisions in the Public Government Act, and yet we have heard from the Member for Riverside that he is not really very content with the provisions of that act.

Clearly, this is a minority government. Clearly, we do not intend to try to railroad matters through that do not have support from the majority of people in this House, no matter how noble the objectives might be in our mind. I take many of the comments - not all, but many of the comments - made by the Leader of the Official Opposition seriously. I think he has eloquently underlined some of the concerns that citizens have here, and certainly canvassed a number of options in his remarks. I know that the Member for Riverside is sincere in his concerns about what he sees as shortcomings to the original motion, but he certainly is not fully convinced that the amendments would meet his concerns.

I feel, given the circumstances and given the fact that we are in a minority position, that the public deserves careful consideration. I therefore, because of that, reluctantly - and reluctantly, because I know it will mean that we will have to proceed under the existing laws in the territory in order to fill boards in the interim - must move adjournment of debate.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister of Justice that debate be now adjourned.

Some Hon. Member: Division.

Division

Speaker: Division has been called. Mr. Clerk, would you kindly poll the House.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: Agree

Hon. Mr. Phillips: Agree

Hon. Mr. Brewster: Agree

Hon. Mr. Phelps: Agree

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Agree

Hon. Mr. Devries: Agree

Mr. Abel: Agree

Mr. Millar: Agree

Mr. Penikett: Disagree

Mr. McDonald: Disagree

Ms. Joe: Disagree

Mr. Joe: Disagree

Ms. Moorcroft: Disagree

Mr. Harding: Disagree

Mr. Cable: Agree

Mrs. Firth: Disagree

Clerk: Mr. Speaker, the results are nine yea, seven nay.

Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Motion to adjourn debate on Motion No. 4 agreed to

Special adjournment motion

Hon. Mr. Phillips: I move

THAT the House, at its rising, do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of the Speaker, after consultation with the Government Leader, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet;

THAT the Speaker give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time; and

THAT, if the Speaker is unable to act owing to illness or other causes, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order.

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

THAT, if the Speaker is unable to act owing to illness or other causes, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order.

Motion agreed to

GOVERNMENT MOTIONS

Clerk: Item No. 2, standing in the name of the Hon. Mr. Ostashek.

Motion No. 6

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

THAT this House urges the Government of the Yukon to immediately implement measures to control its expenditures and to ensure the proper management of the territory’s finances.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I rise today to debate this motion. It is one I would have preferred not to have had to debate in this House. The fact remains that the Members opposite left the bank account empty.

Within hours of being elected, we were notified by officials within the Department of Finance that they did not have very good news for us as an incoming government. They told us that the financial health of the government was not very good. Upon receiving that message, we decided to engage Mr. Merv Miller, a certified management accountant who has assisted the Deputy Commissioner of the Yukon and is a very well-respected gentleman, to head up the financial part of our transition team.

As the first step, Mr. Miller and I got together with the heads of all the departments and Crown corporations and asked them to submit O&M and capital expenditures for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1993, and the reasons for the fluctuations of expenditures from the year ending March 31, 1991, to the present time.

We had the Deputy Minister of the Executive Council Office request that Consulting and Audit Canada be hired to receive the submissions from YTG and report on the change in the accumulated surplus of YTG during the period April 1, 1990, to March 31, 1993.

We knew when we started on this exercise we would be criticized by the Members opposite in this House for using this as a political exercise, and crying wolf so we would not have to fulfill our election promises, and trying to make the previous administration look bad. That was why we hired a firm as reputable as Consulting and Audit Canada to present this report for us so that we could bring it to the House. They are a very reputable firm and have done many audits and financial work, including some for, I believe, the previous administration.

As we look at the report, it seems devastating. The expenditures of the previous administration were out of control.

A surplus of $64,493,000 at the beginning of the 1991-92 fiscal year is projected to turn into a deficit of $5,711,000 as of March 31, 1993.

This is totally unacceptable. It reflects poor fiscal management, and I do not believe that the previous administration was living up to its obligations to use sound fiscal management of the public’s money.

In the 1992-93 main estimates, a deficit of $19,270,000 was projected. That was bad enough, but to grow to an astounding $56,557,000 is a mockery of the main estimates.

Very few departments came close to their budgets. A review of the 1992-93 main estimates showed that the previous administration missed their target of $19,270,000 deficit by an astounding 193 percent. Again, this is a mockery of the budgeting system.

It is obvious that many of the problems resulted from ministerial indiscretion in the previous government. It appears that the ministers in the former administration felt very comfortable in spending money on programs that had not been approved by the main estimates.

For example, Mr. Speaker, you only have to look at the training trust funds in the Department of Education. It is apparent that these funds were created to give Ministers money that could be spent without normal government controls.

This is totally unacceptable.

When we took over the government, we said we were going to offer sound financial management of the government’s affairs. In order to do so, we had to find out what we had to start with. The Opposition have made statements that we are crying wolf, but there is nothing left there. We are in a very serious financial position in the Yukon. Without immediate steps being taken, the situation will continue to go out of control.

Expenditures are increasing almost twice as fast as revenues are. That cannot continue. Yes, come April 1, there will be millions of dollars coming into the Yukon, but the fact remains that the O&M is increasing at such an alarming rate that, pretty soon, there will be absolutely no money for capital projects that are badly need to provide infrastructure so we can diversify the economy of the Yukon and put Yukoners to work.

This morning, the Deputy Minister of Finance informed me that, by the first week of January, or shortly thereafter, we will be borrowing money to pay our bills. This is something that has not happened in many, many years.

We have a $5 million line of credit at the bank; Finance has moved to increase that to $15 million. The situation is serious. The Members opposite have to take full responsibility for it. It cannot be blamed on the present administration: seven years of spending on grandiose projects; no control of any sort on capital projects.

There are three areas the report identifies in the executive summary: there was a $22,000,825 increase in salaries to collective agreements over two years; increase to health and social services cost of $25,000,653 over two years; increases in education of $13,000,574 over two years.

I do not think that I can understate the seriousness of this situation. The previous government put programs into place and authorized the spending for those programs prior to my government taking office.

Management Board did authorize another $36 million over and above the $19 million deficit forecast. Of that, $24 million to $25 million was out of the accumulated surplus. There is the report.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Speaker: Each Member will have a chance to speak on this motion after the Member has presented the motion.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I said earlier that this government retained the services of a reputable firm to conduct this report and financial review, because we knew we were going to get comments from the opposite side of the House.

We have to get control of the deficit. It is not going to be easy. There is some $400 million that will be coming to the Yukon. This money is not going into the bank; it will be spent. Spending will have to be priorized. Every dollar we spend will have to be scrutinized, so that we can begin to bring the O&M under control and have money for capital projects.

We must slowly build up the reserves so that we are not borrowing money from the banks to pay our bills. That is totally unacceptable.

If any one of us kept our books and bank accounts like that, they would be coming to get the MasterCard in a hurry. It is mind-boggling to me.

I am going to let Members opposite speak on this.

I am going to be very interested to hear what they have to say and how they are going to justify to the public the sorry state of finances they left the Government of Yukon in when they left office.

Mr. McDonald: I will begin my remarks by saying how enormously disappointed I am in the manoeuvers being made this afternoon by the government side, aided and abetted by their Liberal ally, with respect to the closure of debate on the motion this afternoon.

It would have behooved all of us and encouraged a proper assessment of this political financial audit conducted by the government side to have permitted the Opposition party - which they have decided they are going to exclusively target for all the unpopular financial decisions they think they are going to have to make without giving the Opposition side any reasonable opportunity to review or comment on the report itself.

They have come into the Legislature for a very short period of time, sprung the audit on the public with a great deal of fanfare and obtained some good headlines from people who are clearly their allies, and now they have decided that, rather than carry on debate in the normal course of events so that we can all discuss this matter thoroughly and allow the Opposition what is only justified under the circumstances - which is an opportunity to speak and to consider this matter at some length - they have decided that that will not be permitted. We will have one and one-half hours of debate time. They will give the Opposition no reasonable amount of time to consider the information provided through the audit. The audit only provides summary information. They will consider that to be a fair approach to take.

Based on the way this government has operated so far, it does not bode well for future relations in this Legislature, for a fair hearing of issues, or for fair practices by this government in the future.

We have undertaken to review the phony political audit contrived by the government side, and we have analysed the audit to the extent necessary so far to discover that the methodology that the government has used is more than just suspect. We have come to the conclusion that the methodology used is downright dishonest. We are going to make that clear whether it is in this Legislature or not, and whether the government gives us time to speak about it or not. We are going to make it clear some time in the future in public, because the public deserves that.

I am certain that the Members on the opposite side have decided that Question Period may be a little rougher than they anticipated. That rather brief and limited legislative agenda they have does not justify taking more beatings in the Legislature during debate and in Question Period, and they have decided to cut and run. That is disappointing and cowardly.

This audit is a poor piece of work, in my view. In essence, it reflects a fairly incompetent style - pure amateur hour. I will give you some general reasons why I believe that to be the case.

First, I want to go to some of the brief remarks made by the Government Leader in his introduction of this audit. The Government Leader has made the political calculation that his government is not going to take the responsibility for financial decisions, choices, or for disappointing either departments or the public. They are going to lay this responsibility securely at the feet of the previous NDP government.

They have decided, made a pure, crass, political calculation, that they are going to earn their honeymoon period as a new government by simply blaming anything that may be negative on the previous NDP adminstration.

As the Government Leader pointed out, they have pulled their first envelope already. I believe that is characterized by a lack of political maturity, and is characterized by a cowardly stance taken before the public.

Over the last seven years, the NDP government has devised budgets, made difficult choices, approved projects, denied expenditure requests, established budgets, gone through thorough budget reviews, brought budgets into the Legislature for scrutiny, debated those budgets and had the budgets approved. The Auditor General has come in during the course of the year, audited our statements, reported, year after year, on the expenditures that we have made. From 1985 to 1992, the Auditor General of Canada - not a division of some government department, but the Auditor General of Canada - audited our books and accounted for every penny the NDP government ever spent. The Auditor General has reported at year-end, in each of those seven years, on the expenditures that we have made. The Auditor General has reported on the method by which those expenditures were made. The Government Leader today paints a picture that there has been seven years of what he calls “ministerial indiscretion”, seven years of over expenditure, seven years of what he calls “building grandiose projects”, all leading to a financial catastrophe for this territory. All culminating when? Just at the time the Yukon Party takes office.

Either the Government Leader is telling the truth or the Auditor General is. Either the Government Leader is lying or the Auditor General is. Between the periods 1985 to 1992, all expenditures were thoroughly accounted for and the method by which those expenditures were made were thoroughly accounted for by the Auditor General of Canada. They were scrutinized by the Legislature, including some Members on the opposite side who happened to be here at the time.

Many of those expenditures were supported by the Members opposite. At times, admittedly, a Member or two would say that we should cut back on social spending and increase economic spending. Simultaneously, they would recommend extended care facilities in Watson Lake or in Whitehorse or increases to foster parents. There was not necessarily any consistency in any of the demands being made, because, typically, they were wanting to have their cake and eat it, too. They wanted to criticize expenditures in a general way so as to appease the right-wingers in the party who decided that anything that was considered to be social expenditures was simply breeding a sense of indolence in the population when they felt they should be more self-sufficient. They felt we should be spending more money on economic development programs, presumably like the prospectors’ assistance program for the mining industry, which provided assistance - we will not call it social assistance - to prospectors so that when they were not taking in any money, they could go out and inspect minerals in the territory. That may have been an attitude taken at the time. We supported the expenditures we made, including the prospectors’ assistance program. In fact, we were the ones who initiated it.

The point is that we made many expenditures, both on the social and the economic side. Most of the expenditures made were not criticized by the Members opposite in any detail. One year, they criticized expenditure increases in education and person year increases in the government. Let me put it this way: one year, they criticized the expenditure growth in the government. Fifty percent of that was in Education, but did they say one word during the estimates debate about the increases in Education? Nothing.

While they were extensively critical of person year growth, they would never say or make any critical analysis of the individual specifics.

When it came time to add teachers to Dawson, there was no word from them about growth in the public service. When it came time for improving services to municipalities and allowing the block fund to grow, there was no word that this was encouraging government finances to get out of control. They supported the specifics, but took issue with the totals.

When the NDP government was putting together budgets year after year, we projected in a typical year that by year-end there would be a surplus. We also projected that there would be a temporary deficit in order to account for some capital projects and, because there were lapses, the government would end up with a surplus.

During five of those seven years, we ended up with a surplus. We actually generated money that we had budgeted. We took money that we had budgeted and deposited the money with the bank for five of the seven years that we were in office.

One of the years that a real deficit was generated, we provided to NCPC and Yukon Energy Corporation a very large capital grant in order to bring down power rates in the territory.

The bottom line was that the cash position and accumulated surplus of the government remained very healthy indeed throughout our seven years in office.

The Members on the side opposite are crying that there are serious financial difficulties to be dealt with due to the record of the NDP government from 1985 to 1992. The government during that time had a large, accumulated surplus and during five of the seven years we generated an active surplus at the end of those fiscal years. This is a record that would be unheard of in any other government in this country.

Governments routinely borrow money to support operations and routinely borrow money to support capital projects. Our government in this Legislature approved budgets and saw spending that permitted a surplus to be created - a surplus that was substantial - by March 31, 1992, there was an accumulated surplus of $92 million. Some of that is in cash, some is in mortgages and some is in land development. By March 31, 1992, it was a very healthy financial position. Any characterization that seven years of NDP government was anything less than sterling, fiscal management is, by the records of the Auditor General of Canada, patently false and dishonest.

Speaker: Order. I hope that the Member from McIntyre-Takhini is not charging the Government Leader with lying or uttering a deliberate falsehood, as that is against our Standing Orders.

Mr. McDonald: I would not accuse that Member or any Member of lying or dishonesty without wanting to make a particular charge. There is nothing wrong with my view, unless you rule it out of order, that the analysis that the government has done is dishonest. I am not imputing any motives on the Member individually. I am not saying anything about the particular Member.

Speaker: I would ask that the Member consider his remarks carefully or I will be forced to call him to order.

Mr. McDonald: I am considering my remarks very carefully and I am hoping that your rulings will not be capricious or arbitrary in the matter. I think that the matters being laid before the Legislature are incredibly serious. The future and credibility of that government, in my view, is at stake.

The political audit that the Government Leader tabled in this House only a couple of days ago is one that he characterizes as being done by people with unimpeachable reputations, done through a process that is beyond question, and consequently we should simply accept it and accept the Government Leader’s analysis of it. Well, we will do no such thing.

First of all, the characterization of the personalities that the Member has raised in the House - with the exception of the Deputy Minister of Finance - I have no hesitation in saying are persons who could not reasonably be called unbiased. I have enormous respect for the Deputy Minister of Finance, having worked with him for seven years, and I would feel more comfortable if I felt that the member was under no pressure from the government side, more comfortable in accepting that person’s word for just about anything.

However, the review that the government has done, essentially has requested departments of this government to come forward with expected expenditures to the end of this fiscal year. Judging from my information, from people who work with the government, there was enormous confusion as to precisely what was expected. One thing that the departments did do was come forward with every request that they thought was reasonable, every projection that they thought was reasonable, and incorporated much of their wish list. There were items that were identified in the audit that were items that we had not seen for seven years. Somebody still has a memory in the departments. They still want these items. They want to implement them this year and they are part of the total package. There is a group home in here for $700,000, for the full year’s cost worth of operations of a specialized group home. There is no policy developed that would determine the limits of such an activity. There is no group home in existence with any of the features of the sort that the department requests.

Were no people hired? There is no approval for the project at all, from anyone I know of, at the senior administrative or even the political level. Yet, there is $700,000 that is part of this package that we are expected to approve because we are supposed to believe it will be spent this year, before March 31, 1993. That is simply outrageous. Do we expect people to believe in the methodology behind this financial review?

The departments have put forward everything they could think of to ensure that they will not be forgotten or eclipsed by people they compete with; namely, other departments or other branches. There was no analysis done, even internally within departments. Since the time line was only a couple of weeks, there was no analysis done to determine whether or not these requested expenditures were realistic, reasonable or supportable or had policy approval.

There were senior officials in the department who were made very angry by this approach, because now they were made to look like gluttonous bureaucrats. They were painted as people who simply cannot control themselves, and they do not believe it.

Of course they have asked for large amounts of money. In some cases, they have asked for computer work stations in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. We have traditionally said no to expenditures of that nature in those areas. There were thorough systems people had to walk through in order to get any kind of approval for expenditures like this. One had to go through a needs analysis within the department to determine whether or not even one computer work station was necessary. One had to get approval from the program administrator and submit it to Government Services. Government Services would do an independent analysis of it through a systems priority committee to see whether or not it was within the approved global budget of the government and was desirable, geared to government priorities or even affordable.

None of these analyses were done in the case of this item or anything else. We are expected to believe that all these departments, making all these wish lists, constitutes an appropriate financial analysis of potential future expenditures of this government.

In any one of the seven past years, if we had asked departments to simply put forward their wish lists, and we had approved them, we would have been broke in the first year. Our budgets would be $1.5 billion per year today, if we had the revenue for it and simply said yes to every request.

The Members on the front bench are going to have to grow up and understand that they have choices to make. Departments ask for expenditures, and many of the requests are reasonable and respond to something that the public wants. Some requests are private projects of individual department members. This government is going to have to take these requests and analyze them to determine whether or not they are realistic and affordable.

Seven years of an accumulated surplus, and five years with the government generating a surplus after budgeted estimates, did not come by accident. There were many requests made by Members opposite that we did and did not approve.

The bottom line is that, on March 31, 1992, we had a very large, accumulated surplus. The present Government Leader would have us believe that, in five months, when the NDP hand was on the tiller from the beginning of this fiscal year, we not only spent the $60 million cash surplus beyond the actual budget, but we also spent another $40 million, for a total of $100 million. That is a 25 percent increase in one year. No one in the public noticed this increase.

Suddenly, there is another $100 million in the economy and nobody notices. It is simply unbelievable. Based on the methodology behind this analysis, it is ridiculous, and Members opposite wonder why we consider this to be a political audit, managed and interpreted by politicians for political purposes.

I would like to go back to the meeting that Mr. Ostashek had with the deputy ministers. He should know that they were instructed, in a meeting that probably did not last much longer than 15 minutes, to generate their wish list of expenditures for the remainder of the fiscal year and submit their forecast within 10 days to Mr. Miller.

Do you know how long a normal budget process takes? In a normal year, departments are working out budget estimates for the next year in March, April and May of the year, for implementation in the following fiscal year, in some cases 14 to 16 months in advance. The Members across the floor have taken that whole process, squeezed it into 10 days, done no anaylsis of the expenditures, totalled them up, and said they were broke.

I would implore Members to go through the appropriate budgeting processes with the checks and balances in each department, in the Department of Finance and through Management Board before they start raising alarmist talk about being broke.

There are consequences out there. Every time the Government Leader says we are broke, retailers are experiencing a slow down in sales and real estate prices take a dip. Coupled with some comments about the Taga Ku project, the delaying of the hospital project and almost complete silence on the future of the Faro and Watson Lake mines, it all adds up to a lot of worry in the mind of the public as to where our economy is going.

The result of the short meeting that the Government Leader had with the deputies, asking them to report their potential expenditures in 10 days, was, of course, a lot of confusion. There is widespread belief throughout the departments that have led those departments to overestimate their financial needs. This confusion is evident in the report itself, which admits to wide variations in the approach taken by the departments and errors in financial Ireporting. This is coming out of the report. I am not making this up at all.

One has to wonder, at the very outset, why this whole reporting process made no comparisons in any way with the Auditor General of Canada’s report, which we routinely lay before the Legislature and why it did not compare anything in any way to the budgeted estimates that we considered ourselves in the Legislature. It makes it very difficult to make comparisons when one is using summary information, considering wish lists and there is no comparison to the Auditor General’s report or any of the main estimates that we budget.

I would submit that this review, coupled with the Government Leader’s gloom and doom scenario that he is enunciating for political purposes, is based on forecasted expenditures by departments taking the worst case scenario - no analysis, no debates, simply an addition exercise.

I mentioned earlier that we had decided that we were going to do a review of these expenditures and that we wanted to lay the background information that went into this report on the table. I would think that there are a number of ways that we can accomplish that task.

One of the things that the government side has indicated they want to do in the coming four years is make greater use of the Public Accounts Committee. This is a noble and honourable objective. We are very seriously concerned with the information that has gone into this report and the methodology behind this report.

I would hope, under the circumstances and given the Member opposite’s belief in the Public Accounts Committee, that they would not object to having all the information that went into this report and the methodology behind this report reviewed by the Public Accounts Committee and the Auditor General of Canada.

If there are inconsistencies in the methodology, an amateur approach being applied here, and no thorough professional analysis of the expenditures being proposed, then that can be exposed.

If there are cost areas in the government that seem to be climbing beyond the projections issued in the main estimates last year, then we should know that as well. We just might prepare ourselves more usefully for a main estimates debate that is openly going to take place this spring.

Amendment proposed

Mr. McDonald: Consequently, I would move

THAT Motion No. 6 be amended by adding after the expression “territory’s finances” the following:

“and that the change ”Review of the Change in the Accumulated Surplus" report be referred immediately to the Public Accounts Committee for review with deputy ministers as witnesses."

Speaker: It has been moved by the Hon. Member for McIntyre-Takhini

THAT Motion No. 6 be amended by adding after the expression “territory’s finances” the following:

“and that the change ”Review of the Change in the Accumulated Surplus" report be referred immediately to the Public Accounts Committee for review with deputy ministers as witnesses."

Perhaps I could ask the Hon. Member for McIntyre-Takhini if the word “change” is meant to be there.

Some Hon. Member: It is not supposed to be there.

Speaker: It should be deleted? I will then read the amendment to the motion again. It has been moved by the Hon. Member for McIntyre-Takhini

THAT Motion No. 6 be amended by adding after the expression “territory’s finances” the following:

“and that the ”Review of the Change in the Accumulated Surplus" report be referred immediately to the Public Accounts Committee for review with deputy ministers as witnesses."

Mr. McDonald: I think the Members will have no trouble agreeing to this amendment, largely because I know that they have faith in the Public Accounts Committee. Also, I know that they will want the appropriate analysis that seems to be lacking in this 10 day wind-sprint to be undertaken by someone in the Legislature. We seem to have missed a step in terms of financial review. We seem to have had a mini budget statement submitted by the Government Leader without any kind of analysis at all. It has come straight from the program departments, right from the lowest levels, right through to the Legislature. Someone has to review the validity of those estimates.

Given that the persons opposite have faith in the Public Accounts Committee, and given that I know that they want to come to a true and proper conclusion with respect to the methodology and the realism behind these figures, I would hope that they would want to support the motion.

I want to point out a few things that the Public Accounts Committee may want to take notice of.

In Health and Social Services, for example, the review shows an expenditure of $900,000 for the extended care facility. This facility has not been opened and, based on some reports from the media today, it may not be open for another 10 months, after a discussion that I had with the Minister responsible for Health and Social Services. There is an assumption that this facility will be open for a couple of months, and it is going to cost $450,000 per month. I would call that a very inflated figure.

There is also the $785,000 for the specialized group home that I mentioned earlier, which does not exist except in the imagination of department officials.

In spite of these erroneous, unexplained increases, there is no real explanation for the increase of $16 million in the Health and Social Services forecasted expenditures. We do not know where it comes from. There is nothing in the report that says so.

Under Education, there is an expenditure increase for the stay in school program. I happen to know for a fact that the expenditure increase is fully recoverable from the federal government. Yet, we are led to believe that this is going to be an expenditure that the Yukon taxpayer is going to have to bear. Members opposite are not dishonest, but I would suggest that figure is dishonest.

The total increases highlighted in the report add up to $15 million in the Department of Education. However, the increase in the 1992-93 forecast on page 7 of the report shows an increase of only $4.6 million over the figure in the estimates.

Why? Which one is correct?

The Leader of the Government took, I think, almost joy in announcing that the Minister of Education - I - had approved expenditures that were not shown in the budget for training trust funds. The Deputy Minister of Finance, whom the Government Leader had already quoted, has already spoken with us and said, this is not unheard of; in fact, it happens quite regularly. Ministers are permitted under the system to realign budgets within the rules of Management Board to meet the public need, as long as they do not ask for more money. Did the fact that the Department of Education had already realigned its budget to account for those training trust funds show up in the audited reports? Was it something that we heard from the Government Leader as an explanation? No, it was not. The fact of the matter - perhaps the Government Leader does not know or perhaps he does and he is not saying - is that the Department of Education had already re-allocated funds from other areas for this purpose.

I can only feel, under the circumstances, that the exposure of that particular expenditure, which does not show up as a growth increase in any case, but was simply just mentioned in the report, is a political shot. Based on the tone that the Government Leader lead the debate with, it was most certainly a political shot. If the Members in the opposite benches are now saying that if we approve a budget in this Legislature and each line item is shown in the main estimates, the Ministers in the Cabinet will not realign that budget until they come back to the House, I would be very surprised if they can live up to that commitment.

They are saying th