Whitehorse, Yukon

Monday, May 17, 1993 - 1:30 p.m.

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

Prayers

DAILY ROUTINE

Speaker: We will proceed with the Order Paper.

Birthday Greetings

Hon. Mr. Devries: At this time, I would like to congratulate one of my constituents who is presently residing at Macaulay Lodge. Mr. Jimmy Watson is celebrating his 99th birthday today.

Applause

Speaker: Introduction of Visitors.

Are there any Returns or Documents for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I have a press release and some legislative returns.

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I have for tabling five legislative returns pertaining to health and social services.

Speaker: Are there any Reports of Committees?

Petitions.

Introduction of Bills.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

Bill No. 71: Introduction and First Reading

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I move that Bill No. 71, entitled An Act to Amend the Jury Act, be now introduced and read a first time.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister of Justice that Bill No. 71, entitled An Act to Amend the Jury Act, be now introduced and read a first time.

Motion for introduction and first reading of Bill No. 71 agreed to

Bill No. 76: Introduction and First Reading

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I move that Bill No. 76, entitled An Act to Amend the Judicature Act, be now introduced and read a first time.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister of Justice that Bill No. 76, entitled An Action to Amend the Judicature Act, be now introduced and read a first time.

Motion for introduction and first reading of Bill No. 76 agreed to

Bill No. 62: Introduction and First Reading

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I move that Bill No. 62, entitled An Act to Amend the Yukon Development Corporation Act, be now introduced and read a first time.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister responsible for the Yukon Development Corporation that Bill No. 62, entitled An Act to Amend the Yukon Development Corporation Act, be now introduced and read a first time.

Motion for introduction and first reading of Bill No. 62 agreed to

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

Are there any Notices of Motion?

Are there any Statements by Ministers?

This then brings us to the Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Question re: Curragh Inc., Asian investors

Mr. Penikett: Last week, the Government Leader told the media that there had been no change in the government’s negotiating position on support for Curragh or Grum stripping. However, on Wednesday his Minister responsible for Economic Development said that the Cabinet had given the Government Leader “a negotiating position with no strings attached”. Will the Government Leader explain the apparent contradiction between these two contradictory stands; in other words, what will be the Government Leader’s position during his trip to Korea; will it be no strings or no change?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: As I said in the press last week, there are two offers on the table to Curragh Inc. to help reactivate the mine in Faro and Sa Dena Hes; nothing has changed from that position.

What the Minister was referring to was that if I should see that some other arrangement is more beneficial to the Yukon, I will bring it back to Cabinet.

Mr. Penikett: Unfortunately, the confusion continues. The Government Leader’s ministerial colleague said “we do not know what Mr. Frame and the Koreans have in mind so we have not really tied his hands on what he can or cannot do at this point”. Surely the Government Leader is not saying that he is heading off to Korean with a wide open mandate from Cabinet but no idea whatsoever about what Frame and the Koreans are negotiating. Could he clarify the position of his Minister of Economic Development?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I said in my ministerial statement in the House that I was going to travel to Asia at the request of the chief executive officer of Curragh Inc. because he felt it would be beneficial for my presence when he is talking to various companies that are interested in investing in the Yukon. I said that if there is anything that I could do to let his potential investors know that we are interested in them investing in the Yukon, then I would be happy to help.

Mr. Penikett: What the Government Leader told us last week was not that Mr. Frame had requested it, but that the Government Leader had requested that he go along on the trip. The Economic Development Minister has also said that “in Korea the negotiations would revolve around Curragh, power rates and everything else”.

Since the Government Leader and his Minister have contradicted each other several times with respect to this question, can I ask the Government Leader to say now whether or not he will be negotiating Yukon power rates in Korea?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I do not have any intention to negotiate Yukon power rates in Korea.

Question re: Yukon Development Corporation, umbrella final agreement

Ms. Joe: My question is for the Minister responsible for the Yukon Development Corporation regarding land claims. It is our understanding that a new piece of legislation is being prepared to change the Yukon Development Corporation. Under the umbrella final agreement, certain criteria must be met in order to make major changes to Crown corporations. What consultation has the government had with officials from the Council for Yukon Indians and other First Nations regarding the proposed changes?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I have had some conversations with members of various First Nations. I met with CYI last Thursday morning with respect to the proposed legislation, which is tabled here today.

Ms. Joe: Since it has been established that this government has reworded its election promise to abolish the Yukon Development Corporation to say that, in its present form, it will be changed, what else has been changed, and has anyone from the First Nations been consulted?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: The act is tabled in the House and it might be of some benefit for the Member to wait until she receives her copy before she pursues this at too great a length, but all the elements within Bill No. 62 have been discussed with the CYI.

Ms. Joe: There are concerns that are being asked and related to us and, therefore, I ask these questions. Section 22.6 of the UFA sets out ways in which First Nations may participate in Crown corporations. It goes on to define what the term “consult” means. Has the Government Leader given CYI, as stated in the agreement, sufficient notice of a matter to be decided in sufficient form and detail, a reasonable time to present such views and full and fair consultation, as described under the terms of the agreement he has recently signed?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: There has been absolutely no indication from CYI that they are in any way perturbed by the tabling of this bill in the Legislature today. They have seen a draft of this bill and it has been discussed in various formats with them.

Question re: Land claims, party leaders’ trip to Ottawa

Mr. Cable: A question for the Government Leader. The Government Leader, the Leader of the Official Opposition, I and members of the Council for Yukon Indians visited Ottawa last week to discuss the progress of the land claim bills through the federal Parliament. The discussions took place with various elected officials. Would the Government Leader, for the record, inform the House as to what, if any, assurances he received from the elected officials on the priority to be given to the land claim bills?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I thought the Member for Riverside was with us in Ottawa and received the same assurances as I received when talking to elected officials.

We have received assurances that there does not seem to be any resistance to the bill but that does not mean that something will not come up at the last minute when it is taken into the House of Commons; they may then run into resistance. If everything goes well, this legislation should be passed before the House adjourns for the summer.

Mr. Cable: Yes, we were both there together. This is just for the record.

It was my impression that there were a number of bills on the federal legislative calendar and a very short period of time in which to deal with those bills. As the control of the legislative calendar rests with the Progressive Conservative government, could the Government Leader indicate whether or not he has discussed the matter with the Prime Minister, Mr. Mulroney?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I would dearly love to have had the opportunity to discuss it with the Prime Minister. As the Member opposite is aware, the Prime Minister is making his farewell trip around the world at this point. He did not get back to Ottawa until after we left.

My office was in touch with the Prime Minister’s office, while we were in Ottawa, with regard to the Prime Minister being available to sign these very important and historic claims. My office was in touch with his office again today to see if we cannot convince the Prime Minister to come to the Yukon and sign them.

Mr. Cable: It is my understanding that there is collateral surface rights board legislation that the federal government wishes to pass concurrently. Could the Government Leader indicate whether or not his officials have discussed this legislation with the appropriate federal officials?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: Yes, we are continuing to talk with federal officials. In fact, just before coming into the House, a travel request was put on my desk for some of our legal people to travel to Ottawa at the end of this week. They will meet with the legal people from CYI and the federal government to make sure that the legislation is all accurate and in place. As I understand it, that includes the surface rights legislation, as well.

Question re: Land claims, land selection within Whitehorse

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

The Kwanlin Dun Band has expressed the most serious concerns and sent the clearest of signals that they want the government to seriously negotiate the land selections in the City of Whitehorse.

At a meeting with the Minister this morning, they asked that a letter be sent to them from the Minister stating that the government should take no further action regarding land development until a lands working group is established. Is the Minister intending to send such a letter?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: The letter is being drafted right this minute, I hope.

Mr. McDonald: I would like to ask the Minister if he is going to be incorporating in the letter that the government will not take further work by way of land or subdivision development until such time as those actions are discussed in the lands working group. Is that what the letter will say?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: The letter will partially say what the Member opposite is requesting; however, the important thing is that I would like to see the working group up and running no later than tomorrow - or Wednesday at the latest - with the advice to the Kwanlin Dun that they are ready to meet with the band as soon as everyone is able.

Mr. McDonald: I believe the Minister is aware that one of the reasons we have come to the point we are at is because the outlet for the government to inform the Kwanlin Dun Band was not established until very recently. The band has expressed the concern that the working group is only being established now.

One concern the Kwanlin Dun Band expressed this morning was that they had the feeling that the working group did not have a mandate to negotiate. First of all, I should ask the question directly, because I do not believe an answer was given this morning. Does the working group have a mandate? If not, will the government provide every effort to give the working group a mandate, so they can deal with the serious land use questions that are facing both the government and the band?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: The working group will have a mandate to consult with the Kwanlin Dun Band. How much beyond consultation, I am not sure yet. I have not had a chance so far, but it is something I would like to discuss with the Land Claims Secretariat.

Question re: Legislative language

Ms. Moorcroft: I have a question for the Government Leader on the issue of non-sexist language in the Legislature. It disturbed me that the hon. gentleman opposite groaned, laughed and winced when I introduced such a motion on Thursday. Is the Government Leader prepared to bring forward, as a government motion, that the Standing Committee on Rules, Elections and Privileges review the current use of gender-biased language in the Legislative Assembly and make recommendations to this Assembly that reflect the expressed wishes of Yukoners, who want their elected Members to use inclusive, non-sexist language?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I believe that we have the legislative committee to deal with that issue, and I have no intention to bring a government motion forward at this point.

Ms. Moorcroft: Words are a very powerful tool and when generic figures of authority are referred to as “male”, women are discouraged from seeing themselves in those positions and it sets a negative attitude for people, because they do not expect that women are able to fill such roles.

This issue cannot be referred to the standing committee unless the Government Leader is prepared to bring forward such a motion; is he prepared to bring forward such a motion?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I certainly do not have any problem looking at it, but I cannot give the Member an answer on my feet today.

Ms. Moorcroft: I hope that all Members agree that language is a powerful barrier to women’s equality. We must consider our daughters, the young women we see here acting as pages and other young women, as well as young men, when we make decisions such as these. We must lead by setting an example for them through the use of our language.

The Government House Leader and Minister responsible for the Women’s Directorate sees no reason why not to continue the practice of using non-sexist language in drafting legislation.

Surely, the Government Leader believes that this Assembly ought to conduct its deliberations in a way that includes women, does he not?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I most certainly do.

Question re: Chronic disease and disability program, system abuse

Ms. Moorcroft: In his announcement of cuts in some health programs last week, the Minister of Health and Social Services cited an example of abuse where a person went out and bought five respirators that you use for asthma, bought them on the same day in Whitehorse and all of it was paid for by the chronic disease program.

Can the Minister advise when this particular example of abuse of the system was brought to his attention?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: It was a number of months ago that the actual incident took place. My understanding is that things have been tightened up so that type of abuse would not be possible now.

Ms. Moorcroft: Is it the Minister’s contention that the multiple use and abuse of the services available under the chronic disease program is behaviour that is frequently engaged in by senior citizens and the other clients who are covered by the program?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: It is concern that the program has to be examined very carefully to ensure that it is not open to that type of potential abuse. I get different guesstimates about how much of that sort of abuse there is in those programs. I do know, and I will tell the Member, that is a concern shared by a good many Yukoners.

Ms. Moorcroft: Is the Minister aware of any black market for the drugs or respirators available to people under the chronic disease program, which might motivate an individual to abuse the program?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: Not specifically.

Question re: Chronic disease and disability program, system abuse

Ms. Moorcroft: I would like to ask the Minister of Health and Social Services what other motive he might attribute to the abuse of the program if there is no economic basis for marketing extra drugs, equipment or services under the program?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: The abuse can be based on carelessness and negligence, not necessarily on profit motives. We are going to be examining all aspects of the program to make sure it is as tight as possible and as cost-effective as possible.

Ms. Moorcroft: What changes did the government make to the program so that the inhaler abuse could not take place again?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: My understanding is that through the use of computers, appropriate tracking can be done to ensure that that particular type of abuse will not occur.

Ms. Moorcroft: If the Minister is unable to identify a motive for the abuse of the program, how is he planning to effectively reduce the cost of administering it?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I will be coming forward with a ministerial statement next week on the program and the steps that have been taken and some of the steps that are being contemplated at this time.

Question re: Mining exploration

Mr. Harding: I have a question for the Minister of Economic Development regarding mining exploration.

On Thursday, January 28, 1993, the Minister made a statement on CBC Radio, “I can assure you that there will be at least a 100 percent increase in exploration next year”. Recent information from the mining industry says that that is not the case, and is far from it. I would like to ask the Minister why the numbers are much more disappointing than announced.

Hon. Mr. Devries: I thank the Member for his question. I do not know if he read the Whitehorse Star on Friday but in there it indicates that the projections are for anywhere from $15 million to $25 million worth of exploration this year, which is more than double what we had last year and I believe it translates into over 100 percent increase.

Mr. Harding: I think the Members opposite could use some arithmetic upgrading because the local prospectors predict nothing of the sort. They predict an increase, but nothing of the sort announced. We have been told by mining insiders that people have backed off from the Yukon because of poor Curragh Inc. handling, news of power bills having to be paid when the mines are not even operating and new corporate taxes. Could the Minister tell us if he has also heard these reports?

Hon. Mr. Devries: As late as last week I heard that there is still going to be a substantial increase in exploration; $15 million has been confirmed and it is not unrealistic to anticipate that there be at least another $5 million over and above that.

Mr. Harding: I am looking at the Yukon Prospectors Association literature when I say this, and I want to remind the Minister that he said “100 percent increase in exploration”. I would like to ask him if - as a result of the conference he was at where they had the $9,000 hospitality suite for all the miners who patted the Minister on the back - he could tell me who made a significant and solid commitment to the Yukon and has now backed out, which has caused the severe downsizing in the estimated amount of money that will be spent in the Yukon this year?

Hon. Mr. Devries: Again, I have not heard of any people backing down. If the Member reads the article in the Whitehorse Star, there are clear indications that there are several more firms contemplating exploration in the Yukon; with only $8 million in exploration last year, $15 million or $16 million is a 100 percent increase.

Question re: Free trade

Mr. Harding: Actually, there were $10 million last year, and $15 million this year, but I will believe Yukoners before I will believe the federal bureaucrat in the Whitehorse Star.

I want to move on to another subject. I want to ask the Minister a couple of questions regarding free trade. There was a debate on Wednesday in the Legislature regarding free trade. The government came out strongly in favour of it yet, in the Legislature on Tuesday of last week, the government said they supported Yukon purchase and Yukon labour, and the use of it in the territory, which are very inconsistent positions. Could he please explain that?

Hon. Mr. Devries: As the Member is aware, my understanding is that the previous administration had also signed up for internal trade between the provinces. This restricts our ability to make any major initiatives to prevent cross-border shopping for contracts, et cetera. However, through our business incentive policy, and several of those types of tools, we still have many avenues to encourage contractors to use Yukon labour. This also gives them an advantage in the bidding process, as there are rebates available.

Mr. Harding: The Yukon has an exemption from the particular agreement the Minister is referring to. I want to get to the issue of free trade and the government’s support for free trade, particularly the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Free trade is about the free flow of goods, services and labour between jurisdictions, whereas the policy of the government is Yukon labour/Yukon purchase, according to what they have said in the Legislature. That is not consistent with the two principles and the two beliefs.

I am asking the Member how they can have one belief on one hand, and another belief on the other?

Hon. Mr. Devries: Again, I do believe in free trade and the movement  of labour and goods between provinces and countries; however, by the same token, I also believe we have a program, which was established under the previous administration, that encourages the use of Yukon labour and products. If the sides opposite disagree with that, please say so.

Mr. Harding: We will be happy to take the credit for that policy, because we believe in it. I have to remind the Minister that we voted against free trade; the government voted for it; therefore, there is an inconsistency that has not been explained. The Minister made a pretty weak attempt to try to throw it back on us, but all we are asking is if the Minister can tell us why, on one hand, they support North American free trade and free trade in general as a principle, yet have a policy, created by the previous administration, which we still support, of Yukon labour and Yukon purchase?

Hon. Mr. Devries: It works both ways. Companies like Pelly Construction, a Yukon company, can take Yukon workers to Alaska to work. Other companies have the opportunity to bid on contracts in Alaska - Northerm sells windows in Alaska. None of this would be possible without free trade. I can assure you that up to this point free trade has been very good for Yukon.

Question re: Faro contingency plan

Mr. Harding: A lot of that trade took place before free trade, but I think I have worked that question enough. I would like to move on to another subject. It is regarding the Faro contingency plan. Last week, on May 13, the Minister of Economic Development stood up and said, “the only project I have been approached on within the community of Faro is the Chateau Jomini complex” - this was regarding community works.

I know for a fact that the Economic Development Minister has had several proposals put on his desk, some that would put approximately 25 to 40 people to work on wildlife viewing habitat enhancement and parks upgrading in the area. Could the Minister tell us why he had not heard of these projects that are very important in my community that were made available to the government over three weeks ago?

Hon. Mr. Devries: I just received the final details of those projects last week and I have forwarded a copy of them to Renewable Resources. We will have to have discussions with the Ross River First Nation, as it is on their traditional lands. I am diligently working on that and trying to get it completed as quickly as I can.

Mr. Harding: We are looking at some extremely important work for the community. There are a lot of people who do not have enough weeks for unemployment insurance. This work would also extend any benefits that people have and we could probably put 40 people to work if the government would come across with a budget. The Minister now says that he has to talk with the Ross River First Nation, which I can accept, but I have to point out that we have been asking for these projects for months. When does he think this process is going to be complete?

Hon. Mr. Devries: I am fast-tracking it. I cannot give a confirmed date, but I am certain that it will be within the next two to three weeks.

Mr. Harding: The first big layoff was December 18. The entire mine has been shut down since April 5. How can the Minister say that he is fast-tracking the process. The Minister moves slower than cold molasses. Can he give us something that I can take back to the community that will tell them when this so-called “consultation phase” will be completed and we can get a few people back to work?

Hon. Mr. Devries: I just received the final breakdown of the projects last week. There is a process they have to go through. We are attempting to fast-track them to the best of our ability. We will have an answer in the next two or three weeks.

Question re: Curragh Inc., Asian investors

Mr. Cable: My question is for the Government Leader regarding his trip to Korea. There has been a little fencing back and forth here.

It is my understanding from his statement to the House last week that he said he wanted to tell the potential investors that the Yukon was open for business and that the Yukon government was supportive of Curragh.

As I believe the Government Leader is leaving for Korea tomorrow, could he be a bit more specific? What is he hoping to accomplish with this visit?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I would hope that I could come back here and make a major announcement in the House. Realistically, I do not think that will happen. I do believe that I can support the proponents of the Faro operation in their quest to refinance. I would hope that I can be successful in having a positive influence on their negotiations.

Mr. Cable: It would appear, then, that the main purpose of the visit is to facilitate the introduction of new capital. Could the Government Leader tell the House who, if anyone, is travelling with him? Is there someone from Burns Fry or the Department of Economic Development going?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: No, there is not. I understand that Mr. Frame is there now. Mr. Pelly, who is the local manager, left this morning. I imagine that he will be on the plane with me tomorrow.

Mr. Cable: When the Government Leader returns, will he give an undertaking to provide a ministerial statement to the House as to the results of the negotiations and conversations?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: Yes, I will be making a statement to the House. How much and what I will be reporting will depend upon Curragh Inc. and their negotiations in Korea.

Question re: Chronic disease and disability program, system abuse

Ms. Moorcroft: I have a follow-up question for the Minister of Health and Social Services regarding the chronic disease program.

The Minister stated that tracking through computers will stop abuses of people purchasing more respirators or inhalers than they need. Specifically, how does this work?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I am sure that I could not explain it myself, because I do not know how to operate a computer, but records are kept of the purchases made by the people in the program. If people are buying too many items, that is discovered by the government.

Ms. Moorcroft: I will have to take the Minister’s word that there has been some major change in how that has been administered and tracked.

I would like to ask him how the government is going to determine whether a person really needs the medical aid or not.

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I am not really sure what the question is. What does the Member mean when she says “medical aid”?

Speaker: I will allow the Member to ask her question again, without charging her with a supplementary.

Ms. Moorcroft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The question for the Minister is: how are they going to determine whether or not a person really does need the medical aid that they are attempting to purchase under the chronic disease program?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: Anything else to add? The issue, in essence, is simply tracking to see if there is unnecessary duplication as opposed to whether or not a person needs a certain type of item. That kind of decision is made by the physician in charge of the case.

Ms. Moorcroft: Have they determined how widespread this abuse is, and how much money they will save through tightening up the policy?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: This is one small aspect of the policy that is of concern. As for the actual potential savings, no, we do not have a handle on it. I have heard various quotes, as I have mentioned before in response to an earlier question. I think it was the same question, by the same Member.

Question re: l’Ecole Emilie Tremblay, air quality

Ms. Moorcroft: I have a question for the Minister of Education regarding l’Ecole Emilie Tremblay. Many of my constituents have children who attend the French first language elementary school in Riverdale. They find that the overcrowding and poor air quality of the facility creates a woefully inadequate and even a dangerous learning environment. Has the Department of Education provided any funds in the current year’s budget to improve l’Ecole Emilie Tremblay?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: I would have to get back to the Member on that question. I do not have that information at my fingertips.

Ms. Moorcroft: Carbon dioxide testing was done at l’Ecole Emilie Tremblay in February and March of this year. The high level of CO2 indicates an insufficient fresh air supply, and I must emphasize the fact that the levels of carbon dioxide present in the school causes lethargy, dizziness, nausea and headaches. When the children start failing and doing poorly in their grades, is the Minister going to be citing l’Ecole as a reason to implement a 3Rs review of the French language programs, along with all of the others?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: That is kind of a convoluted question. I did not know that the CO2 levels in that school were causing headaches and failures in the students, but I can check into that for the Member and get back to her. My understanding is that, although the levels in some schools are higher than they should be, they are not at the dangerous level, but I will find that information and get back to the Member.

Ms. Moorcroft: There are some very high readings on that, as the Minister will discover, but the most oppressive situation in this particular school is the learning assistance room, where the air is sweltering and stagnant and a bare light bulb hangs from the ceiling. Children needing learning assistance are confined to an environment that exacerbates personal inadequacies rather than fostering confidence and developing the skills needed to complete tasks at hand. As well, there are resident cats who live underneath the facility, which causes severe reactions to those students who are allergic.

Will the Minister give a commitment to this House that, before he goes off building a new gym for the Polarettes Club and other capital projects for education, he pay particular attention to the health needs of our students?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: Absolutely I am concerned about the health needs of our students. For instance, I am now having to deal with the St. Elias school in Haines Junction, where the previous government had about 10 kids taking classes in the nurse’s office. I thought that was inadequate, so we are also addressing that need. There were no windows or anything in those rooms, and we are trying to address those needs as quickly as we can within our financial means.

Question re: Humane Society, animal shelter

Mr. Penikett: On April 26, the Minister of Community and Transportation Services told the House that the technical review committee of the community development fund was looking at the joint application from the Yukon Humane Society and the City of Whitehorse for an animal shelter. On May 14, the society was told the application was not on the agenda for the May meeting, mainly because certain information was not in place, but no one from the city or the society knew what information was required.

Was the decision in this matter postponed as a result of a bureaucratic decision, or was it a political decision?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: It was obviously a bureaucratic decision, because we did not see the application.

Mr. Penikett: It is a matter of record that a petition of over 2,100 signatures was presented in this House, and a matter of record that the society has raised over $31,000 for this project. I would like to ask the Minister if he believes that an animal shelter in the City of Whitehorse is necessary and one that deserves his immediate attention.

Hon. Mr. Fisher: From the numbers that have been provided by the Yukon Humane Society, I would have to say that yes, it is probably a facility that would be of great value to the City of Whitehorse and the surrounding area.

Mr. Penikett: I thank the Minister for his answer. Could I ask the Minister if he could tell the House exactly what steps he, as a Minister, is taking in order to ensure that a facility is constructed here in the very near future?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: As the request came to me long after we had our budget put together, I suggested to the Humane Society that they approach the community development fund. I also met with the Mayor of the City of Whitehorse and the president of the Yukon Humane Society to try to coordinate all three groups - the Yukon government, the City of Whitehorse, the Humane Society - to put forward a joint proposal.

Speaker: The time for Question Period has now elapsed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Motion to Extend Sitting Hours

Hon. Mr. Phillips: Pursuant to Standing Order 2(7), I move

THAT Committee of the Whole be empowered to sit from 9:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. tonight for the purpose of continuing consideration of Bill No. 6, entitled First Appropriation Act, 1993-94.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Government House Leader

THAT Committee of the Whole be empowered to sit from 9:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. tonight for the purpose of continuing consideration of Bill No. 6, entitled First Appropriation Act, 1993-94.

Motion to extend sitting hours agreed to

Hon. Mr. Phillips: I move that the Speaker do now leave the Chair and that the House resolve into Committee of the Whole.

Speaker: It has been moved that the Speaker do now leave the Chair and that the House resolve into Committee of the Whole.

Motion agreed to

Speaker leaves the Chair

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Chair: I will call Committee of the Whole to order.

Bill No. 6 - First Appropriation Act, 1993-94 - continued

Yukon Legislative Assembly

Chair: We are on general debate on Yukon Legislative Assembly.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I have some opening comments to make before we move on to line-by-line debate.

The operation and maintenance budget proposed for the Yukon Legislative Assembly in 1993-94 totals $2,534,000, which is a 13.7-percent decrease of $403,000 from the 1992-93 forecast of $2,937,000.

There is an increase of $22,000 in the amount allocated for MLA travel and another $20,000 in caucus support services. These increases are due largely to the addition of the seventeenth Member to the Legislative Assembly.

There is also an increase of $38,000 in the Legislative Assembly Office. This difference from the forecast of last year is due to the fact that two positions in the office were vacant for a portion of the last fiscal year.

Decreases have taken place in the following areas: MLA pay is reduced by $23,000 as a result of the pay cuts being taken by Members during 1993-94; the elections program is reduced by $447,000, because of the cost of the general election of Members to this Assembly and of the school council elections, which took place last year; and costs attributed to the MLA pension plan are down by $13,000 from last year, partially as a result of a reduction in MLA pay.

On the capital side, the capital budget proposed for the Yukon Legislative Assembly in 1993-94 is a total of $34,000, and is to be used for the purchase of office equipment, including computers, printers, photocopiers, fax machines and office furniture.

Mr. Penikett: During debate on the Legislative Assembly supplementary, I asked a number of policy questions of the Government Leader with respect to questions such as electoral boundaries, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, travel, concern about policy announcements being made outside the House when the House is in session, MLA pay, caucus support, Legislative Assembly offices, retirement allowances and death benefits.

My first general question is: since we have debated that matter, has the Government Leader or the government changed its position on any of those questions?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I do not believe that we have changed our position. If the Member has something specific that he would like to ask me, I may be able to address it for him.

Mr. Penikett: It is not a trick question. I was just trying to find out whether there are any matters that I needed to debate again. If the government has not changed its position since then, we will not need to debate them. If it has, we will.

Let me ask one question arising out of the Legislative Assembly debate, which is a question that has been mooted about publicly somewhat - that is about the government’s intentions with respect to reductions in MLA pay. As the Government Leader knows, there was some confusion resulting from a press release he put out. Two different statements were issued by the government. One indicated that the political staff in his office, some of whom we have since discovered get more pay than we do, will only have a two-percent cut. Another statement seemed to indicate something else. Can the Government Leader clarify exactly what the difference is between the cuts that will be applied to MLAs and the cuts that will be applied in the Cabinet office to political staff?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I believe that when it is worked out, there is an actual two-percent cut, which is the same as it is for managers. They are also not getting their increase for this year, which would bring it up into the five- or six-percent range.

Mr. Penikett: Unfortunately that answer only complicates things. We are not getting what might have been a six-, seven- or eight-percent increase this year, in addition to a five-percent cut, which means in real terms that it might be a 13-percent cut for MLAs. It is the case that in terms of gross income, the political staff, including Mr. Drown, who gets paid more than most MLAs, will only be getting a two-percent cut, whereas MLAs, who get less, will be getting a five-percent cut. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: No, that is not really correct. As I said, there will be a two-percent cut, and also they will be losing the increase that was automatic after April 1. In essence, that will mean about a five- or six-percent cut.

Mr. Penikett: That is also the case. The Government Leader may know that, for some years in this Legislature, there has been a cost-of-living-allowance clause for MLAs, based on a moving average of the two-year industrial composite index, I think it is called, or something like that. I understand we are foregoing that, as well as the five-percent increase, which means the deduction for the MLAs is quite significantly more than five percent. It may be in the neighbourhood of 10-percent-plus. I am not arguing that now. I am arguing the comparability with political staff who, it is said, will only have a two-percent cut, which seems to be a little unfair, when some of them are getting paid more than MLAs.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: We did this to keep it in line with the cut we put forward to management. Management got a two-percent cut, plus they lost their automatic increase, which makes it about five or six percent.

Mr. Penikett: Understand, Mr. Chair, that sometimes questions of fairness are a little subjective, but MLAs are going to be subject to a five-percent cut, plus the loss of the COLA, which means that their loss is in excess of 10 percent this year over what the legislative pay would have been.

I am not concerned about that. I am concerned that it does not seem to be very fair that political staff, some of whom have very dubious qualifications and are getting paid more than we are, should only be getting a two-percent pay cut. Does the Government Leader think that is fair?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: If we want to get into a long debate, we could talk about the dubiousness of the former administration’s staff and how much they were overpaid. I believe the way we have done it is fair. The political staff, some of whom do not make very much in that office, have taken a cut, the same as the managers, and they will be in that same ballpark.

Mr. Penikett: Political staff are not managers. They are not trained as managers; they are not qualified as managers; they are simply political staff who serve at pleasure with the government-of-the-day. I do not want to repeat the concern of Members on this side of the House, at least, about the people at the top of the political staff getting big increases while people at the bottom got less. I am concerned about the perception of fairness of someone - a political staffer - who is extremely well paid, who did not have to go through a competition, but was simply appointed because he was, for example, the campaign manager for the Yukon Party during the last election, and who, while earning whatever his salary is - $80,000 or whatever - only gets a two-percent cut, but MLAs, who are getting far less, suffer a five-percent cut plus the loss of COLA.

I am not asking the Government Leader to make a comparison between the managers. Does the Government Leader think it is fair that someone earning more than an MLA should only have a two-percent cut, whereas MLAs, who are earning less, should have a five-percent cut plus the COLA?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: If we had not have been left in the financial position we were, we would not have to worry about these issues here today.

As for the wages of the political staff, I want to draw to the Member’s attention that we have fewer political staff members than the previous administration, and a wage scale that is substantially lower, in my estimation. I believe this is a fair and equitable policy and I guess the Member and I will just agree to disagree.

Mr. Penikett: I am sorry the Government Leader is provoking this quite unnecessary debate. Could he explain to me, and perhaps he could do it slowly, why someone who is getting $80,000 a year on his political staff - in a job where he did not have to win an election or did not have to win a competition, he is simply appointed by the Government Leader - should only have a two-percent cut in pay, but an MLA, some of whom are the sole support for their family, should have five-percent-plus, or perhaps even a 10-percent cut?

I should make the point that we are not mounting a big opposition to our pay cuts. We just want it to be fair. If the political staff were getting the same pay cut as MLAs, the government would save even more money, so I do not know why he is objecting to answering the question.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I have answered the question.

First of all, the Member opposite is alluding to a very high salary, which he does not know is accurate. I know what the man is being paid, but the Member opposite certainly does not know.

This decision was made and that is the way it was implemented. As I said, the Member and I will choose to disagree on this issue.

Mr. Penikett: Even if the persons in question, the senior political staff in his office, were only getting $60,000 a year - which I know they are not because, in fact, one of them was getting more than that when he was in Opposition - that is more than MLAs make. Perhaps the Government Leader could explain why it is fair to reduce the salary of someone earning $60,000 a year by only two percent as part of a restraint effort, while someone who is earning, in real terms, $40,000, should have their pay cut by not just five percent, but 10 percent. How is that fair - two percent off someone earning $60,000-plus, but five to 10 percent off someone earning less?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: It is not two percent, it is five percent - between five and six percent. The question could be turned around to ask how it can be fair if it is done to the managers the same way. I believe it is fair. We are the elected officials; we set the example.

Mr. Penikett: We started off this debate because the Government Leader’s press release said that political staff were to be reduced by two percent and MLAs by five percent. Is the Government Leader now saying that the political staff are going to be reduced by five percent, not two percent? I would like to get the Government Leader on record; is it a five-percent reduction?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: When you take into account the increase that they are losing this year, it will be five percent, the same as the managers. I have said it time and time again but the Member opposite seems to have trouble understanding it.

Mr. Penikett: No, I do not think I have any problem understanding it. If you take into account what the MLAs lose this year, the reduction is around 10 percent. How is it fair that someone like Mr. Drown, who earns in excess of $70,000, should have only a five-percent cut when MLAs are having more than a 10-percent pay cut? I am not objecting to the cut for us, but how is that fair?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I believe I have already explained that. I feel it is fair and I say that the Member opposite and I will choose to disagree on that issue.

Mr. Penikett: It seems to be the Government Leader is making a extremely fallacious analogy between managers, who won competitions for jobs in the government and were promoted on merit, and someone who is a political hired gun of the Government Leader - who is not even a resident of the Yukon Territory, in one case; does not pay taxes here and who was brought into manage a campaign and given a job as a reward afterwards. I would like to ask the Government Leader this: how is it fair that that person, earning in excess of $70,000, only has a pay cut then of, in real terms, five percent, where MLAs have a pay cut, in real terms, of something more than 10 percent?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I have answered the question and I do not know what more I can add to it.

Mr. Penikett: What the Government Leader said is that we disagree - that is true - but he has not given us a policy reason or explanation that would satisfy anybody in this House as to how it is fair. Why is it fair that someone who did not even have to apply for a job, did not even have to compete for it, does not even live in the territory and does not pay taxes only has a minor pay cut, whereas people who are elected and chosen by the taxpayers should have to have a larger cut? How is that fair?

Would the Government Leader agree to have some of the political staff called as witnesses in the House and we could ask them how they could justify it to the public - that they only have small cuts whereas MLAs have larger cuts? We are just interested in fairness; the Government Leader said he wanted fairness.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: There is no point, that is the problem. We have cut those salaries the same as the managers’ salaries, and we have given our rationale for those cuts. That rationale in on the record, and I do not know what else the Member opposite wants.

Mr. Penikett: Let me make this point: these people are not managers. They did not win a public service competition; they did not win an election. In one case the person is not even a resident, a citizen, a taxpayer or a voter of the Yukon Territory. Yet, because they have the Government Leader’s ear, their reduction is cosmetic.

In one case, the person had their salary boosted into a higher salary range and then they suffer a minor reduction on top of that. I am the Leader of the Official Opposition and I was not consulted about this matter, as would have been done in any other Legislature in the country.

The Government Leader says he does not have an answer to this question and he does not have any reason to defend the fairness of the question - and I will let the Government Leader off the hook here, because he has to catch a plane - when we are dealing with the legislation on the matter, would he be prepared to bring reasons back to justify the discrepancy between the cuts for MLAs and the cuts for political staff? Would he be prepared to do it at that time?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: If the Member would like me to bring back a legislative return laying out our reasoning on paper, which he will probably not agree with, I certainly will be happy to do that.

Mr. Penikett: I appreciate that, and for the record, because it was not announced in the House, but it was announced outside, I would like to table a copy of their press release that talks about two-percent cuts for political staff.

I have no further question on the Legislative Assembly vote.

On Operation and Maintenance Expenditures

On Legislative Services

On Legislative Assembly

Legislative Assembly in the amount of $1,122,000 agreed to

On Caucus Support Services

Caucus Support Services in the amount of $459,000 agreed to

On Legislative Committees

Legislative Committees in the amount of $37,000 agreed to

On Commonwealth Parliamentary Association

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in the amount of $39,000 agreed to

Legislative Services in the amount of $1,657,000 agreed to

On Legislative Assembly Office

On Clerk’s Office

Clerk’s Office in the amount of $461,000 agreed to

Legislative Assembly Office in the amount of $461,000 agreed to

On Elections

On Chief Electoral Office

Chief Electoral Office in the amount of $94,000 agreed to

On Elections: Education Act

Elections: Education Act in the amount of $27,000 agreed to

On Elections Administration

Elections Administration in the amount of $1.00 agreed to

Elections in the amount of $121,000 agreed to

On Retirement Allowances and Death Benefits

On Retirement Allowances

Retirement Allowances in the amount of $295,000 agreed to

On Death Benefits

Death Benefits in the amount of $1.00 agreed to

Retirement Allowances and Death Benefits in the amount of $295,000 agreed to

Operations and Maintenance Expenditures in the amount of $2,534,000 agreed to

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: Mr. Chair, before you get to the capital, for the Members’ information, I have a copy of a press release here, which went out on January 29. It talks about the cuts. At that point, I identified that all political support staff to Cabinet Ministers, who are order-in-council appointments,  will have their salaries reduced by two percent. Also, all government managers will have their salaries reduced by two percent, and performance cash gratuities for managers will be withheld. For managers, the true change will amount to a five-percent reduction. These measures all take effect April 1, 1993.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: Is that the same one that the Member opposite tabled?

Mr. Penikett: It is the same one. If we are going to be speeding away from this item - I will be leaving it in the way of giving the Government Leader notice - there is one other parliamentary question I should appropriately ask. There is an old principle in parliaments that money cannot be expended until it has been approved by the Legislature, in some form. A number of managers in the government have expressed concern to me that the effective date of the cut for them is April 1, even though the legislation had obviously not passed the House at that time.

By way of notice today, I will be wanting to ask the Government Leader how he will justify the retroactivity of the measure he is passing here. I will say, in passing, that he may want to look at the only time I ever introduced a tax increase in this House. I got absolutely pounded by the Member for Riverdale North and the present Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes, who absolutely refused to permit passage in this House of a retroactive measure. In preparing a legislative return on that matter, the Government Leader may want to check Hansard, which I know he loves to read.

On Capital Expenditures

On Office Furniture, Equipment and Systems

Office Furniture, Equipment and Systems in the amount of $34,000 agreed to

Capital Expenditures in the amount of $34,000 agreed to

Legislative Assembly Office agreed to

Executive Council Office

Chair: Is there any general debate on vote 02?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I have some opening statements prior to our getting into this department.

In this first budget of this government, we have demonstrated our commitment to streamlining and improving cost-effectiveness of the government by reducing the budget of the Executive Council Office, while still maintaining a level of service. The budget I am presenting today represents the fulfillment of a commitment we made to reduce the budget of the Executive Council Office by $1 million. This is an almost 15-percent reduction of expenses from the 1992-93 projected estimates.

First, I want to outline the goals of this budget. We have reduced the costs of operation. A very tough goal was set. Every line of the budget and all operations were reviewed for potential reductions. Managers have all contributed with ideas regarding their operations and will be expected to meet the challenge of realigning their operations within this budget, while not compromising essential services.

To provide cost-effective services, department organization was reviewed with the goal of streamlining and reducing the complexity of the organization. This has resulted in a reduction of a number of programs, positions and the restructuring of services into more functional units, effective April 1, 1993.

Cabinet and Management Support incorporates the former administration’s secretariat and the functions of the deputy Cabinet secretary. It better reflects the operational priorities of the department and streamlines reporting.

A new program, titled Policy and Communications, incorporates the former programs of the Public Affairs Bureau, policy and intergovernmental relations, and devolution activities, strengthens management accountability, integrates related functions and reduces the number of staff required.

The Bureau of Management Improvement downsized from four positions to 2.5 positions. A complete review and assessment of the program’s work plan led to downsizing, with the work to be focused on audit requirements, through comprehensive internal audits of government departments and agencies, and value-for-money audits of programs, services and operations. Program evaluation will be an ongoing requirement of all branches.

Cabinet Offices, previously titled “Cabinet Support”, has fewer positions than previously. This budget essentially holds the line. Levels of service will be maintained and new, innovative ways of doing business will be incorporated. Land claims resourcing is paramount in this department’s budget. Where possible, resources and staff have been temporarily redirected from lower priority activities to support this function, and there will be an ongoing review of requirements for land claims to ensure an adequate level of resources to support this critical function.

The Bureau of French Language Services will continue to implement priority client services. People will be able to obtain services in French in a number of departments. Aboriginal Languages Services will emphasize the community development focus of their mandate to preserve, enhance and develop the Yukon aboriginal languages as a key to supporting First Nations cultural strength.

The Bureau of Statistics’ ongoing work to develop data will continue as a source of accurate information to be used for a variety of development planning activities throughout the territory. This contributes to effective planning in many areas, including economic, social and environmental planning, policy formation and organizational effectiveness.

We have achieved reductions without staff layoffs. All reductions in the budget have been achieved through attrition or redeployment of staff. No indeterminate or staff positions have been lost as a result of the reductions I am presenting to you here today.

We have achieved commendable levels of employment equity. Currently, women hold 50 percent of management positions and 75 percent of non-management positions in this department. Aboriginal people hold 17 percent of the positions in the Executive Council Office.

Turning to the main estimates, the total O&M budget requested for 1993-94 is $8,596,000. There are increases only in two places: the 100 percent cost-recoverable language programs and the Bureau of Management Improvement. The unit was not staffed during 1992-93, resulting in a very low projected estimate. Planned recruitment will allow fulfillment of necessary audit requirements and implementation of the audit plan. The expenditure reduction from 1992-93 of $947,000, or minus 10 percent, is split fairly evenly between personnel and other expenditures.

The net O&M budget request is $5,788,000, which is expenditures less recoveries: $8,596,000 O&M, minus $2,808,000 recoverable, for a $5,788,000 net.

The reduction of $994,000 is 15 percent from the net 1992-93 forecast of $6,782,000. These budget figures mean reductions virtually across the board in the department, including supplies, program materials, contracts and casual staff.

The total capital budget request for 1993-94 is $38,000, a reduction from a total 1992-93 capital of $47,000, and a reduction from a net 1992-93 capital of $19,000. This represents minimum replacement requirements for office furniture, equipment and information resources.

This is the first budget year of departments assuming responsibility for computer equipment and furniture, devolved from the Department of Government Services. These capital figures mean that only essential capital purchases will be made, and we will need to be more flexible and creative in meeting operational needs for furniture and equipment.

Taken together, the reductions in operation and maintenance of $994,000, and in capital of $19,000, comes to a total reduction of $1,013,000 from the 1992-93 projected estimates.

Departmental organization has been streamlined, and an assessment of the priorities and the functions of the department has resulted in a change in the relationship between the organization and the programs. In order to ensure that the land claims process is integrated and supported by the work of the Executive Council Office and the other departments, it will report directly to the deputy minister.

The new policy and communications branch will report directly to the deputy minister and carry integrated responsibility for departmental policy development, corporate policy support, coordination and communications activities, devolution and intergovernmental relations. The rest of the department’s programs report to the deputy Cabinet secretary. This is intended to focus the operational and program delivery aspects of the department.

This new organization has resulted in a reduction of the number of positions required to carry out the department’s responsibilities - the reduction of eight management positions and four non-management positions. This downsizing has come through attrition and the redeployment of resources, not layoffs.

As noted, we enhanced our commitment to employment equity in this budget, and the department now has women in 50 percent of management positions and 75 percent of non-management positions, and aboriginal people hold 17 percent of the Executive Council Office positions.

I would turn to the program details of the budget, first to the operation and maintenance budget of Cabinet and Management Support. This branch has been renamed from administration secretariat to reflect the broader role it now plays in supporting the management function through the department and the responsibility of the deputy Cabinet secretary for this branch. Total Cabinet and Management Support is $1,032,000, a decrease of $108,000, or minus 9 percent, due to a decrease of $43,000 in personnel from a reduction in manager salary and no performance pay increases for 1993-94; the budget for casual staff for vacation backfill and workload fluctuations is reduced by more than half; and minus $61,000 in Other. All categories of expenses have been reduced, including 15- to 60-percent reductions in travel, contract services, advertising and program materials.

Protocol costs have been reduced by almost 60 percent, strictly curtailing entertainment and supplies for protocol events, minus $4,000 in transfer payments, and protocol grants for special events have been eliminated.

The Lands Claims Secretariat is $1,375,000, which is a decrease of $174,000, or 11 percent, derived from a savings of $115,000 in personnel, from a reduction in manager’s salary and no performance pay increases for 1993-94, the elimination of salary budget for the head of land claims position, and a savings of $159,000 in Other. The biggest budget reduction is in contracts, requiring more work be done in house. There is an increase in $100,000 in transfer payments. The Yukon government has committed to implementation funding for the next 10 years.

The new branch of Policy and Communications amalgamates the former Public Affairs Bureau, policy and intergovernmental relations, and devolution activities for a better coordination and efficiency in these related functions. The total budget for O&M is $1,108,000. This is a decrease of $412,000, or minus 27 percent. Of that savings, $222,000 is in personnel, reflecting a downsizing through attrition and streamlining of operations; a savings of $180,000 in Other, which is a reduction of 75 to 80 percent in travel and contract services, a reduction of 25 to 40 percent in advertising, supplies and program materials, and minus $10,000 in transfer payments. Contributions relating to devolution have been eliminated as a separate line item.

In the French and Aboriginal Language Services, both the French and aboriginal language programs are completely cost-recoverable from the federal government. Agreements for both programs are in the final stages of negotiation with the Secretary of State and are expected to be signed early this spring. The total O&M budget is $2,644,000. This is an increase of $236,000, or 10 percent. Of this, $180,000 is a personnel increase for hiring term positions for French language program delivery staff to be located in the Department of Education, Government Services and Health and Social Services; full staffing is anticipated in Aboriginal Language Services; and there is an increase of $48,000 in Other.

In French Language Services, support costs for new staff have been partially offset by reductions in other expenditures, as the program moves into the implementation phase.

Aboriginal Language Services will have slightly increased operating costs as a result of full staffing. The Bureau of Management Improvement has been downsized to focus on the internal audit role of ensuring the accountability of government for expenditures. The total O&M budget for this department is $198,000, an increase of $110,000, or plus 125 percent. This increase in the budget reflects a resumption of business following lengthy staff vacancies due to reorganization and difficulties in recruiting into specialized positions. The program has been reduced from four positions to 2.5, including a director, internal auditor and one half-time research assistant. We are requesting an increase of $134,000 in personnel, which reflects staffing into positions that were vacant for 1992-93, minus $24,000 in Other. Contract Services will be reduced in favour of staff carrying out audit projects.

In the Bureau of Statistics, the $833,000 is a decrease of $199,000, a savings of 19 percent. Of that savings, $133,000 is in personnel from reduced costs for auxiliary staff due to the completion of the survey portion of the Yukon health promotion survey, which was 100 percent recoverable; a reduction of one position, through attrition; and a savings of $66,000 in Other, a reduction in 100 percent cost-recoverable support costs for the Yukon health promotion survey.

The general reduction in program expenditures is consistent with the overall objective of cost reduction.

The total for the Office of the Commissioner is $125,000, which is a decrease of $5,000, or minus four percent. Slight reductions in Other have been made in support of general cost reductions across the department.

The total for Cabinet Offices is $1,281,000, a decrease of $395,000, or minus 24 percent. Of this savings, $323,000 is in personnel, arrived at from one-time termination benefits paid in 1992-93, which will not be required this year, of $262,000.

Fewer employees in the Cabinet Offices has resulted in a lower budget for salary costs. There is a savings of $72,000 in Other, a reduction in contract services and in ministers’ entertainment and communications.

On the capital side, the total for capital Cabinet and Management Support is $27,000; there is an increase of $8,000 or an additional 42 percent. This item represents newly devolved responsibilities for office furniture, equipment and renovations, which are anticipated for the relocation of branches.

The total capital for Policy and Communications is $1,000; this is a reduction of $7,000 or 88 percent. This account has been used for the routine replacement of photography equipment and other ongoing capital costs for communications activities. This large reduction will affect the normal replacement schedule but essential services will be maintained.

The Bureau of Statistics total capital is $10,000; this is a reduction of $20,000, or 55 percent. The purchase of statistical support materials and data will be curtailed to meet this new budget amount.

In conclusion, the budget proposes to reduce the Executive Council Office’s total budget by over $1 million. It demonstrates this government’s commitment to contain and reduce the cost of government.

It is not easy. Choices must be made and new ways of carrying out our responsibilities must be found. This budget is an important step in that direction.

Mr. Penikett: I would like to refer the Government Leader to Hansard, pages 472 to 554, during which time I asked the Government Leader a number of questions, many of which he has answered and some that he has not. I am grateful for the answers that have been provided by way of legislative returns and I know the Government Leader will be departing shortly for Asia, so I am wondering if I could expedite the debate by spending most of the remaining time this afternoon by indicating which of the answers to my questions are incomplete - I actually have them annotated. I would like to just take the time, if the Government Leader is agreeable, to put them on the record - some of which he may be able to elaborate on now, others he will not want to. If he would agree at the end of this discussion to stand over the ECO estimate, I will at that point have tabled all my questions and, if he is not able to answer them today, he, his officials or somebody may be able to get back to me in writing with some of the answers in the next few days while he is away, which would be satisfactory, at least from my point of view.

Let me ask a couple of questions first, though, that arise from his statement that he just gave to the House.

The first comes from what is potentially the largest single expenditure in the department and, indeed, as the Government Leader indicated, something that remains a high priority, which is the land claims expenditures. He indicated that he has cut 11 percent from them and explained why, but let me ask the Government Leader this general question: would he confirm that, for all practical purposes, it is impossible for a Government Leader to control the expenditures on the land claims line, for the simple reason that he alone does not control the pace of negotiations. Should we incur, for example, significant overtime or a serious policy question that requires expert advice or an extremely tricky legal question that requires some expert legal advice, he may not be able to control precisely the expenditures on the land claims line.

I am not looking to provoke a long debate here but, for what it is worth, let me express my view that, having tried to predict the expenditures on land claims in years past, I confess to being a total failure. But I do not feel terribly saddened by that because I do think that this is an item where one has to spend the money necessary to complete the task. Whether the budget is cut or not, events beyond the control of Members here will probably determine the actual expenditure at year-end rather than the amount we put in the budget.

If the Government Leader would agree with that general proposition, I would not have any further questions on it.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:  I apologize to the Member opposite. I thought that we had answered all of the questions before coming back on the names. It was my understanding that we had, and if we have not, I apologize; we will get the answers, to the best of our ability, for the Member opposite.

On the issue of the land claims, the Member opposite is quite right that there is absolutely no way that we can be assured that this budget will be adequate, because there can always be unforeseen circumstances, but we have taken that into consideration, to the best of our ability, based on previous experiences within the Land Claims Secretariat as to what the costs should be, and arrived at that figure. I will concede to the Member opposite that we do not drive the land claims negotiations; they are driven by forces other than ours and we have to go along with them. The Member is right in saying that there could be some unforeseen expenses that arise; we hope that there is not because we tried to budget as accurately as possible.

Mr. Penikett: The Government Leader also indicated that 50 percent of the managers in the department were women and spoke of that number as if it were an innovation. I think that he or the deputy may be able to confirm that is an event that previously existed.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: Yes, I will agree with that. I think what we are trying to point out is that even with attrition we have maintained that 50 percent.

Mr. Penikett: People less kind than I would point out that 50 percent of the deputies who have been fired have been women, which is a form of affirmative action, I suppose.

The Government Leader spoke of 17 percent of the people in the Executive Council Office being aboriginal. Would the Government Leader confirm that almost all of those people are employed in the aboriginal languages section?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: Yes, most of them are.

Mr. Penikett: I think the Government Leader will see the implications of that answer because, obviously, the desirability of getting aboriginal people into the management level of the Yukon government is still a goal that we have to strive toward. As far as I know, there are not many non-aboriginal people with expertise in aboriginal languages in the territory, so the talent pool for that section will be drawn largely from the First Nations.

Let me go through the answers that the government has given. I do not want to sound negative about the responses given and I appreciate the efforts put forward by the department to answer the questions. I did not want to imply that there are not answers in some cases, I just wanted to suggest that in some cases, in terms of my needs, the answers are incomplete. Some questions that I may note today may be in the form of supplementaries.

There is one large area that I do not think I had the answers that I was looking for, which were all of the questions about YTG’s policy response to concerns tabled by the City of Whitehorse some months ago. I know that in some cases events have superseded those questions; in other cases I am still - since it indicates a mind set of the city and since we are now negotiating with Whitehorse First Nations - curious about the position that the territorial government will take.

The way in which I will describe these is in chronological order, which may assist. If anybody is having trouble locating my concern, the excellent staff in our office, small as they are, have annotated the questions so that we will be able to actually point out where they were raised in Hansard, if the Members opposite have any problems.

The answer to the questions that I asked about the statistics branch - this comes on page 492 - about the use of focus groups and the qualifications for focus groups was less than clear as to the training that the people in the statistics branch have to do focus group work. In fact, I suspect the truth is that they are self-taught; not that that is bad, but there are inevitably some questions about the validity of some of the findings of focus-group work, since so much of the skill is in interpreting the findings. For that reason, I am interested to know if there has been some training provided, which can be more specifically provided than the answer that I received.

I am also concerned about the government’s intentions in the use of focus-group research. In my view, this is exactly akin to the questions that we have asked in the past about polling, and the previous government’s commitment - and, I understand, the present government’s commitment - to provide and table copies of polling results. Logically, it seems to me to be consistent with the Public Government Act and other statements here that the results of that research should be tabled in this House. The previous government always did that. I would hope that the new government would commit themselves to doing that.

There is a problem because some of the research may deal with privacy questions. Since the Public Government Act has not been proclaimed, I am concerned on both poles of that spectrum, if you like, about the protection of privacy and about the provision of public information. The answer that was given to the question on page 492 also indicated that some papers have been presented in - I gather these must be scholarly forums - on the ways in which the Yukon has integrated qualitative and quantitative research. Since I understand that those papers may be given in connection with work done for and by YTG, I am wondering if they might be identified as public documents. If they have been given in public forums, I guess they are public documents. I wonder, if the author does not object, if we might have those tabled in the House.

On page 494 of Hansard, I pursued a line of questions about how the policy group in ECO was going to help to achieve management efficiencies and economies. I was concerned about the evaluation process there and I mentioned to the government that in our experience evaluation had been costly, but, I think, of questionable value so far. I understand that there is at least one department of government - Justice - that has been talking about doing a very sensible program evaluation and that they wanted - which is very admirable - to have it lead by employees, which is also admirable. I understand that, after spending some time with that, they decided that they needed some professional help because it was not available in this government - evaluation methodology and practices - and were looking to go outside. I do not know how far they have gone with that but it still leaves open in my mind the question of the efficacy of having what should be a policy group - since they are a smaller group now - involved in such a central process as evaluation. If the government could get back to me with a little more detailed explanation on that I would appreciate it.

On page 495 of Hansard, I asked questions about the audit of advertising arrangements. I asked questions last week in the House on the same subject and the Government Leader got a bit irritated with me, but I was not trying to make a point, I was asking him a fairly straight forward question as to why he had decided to proceed, in one respect, in a manner other than that recommended by the audit. I think the Government Leader said something about being damned if you do and damned if you do not. That may be true, but I am still simply at this point looking for an explanation of the reasons why the government chose to one way or the other. I am not taking a position myself on the wisdom of the two options. I am just curious about what motivated the government to go one way rather than the other.

I will confess, in reference to the questions I asked on page 531, arising out of the new organization of the Executive Council Office, that I still have not been able to reconcile the reduced staffing of communications officers, the relocation of communications officers from other departments and the total staffing complement in YTG of communications officers. It may be that there is some piece, or pieces, of information missing that makes it hard for me to do that addition.

Between pages 532 and 542, there was some discussion of government publications, particularly The Sluice Box. There was a commitment to file a return on the subject, and that was reiterated, but I am not sure that the return completely asked the questions of editorial policy and control. I do not want to get into a long detail about that today, but just let me use one example. My colleague, the Member for Mount Lorne, the other day, asked questions about statements attributed to the Public Service Commissioner, for example, about tenure - a subject that had been a matter of a few minutes’ debate in the House some days previous. We are not completely sure who is making the final decisions about the content of that document, and that is something we would like to pursue a little bit.

The questions I asked on page 544 about implementation funding were a reiteration of some questions I had asked in the opening week of the session on the question of implementation funding. I guess the simplest way I can express our need would be this: if, by the time we get to the Renewable Resources main estimates - that is probably the best suggestion I can make - I would appreciate some more information about how the list of requests by Renewable Resources for land claims implementation funding was pared down because, as the Government Leader knows, I saw earlier versions of that list. I know the Minister of Renewable Resources was quite - how can I describe it - passionate, feisty, lively, in explaining the way in which they had tried to meet the needs. I am not raising these questions in a critical sense, but I would like to know what projects and what desirable management tools we may have had to sacrifice in order to make the project fit the funds available.

On page 547, I asked a question about a change in policy, mandate or new instructions initially about overlapping claims, and I think the government indication was “none”. However, the events surrounding the recent disputes with Kwanlin Dun cause me to wonder if the new Government of the Yukon is going through the exercises of adopting formal mandates with respect to the negotiations with each of the First Nations.

Some things that the Government Leader has said indicate that they probably have not, but other things that he has said indicated that they may have, which I am not clear on. That is a general question, but I would most specifically be interested in, as I am sure all Members of the House would be, an answer with respect to the situation with Kwanlin Dun. We know that the situation here is different and unique and that some problems have arisen since the change of government with respect to pressures around land development, land alienations and land selections. I am not at all clear if the government has adopted a clear mandate or if the mandate is being adopted on the run while negotiations were going on.

That leads me to the largest set of questions about which I still have some concerns, which is the set of questions that I asked about the government’s response to positions taken by the city.

I understand full well that the city’s position has evolved and that one city councillor has been quoted publicly as saying that the positions to which the Mayor had attached his signature were not the position of the whole council. That is not my business and I do not want to be debating the different views of the different members of city council.

I do know that there was some anxiety among Whitehorse First Nations about whether the city would be invited to participate at the negotiating table as other municipalities have been by First Nations. There is some concern about the positions that may be taken by the new territorial government with respect to the demands of the city.

If I could, as a mnemonic device, run over some of the issues that were identified in my questions; again, not so I can get an answer today but to indicate the need and the desire that I have to better understand the policy of the territorial government in responding to these questions. Among these questions is the proposal that I think came in the letter from the mayor about having the view expressed that First Nations should only be allowed pro-rated land quantum inside the city.

The view was also expressed that the laws of general application should apply to all land selections within the City of Whitehorse. In my view, that is completely inconsistent with the UFA and the land claims legislation. It was surprising and, perhaps, even disappointing to me that anyone on city council still expressed the hope that city council, for example, might have governance over the Kwanlin Dun or the Ta’an Dun on their own land, which may indicate an information need.

The way in which the Community and Transportation Services department has, up until now, proceeded with land developments, in the absence of effective consultation with the First Nations, raises some serious questions in my mind about the policy position of the territorial government. I would be curious about that. This is essentially a question I have asked before, but I am looking for elaboration.

There was a proposal from the city council suggesting that there should be some kind of joint planning process for an official community plan before the land selections were negotiated. I can take it from the way that events have proceeded that that suggestion is not going to go forward. I do understand, from Question Period today, that there is a proposal for a working group to deal with land selections, which would involve all the governments. That is a good idea. It may be useful, if that is the instrument we are going to be using now, to get some further information about that from the Minister responsible for land claims.

The other issue that came out of the municipal concerns was about the clearly evident tension between the different interests about land selections in areas where the land was of significant commercial value. I know that it is a view of Kwanlin Dun, since they are, by far, the largest First Nation in the territory - they list 1,500 plus members - that they are quite disappointed that they have only 440 square miles of land selection. The inevitable consequence of their large population and the small selection is that they would be looking to select commercially valuable land. They thought that all governments understood this.

The city has a concern about this, which they have expressed. It seems to me that there are going to be some problems of public sensibility and public awareness on which we all need to work together. I would like to hear a bit more about how the Government of the Yukon intends to deal with that down the road.

All my concerns here have been aggravated by the statements about balanced selections.

I know where the language of balanced selections came in. I know, as I think the Government Leader must, that it was intended to make sure that in most parts of the territory, land was selected that conformed to the general character of the land and that First Nations would not have all of the best land in the area. It was also intended, from their point of view, that they would not be stuck with all the mountain tops and swamp land. This problem is especially acute here, even at the political level, because from the First Nations’ point of view, having been relocated several times in their lives in this area, by the newly arriving authorities, they are finding themselves in the ironic position of being the last people to be able to select land in the area. They are feeling somewhat frustrated by recent events.

This might be a Community and Transportation Services question, as much as an Executive Council Office question. It is about the YTG position on the city recovering the value of improvements on lands proposed for development that are now under claim. I guess we are really curious as to whether the McIntyre village relocation model is going to apply, or some other funding formula. The city also asked questions about their ability to tax First Nations’ land.

There is the other question, which I think the Government Leader may have mentioned, about the selections by all First Nations of land in the City of Whitehorse area. I do not remember who it was, but someone on the other side mentioned something about tabling a map of all the selections by all of the First Nations in the Whitehorse area. I guess what I really want to know is whether the government is really going to do this. I am not sure how helpful it would be.

The question of participation by municipalities in the negotiations was raised at a public meeting in Whitehorse. I remember that Mayor Weigand asked a question about whether, in essence, they could become a fourth party to the negotiations. As I recall, Dr. McTiernan replied on behalf of the government, saying very politely, no. He reiterated the longstanding policy that they may be part of the government caucus, as long as the First Nation consents.

The other question that was raised by the mayor is a problem that is a difficult one, which is the allegation of secrecy, or lack of information. Given the sensitivities that are already evident about land selections in Whitehorse, I would like to know more about how the government - and, indeed, the Government Leader himself - intends to address the problem or the need for effective communication and good quality public information, particularly as we are negotiating in the capital city.

I have a question about First Nations and hydro development. I forget - and I could check the record; it must be somewhere after page 549 - and I do not know how well I described this issue in previous debate, but Dr. McTiernan knows it reasonably well, because it is a problem we did not manage to solve when we were in government. I will explain it to the Government Leader this way: there were already discussions about potential hydro developments at Drury Creek and Morley River. It is not at all clear whether the Ross River Dena or the Teslin Tlingit have been consulted about these potential developments, as the land claims agreement requires them to be, but there is another complicated question here, which is whether the government itself has developed a way to consult about the 10 hydro sites it is entitled to reserve under the land claims agreement.

I would explain the problem to the Government Leader this way: when NCPC owned the power company, because they were a federal agency, it was fairly easy for them to just put reserve notations on maps and, perhaps, withdraw the land from alienation, and for them to obtain an order-in-council doing that.

Because the power company is a territorial agency, not a federal agency, we cannot easily do that any more. We have nothing like, if you like, interim protection for YTG, as the Government Leader will understand, if the power company or the government went public with the 10 sites. As a person who has sworn an oath of office, I know what they are, and I am obliged, at this point, not to tell him. There were questions asked by the former Leader of the Official Opposition, the Hon. Mr. Phelps, about why we were not consulting about these sites.

The difficulty is to find a way of consulting about the sites without inviting alienation of the lands by people staking, or in other ways, and the Government Leader will know that potential hydro sites have been staked before. I think one court ruled that it was nuisance staking, but there can be conflicts.

Before I left office, we did not actually succeed in addressing this problem, at least not to my satisfaction. It is, in simple terms this: how do we find a way of consulting about these sites without inviting speculation or alienation of some kind? My guess is that we would have had to find some way to temporarily withdraw them, while we were conducting the public consultations and, then, doing some kind of public process and, if there were changes as a result of the public process, going through a second set of withdrawals.

It may be that the consultation with the public around land selections, since the First Nations will know where we have an interest in a potential hydro site, may be adequate to the task. I do not know if they would be from a public point of view, but I would be curious as to how the new government intends to address that issue. I was not clear about it when I spoke about it before.

On page 551, I asked questions about implementation funding. The government has answered most of those questions, but I asked a question that has not been answered well. It may be because the government has not had a chance to think about it. It was about some downstream consequences of under funding of implementation, which could be the fears of some First Nations that the territorial government ends up behaving like the federal government sometimes does toward YTG in respect to devolution matters, where we get under funded programs - programs that are stripped of some of their value - or we simply get program dumping. I would really like to know what policy commitments YTG will be making on that score.

That, the Government Leader will be happy to know, is the end of my list of questions.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: We will see what we can do to get some answers that are a little more satisfactory to the Member opposite. A lot of those questions, I think, we have answered in as much detail as we can already, especially when we get to policy positions about dealing with land claims within the city. I made it quite clear, for the record, that the position of this government has not changed from the negotiating position of the previous government. On land development issues, while it is a big problem right now that this administration is going to have work out with the Kwanlin Dun, I just have to put on the record - I wish we had more time for this debate today - that, for some of the subdivisions that are being complained about right now by the Kwanlin Dun, there is documented consultation that goes back to 1988 and 1989. It is a little late to be trying to stop those subdivisions, as they are in the process of being put into place right now. We are fully prepared to work with the Kwanlin Dun on any further development within the city regarding land delineation and make them aware of that.

I just have a couple more things to say before we break, so that I do not forget them. I do not know where the Member opposite got the idea that we would be tabling a map of selections. That has not been anything that I have even thought about. I do not think it would be in anyone’s best interests to do that at this point.

The problem that is arising at the land claims table now is not a change of direction in policy of this government on land selections within the City of Whitehorse. It has come as a result of new maps that have been tabled by the First Nations people. That is where the difficulties have arisen. I share the concerns of the Member opposite and the Kwanlin Dun, where they feel that the land quantum is very small for the number of people in their band. I draw the Member opposite’s attention to the fact that this is not much different from the position of the White River Band, which has very little land that is going to be allocated to its membership.

With that, we will do what we can to get more detailed answers for the Member opposite, prior to continued debate on this department.

Executive Council Office stood over

Chair: Is it agreed to take a brief recess at this time?

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.

Chair: We will take a brief recess.

Recess

Chair: I will call Committee of the Whole to order. We are debating Community and Transportation Services capital expenditures; we are on highway construction, Alaska Highway. Is there further debate?

Department of Community and Transportation - continued

On Alaska Highway

Alaska Highway in the amount of $27,100,000 agreed to

On Other Roads

Mr. Harding: Could the Minister please give me the areas where that expenditure will be reduced? Are there any specific projects or does it apply generally to each project?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I apologize for the delay in finding the answer. For the benefit of the Member opposite, I can tell him various projects.

Surveys and miscellaneous design for 1993-94 is $50,000; miscellaneous reconstruction is a project that allows the department to react quickly to various road upgrading requests as they arise, no projects are scheduled at this time, as the funds are intended to enable the department to react to short-term needs in a timely manner - for instance, washouts and those sorts of occurrences.

In 1993-94, there is $225,000; last year there was $525,000 in the same budget item. For the reconstruction and paving of Two Mile Hill, with which we are all more or less familiar with, there is $2,500,000.

Mr. McDonald: I have a faulty memory. I thought we were dealing in part with Two Mile Hill under the Alaska Highway line item. Was any money under Alaska Highway dedicated to Two Mile Hill reconstruction?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Yes, there are two areas that deal with that work. There is the part on the Alaska Highway, which is paid for from the Alaska Highway budget, and then there is the part, under Two Mile Hill, which comes out of this budget that we have just been talking about.

Mr. McDonald: Could the Minister indicate how much of the Alaska Highway money was for the Two Mile Hill? We have $2.5 million under Other Roads - how much is the other?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: For the 1993-94 budget, $2.5 million is to continue the reconstruction and paving of the Two Mile Hill in Whitehorse.

Mr. McDonald: Is the Minister saying that under the Alaska Highway line item there is $2.5 million, and under the Other Roads item there is $2.5 million, for a total of $5 million?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I think I am going to have to get back to him, because I do not have a detailed breakdown of those two here.

Mr. McDonald: I will wait.

Other Roads in the amount of $2,775,000 agreed to

On Campbell Highway

Mr. Harding: When it first came out, I must say that I was shocked when I saw the extent of this capital cut to the Campbell Highway. I would like to ask the Minister now what the $1.2 million represents in terms of road work and exactly where will it be done?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: There is $200,000 for pre-engineering and reconstruction to RAU standard, including structural, base, crushing and BST work, to be carried out in 1993-94. That includes the application of BST to grade constructed in 1992-93 and hydroseeding. That is on the Faro-Carmacks portion. The $1 million is for structural upgrading and pavement overlay from the town to the airport in Watson Lake, together with reconstruction to RAU 8090 geometric standards, and application of BST between the airport turn-off and the Sa Dena Hes mine access road at kilometre 50. The work planned for 1993-94 will involve pavement overlay and hydroseeding between kilometres 0 and 10, plus application of BST and hydroseeding from kilometre 45 to kilometre 54, where reconstruction took place last year.

Mr. Harding: The government stated that this budget was prepared on the premise that the mine would be operating at Faro. We have the largest operating mine, and probably the second or third largest community in the territory, being serviced by a road that is receiving absolutely nothing in the way of capital upgrading, after intensive efforts over the previous years by the previous administration to do that.

There are a lot of my constituents who are extremely concerned about this news. It is a very big issue in my community. I was just wondering what kind of a message that sends to people when there is absolutely no actual upgrading going on, except the $200,000, which it is my understanding is for engineering work? What kind of a signal does it send that the government is going to continue to maintain the road to the largest mining operation in the territory in a decent condition so that it is better for the mining operator so that their transportation costs remain somewhat low? My constituents have to drive over it with ore trucks. It is somewhat dangerous. The safety factor is incredibly important to people who want to see a road that is in good shape to drive on. Could the Minister tell me what the thinking was behind this decision?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: There are several points that were brought out by the Member opposite. The fact of the matter is that we look at the traffic on a particular highway. For instance, with the Campbell Highway on the Faro to Carmacks run, there have been varying amounts of money spent since 1988-89. In fact, in 1988-89, there was no money spent on the Faro-Carmacks portion of the highway. It went from zero in 1988-89 to $1,449,000, and so on. Again, next year we have it estimated at $2.5 million.

Last year, there was a fairly major reconstruction project. What we want to do this year is put BST where last year’s work was done.

Again, in future years, there will be additional major reconstruction. However, there was no intent to drop Faro this particular year; that was just the way it worked out. There was work at the south end of the Campbell Highway that we felt was of a higher priority than the work at the north end.

Mr. Harding: The work that was done was a major priority. There was a need. Over the years, since the mine has been operating, there have been 50- or 60-tonne loads - I am sure the Minister knows the exact weight - being hauled over it on a continual basis. It puts a lot of pressure on the road and does a lot of damage. It makes the road absolutely treacherous. My constituents have called for continued upgrading of the road. That is the reason money was put into it.

There is a 156-percent increase in the traffic on the Top of the World Highway. Very few of those vehicles weigh 50 or 60 tonnes. There are increases in traffic there because of the tourist season. It is like comparing apples and oranges.

Could the Minister tell us, comparatively speaking, what kind of traffic numbers he is looking at for the Top of the World and Campbell Highways? Could he tell us what kind of vehicles are involved in this traffic count?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: The numbers of vehicles on the Campbell Highway are approximately 240 vehicles per day. The Top of the World Highway sees about 100. Again, the Top of the World Highway is definitely in need of work. The Campbell Highway will continue to need major construction work, but it is coming up to a standard that is more or less acceptable. It is a matter of priorities and what has to be done in the following year with the available dollars.

Mr. Harding: I agree with the Minister that it is a matter of priorities. I am trying to make the case that we are talking about the message that is being sent to a major economic stimulator in the territory - the Faro mine. The people in Faro, along with other Yukoners who use the road, have to put up with the tonnage that these trucks carry. It is incredibly dangerous.

With all due respect, the Minister is comparing apples and oranges. One has to look at the safety factor. Determining what is badly needed has to take into account what people have to put up with.

Two hundred and forty vehicles travel that road per day - including 50- or 60-tonne ore trucks. That involves a lot of citizens in the Yukon who travel that road.

The Campbell Highway is a treacherous road, and I do not think that the standard is good when you take into account the amount of bad weather that we have in the Yukon due to the length of our winters. Also, the road is in very rough shape this spring.

I think the Minister should be taking a look at the factors involved in the decision to put capital into that highway, and because of the weight of those trucks and the safety factor, it is indeed a huge priority to get that road upgraded and chipsealed as quickly as possible. I am absolutely flabbergasted that we are seeing this extent of a cut in the Campbell Highway project, and I know that my constituents are concerned.

When I went around at election time, I talked about this with my constituents. I never said that there was any way that the entire project could be done in a short period of time, but I certainly told them that I would expect to be arguing on their behalf for considerable monies with which to try to get the highway finished.

I would like to ask the Minister what his views are about the fact that my constituents have to deal with a road that deteriorates quickly and also a road that has a tremendous number of safety hazards with the ore trucks.

Hon. Mr. Fisher: The average summer daily traffic, other than the trucks, is probably very similar to the Top of the World Highway. Of the 240 vehicles travelling that road, 40 percent of the traffic is apparently truck traffic.

The other thing that the Member opposite should realize is that the road has been there for many, many years, but major upgrading of that road has only been going on for the past few years.

We feel that the future costs over the next five years will be a minimum of $27 million, as compared to the five years previous. For instance, in 1992-93 and five years previous to that, it was approximately $8 million.

We are talking major dollars here and again we have to priorize, because we only have so many dollars available.

Mr. Harding: There was not that much money spent in the beginning, I am sure, because the road was in reasonably decent shape, but over seven years a continuous pounding has taken place, which has had an effect on the highway making it increasingly more important for the government to pay attention to the condition of the road.

I would say that the Minister is right - 40 percent would be truck traffic. Not all of it would be Curragh trucks; it would also consist of supply trucks, but I do not see how that number takes away from the problems that the citizens in the Yukon face when driving that highway.

To do so is gravely underestimating what people who do spend a lot of time on that road have to put up with. The reason for the priority over the last few years is that the road has deteriorated and to try to put some capital into the project to upgrade the road.

Regarding the safety I talked about, the Minister has not really told me how he feels about that. In comparison with the Top of the World Highway, I do not really think you are talking about the same thing.

Hon. Mr. Fisher: If we had the money, there is no doubt that I would like to see money spent on every highway in the territory - even more money than we are able to spend on any one of them. However, the Member is talking safety. When it rains, the Top of the World Highway is extremely dangerous. No, we do not have the truck traffic up there, but we do have a lot of tourists. We are averaging about 100 vehicles a day, most of those being tourists. When it rains, it is very slippery and very dangerous.

These are the types of things we have to look at when priorizing our highways budget. Again, I thank the Member for his questions and concerns, but it is a matter of priorizing. Basically, that is the way we have priorized it.

Mr. Harding: Why on earth would the road to the largest and second largest private-sector employers’ operations in the territory not be a major priority for this government? I cannot understand it.

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I do not think that we have ever said it is not a priority. As a matter of fact, the numbers I gave him a few minutes ago show it is very much a priority.

Mr. Harding: The Member for Riverdale North says more money was spent there but there was good reason for that. There is good reason this year, too. Perhaps the Minister could tell me, in evaluating a decision to make an investment increase in one road and not another, why would the higher priority be given to a road that does not include the largest private sector employer on that road or one that does not have the safety concerns my constituents have to deal with?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: The Member opposite seems to believe that the Campbell Highway only runs from Faro to Carmacks, but $1 million is being spent on the south end that, again, is mainly because of the truck traffic from the Sa Dena Hes mine. What residents down there call the airport road is pretty well worn out and, in fact, there needs to be some fairly major upgrading from the end of the airport road on out to Sa Dena Hes. Some of that will be done this year and the rest will be for the paving. Both of those projects have to be lumped together; the Campbell Highway is not just from Faro to Carmacks.

Mr. Harding: If the Minister reads Hansard, and we look back just a couple of days to the discussions surrounding the O&M budget and discussions surrounding the O&M costs and what was going to be invested between Ross River and Watson Lake, he will find out that once again he is poking the Members opposite with a stick and, like he did the other day, he will lose those battles because he is not coming to the fight armed. The Member knows full well that I raised concerns about the situation with regard to the O&M budget for that particular stretch of road, and the reason I am not doing it today is because there is some investment in that stretch of road that is needed. I do not for a minute think that the argument of the Minister that because one stretch of the road is receiving capital side, I should be satisfied, is viable. I do not think anyone else would buy it either. I just say that to him.

On the other hand, there was some discussion regarding the $10 million from the federal government that has since been promised to the territory, and there was some discussion regarding the Klondike Highway; I am not sure if the Top of the World Highway was mentioned - it would not surprise me if it was - and also the Campbell Highway. Could the Minister tell me what the government’s plans are with regard to capital project investment, which was stated by the Minister for the Campbell Highway? If the Member wants, I could read the quotes out of the local daily when we had the tiff over this lack of funding.

Hon. Mr. Fisher: We have not made any decisions on the $10 million that the Member opposite is referring to because we do not have the money yet. If we do, then we will set the priorities for the projects. We have, on any one of our highways - whether it is the Klondike, the Top of the World, South Campbell, North Campbell or Canol Road - engineering work completed and we know what has to be done. It is a matter of putting the dollars where they are needed.

Mr. Harding: Is the money coming?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: My understanding is that it will be coming, but I have not been specifically informed.

Mr. Harding: How come the Minister said, when the budget was first being discussed, that a portion of that $10 million would be used for the Campbell Highway? How come the Minister said that, if he has such vague information about the $10 million?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: The money has been promised and the Campbell Highway would certainly be one of the priorities. I am a little more skeptical or pessimistic than most as I want to see the money before we actually start putting out contracts.

Mr. Harding: I find this absolutely amazing in light of the fact that it was not two seconds after the Government Leader got back from Ottawa that the big $10 million announcement was handed out. Then I read in the Watson Lake News that the Minister of Economic Development was discussing the merits of the new government and how successful a trip they had to Ottawa and how wonderfully well received the Toward Self-Sufficiency by the 21st Century document was, because he promised his constituents that $10 million was going to be forthcoming for infrastructure.

The Minister stands up today and says that he is more skeptical than most. Even though I did know that Mazankowski was going to be doing some infrastructure development, when I said that it was pie-in-the-sky at this point, the Minister reacted very strongly to my comments. I guess I will have to get the quotes. He said that that money was forthcoming. Could the Minister explain what has happened that now has him so skeptical about this $10 million?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: My understanding is that it is just a matter of finalizing the agreements. When that has been done, we will have the money.

Mr. Harding: This whole $10 million is an extremely confusing issue. They promised the people of the Yukon that this money was forthcoming. The Minister promised it to the people. We engaged in a debate in the Legislature and in the media about this issue and the Minister rebutted my comments by saying that I was off base and that the money would be forthcoming. Today, he says that he is more skeptical than most about the money and he will believe it when he sees it, after the government, of which he is a Cabinet Member, has issued press statements about it. This is absolutely mind-boggling. I cannot believe what we are talking about here today. It makes no sense.

Perhaps the Members opposite do not think that the Opposition should be concerned about promises made to the people of the Yukon for $10 million for infrastructure development by Members of the Cabinet and then see Cabinet Members stand up and say that they are skeptical about it and that there may be no money forthcoming. Perhaps the Members opposite do not think we should be concerned about it, but I certainly think we should be.

Perhaps they cannot believe we are talking about it. I cannot believe it either, because I cannot believe that the government would be so stupid as to put out a press release and then not be able to deliver on it. That is what I find hard to believe. I find it hard to believe that we are talking about it today, especially in light of the fact that the Minister gave my constituents the impression that their MLA was off base because I backed off for a couple of minutes and told them not to be excited about the $10 million for infrastructure or that the $10 million would be put into the Campbell Highway. I think that is irresponsible.

I would like to explore this a bit more. I guess I will have to, because the Member said that he is skeptical, but now he says that it will soon be signed and that it is just a matter of getting it finalized. What is the time line we are looking at to get this finalized? What representations has the Minister made to Cabinet for a chunk of that - and what size is the chunk - to be used for the Campbell Highway?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I do not have the exact numbers with me of what we would intend to spend on the Campbell Highway. It was one of the roads that were used when we applied for the funding. I can get the numbers for the Member opposite.

Mr. Harding: When the Minister said that $10 million could be put into the Campbell Highway, surely he had some idea as to what kind of numbers he was talking about. That is all I want to know. What kind of number was he talking about? What kind of number has he discussed with Cabinet regarding funding for that project? Based on his best knowledge of the $10 million, could he tell us what kind of time line we are looking at? We have asked that question before, and we would like to know more about it.

Hon. Mr. Fisher: My understanding is that Economic Development is dealing with the draft agreement, and it may very well be finalized in June.

Mr. Harding: I am sure the Minister has looked at all the highways in the Yukon. I am sure they have all been priorized. Based on his knowledge of what is needed, and on the knowledge that this $10 million should be forthcoming in June, what is the Minister’s expected capital contribution to the Campbell Highway going to be?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I already told the Member I would get back to him with those numbers.

Mr. Harding: Regarding that $10 million, we heard that it was originally supposed to be for infrastructure, or for airports. The government said they tried to get it for energy, and we will have some questions about that later. The government said it was supposed to be for energy. They made the request that it could go to energy. The federal government said no, it would have to go into roads. Could the Minister of Community and Transportation Services tell us how this matching will work? At first, from a press release that came out, we were not aware that matching would have to take place. Could he tell us how this matching will work?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: The Department of Economic Development is actually negotiating with the federal government on that infrastructure money. I am not in a position to say what sort of an agreement they are coming up with. I have not seen the actual draft agreement, so I cannot really comment on the type of cost sharing, or the period of time, or anything else.

Mr. Harding: Before I clear this line, just by way of representation to the Minister, let me say that I would hope that they would take a serious look at investing that $10 million, if it is forthcoming, into a substantial capital project for the Campbell Highway. I am disappointed that the cuts have been made there. Let me just say that to the Minister. I would also like to give notice to the Minister of Economic Development at this time that we will be asking questions regarding those issues that the Minister was not able to respond to. I look forward to the answers from the Minister that he has said that he will get back to me on today.

Campbell Highway in the amount of $1,200,000 agreed to

On Top of the World Highway

Ms. Moorcroft: This is a rather significant increase for the Top of the World Highway. Does this include improved ferry service or a bridge? How will this additional funding be spent?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: The money does not include a new ferry, a bridge, or anything like that. It is basically for reconstruction of the Top of the World Highway from kilometre 66 to kilometre 73.5 and kilometre 99 to kilometre 101. It will be an upgrading to a design standard by realignment and structural strengthening.

Top of the World Highway in the amount of $1,240,000 agreed to

On Klondike Highway

Klondike Highway in the amount of $100,000 agreed to

On Bridges -  Numbered Highways

Bridges - Numbered Highways in the amount of $50,000 agreed to

Mr. Harding: I have a question related to bridges; perhaps the Minister could tell me if my questioning would be appropriate at some other line?

My question is regarding the Riverdale bridge. I know that there has been a lot of discussion at city council, but I also know that the Government of Yukon made some commitment about the bridge during the election, even though it is part of the municipal jurisdiction. Maybe this is another capital project.

Could the Minister please explain the government’s position on the extra lane for the Riverdale bridge?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: We did make an agreement with the City of Whitehorse to pay 50 percent of the cost, up to a maximum of $500,000 over a two-year period. As the Member is aware, there is nothing in this year’s budget so it will probably be a future year’s project.

On Planning and Engineering

Planning and Engineering in the amount of $360,000 agreed to

On Dempster Highway

Dempster Highway in the amount of $350,000 agreed to

On South Access

Ms. Moorcroft: I drive the South Access Road quite often and we have discussed that the state of the road is rapidly deteriorating and is in need of improvement. Can the Minister explain why there is a reduction in the capital expenditures for the South Access Road in the next fiscal year?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: The $50,000 for the South Access Road to continue with the detailed design work. The main reason that it did not proceed this year is because of the Two Mile Hill; we could not have both of them under construction in the same year.

Ms. Moorcroft: What is the schedule for the improvements to the South Access Road if the money this year is going to be used strictly for design work. When will the highway actually be worked on and improved?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: The major portion of the work will be carried out in 1995-96.

South Access in the amount of $50,000 agreed to

On Prior Years’ Projects

Prior Years’ Projects in the amount of nil agreed to

On Resource Transportation Access Program

On Prior Years’ Projects

Mr. McDonald: This line item cannot go past without some comment. If one were reading only the main estimates budget speech and did not have the detailed document at all, one would think that the resources transportation access program had been increased $50 million, and not reduced to zero dollars.

During the course of the budget estimates, we have heard a lot about the government focusing on infrastructure development. Presumably, in part, that means new infrastructure development, and not resurfacing old infrastructure that is currently being used. One could argue that under the existing infrastructure today, the economic viability of the territory would not change if that infrastructure was marginally improved, as the budget supports.

I am more than a little puzzled. I think we all are. I think the mining industry is, and virtually anybody who has heard about this is more than a little puzzled as to the reasons for this particular move. The Minister, in the past, has said quite simply that seemed to be a large amount of administration for a relatively small expenditure and that they would like to change that ratio. What they have not explained is why they would not put more money into the delivery end, if it was such a high priority - delivery end meaning construction on the ground - and try to tighten up the costs of administration, or the engineering costs associated with this program.

I still have not heard anything at all from the Ministers as to why they undertook this particular action; all we have heard in the past is that they may yet do something because of the $10 million we have just discussed - that the $10 million, if it ever comes, will be dedicated to the Campbell Highway, the Top of the World Highway and Casino Trail, but also to something like this.

Given that the $10 million, as far as we know, is a one-time commitment, can the Minister indicate to us what his long-term plans are for the resource transportation access program or for a creature like this program, and how is the Minister going to respond to requests made by small mining companies, for example, or others - I think funding out of the RTAP program has been given to the fishery industry, it has been given to the agricultural industry, or operators in those industries - making requests? The Minister will remember the old tote road program that existed prior to this one and, even though it was a small amount, it still responded to a real need. I think the government-of-the-day was very proud of it.

Why is there nothing at all to replace this? Why is there no flexibility or no vote authority to do anything. There is not even $1.00, which might allow the Minister to rearrange priorities over the year if something were to come up. They are not even allowing themselves the vote authority to do anything at all. I would just like to know what the Minister has in mind.

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I think I stated earlier in the House the amount of money that was expended last year on the actual program and the amount of money used in the administration. It seemed to me that we were not getting very much value for our dollar because of that. Then, because of some very major budget realignments that had to be done, we felt we would scrap the program for this year.

There may very well be another type of program. We would have to review it very carefully and see exactly what kind of program we