Whitehorse, Yukon

Wednesday, May 19, 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.

Introduction of Visitors.

Are there any Returns or Documents for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Hon. Mr. Brewster: I have the Yukon Liquor Corporation’s 15th Annual Report, April 1, 1991, to March 31, 1992.

Hon. Mr. Phillips: I have some legislative returns for tabling.

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I have a legislative return for tabling.

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I have two legislative returns for tabling.

Speaker: Are there any Reports of Committees?

Petitions.

Introduction of Bills.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

Acting Government Leader, introduction of

Hon. Mr. Phillips: I would like to introduce Bill Brewster as acting Government Leader for the next couple of days in the House.

Applause

Speaker: We should all welcome Mr. Brewster.

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: Yukon Fish and Wildlife Management Board, recommendations

Mr. Harding: I would like to ask the acting Government Leader, the Minister of Renewable Resources, a question. On February 11, 1992, CBC news ran a story on the radio that said that Kluane MLA Bill Brewster said that Webster is playing politics with animals and that Brewster was shocked that the Minister would go against the recommendations of the Fish and Wildlife Management Board. He said that it put the whole credibility of the board in question.

My question for the Minister is simply this: why has the Minister done a full 360-degree turn on his position on the board and then stooped to the all-time low of publicly insulting board members?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: I have not stooped to insult anybody. On top of that, I went with the recommendations of the people in the rural communities, who recommended that we go with the recommendations the way that they were. I might point out that the hon. Art Webster went against the recommendations of the Fish and Wildlife Management Board as well as all the people in the rural areas who wanted wolf management. He would not execute the recommendations; he brought another committee into it.

Mr. Harding: The Minister is very inconsistent. It is either the board or it is not the board. I am just quoting from what the Minister is reported to have said. On Tuesday, February 11, on CHON/ FM, the Minister of Renewable Resources, then in Opposition, said that the Renewable Resources Minister had robbed the wildlife board of credibility. In fact, Brewster said that Art Webster’s decision to postpone a wolf kill program has robbed all Yukon boards and committees of credibility.

Not only has the Minister not accepted the recommendations, he has publicly insulted all members of boards and committees. Why did the Minister make those outrageous remarks about board members wanting to run the government and acting like King Tut?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: The gentleman from Faro is saying that; I did not say that.

Speaker: I would ask the Member to limit his preamble to one sentence.

Mr. Harding: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Because the NDP rejected one recommendation of the board during their period in office. The present Minister of Renewable Resources said, in the Whitehorse Star on April 8, “I feel sorry for the people on these boards, because they take time out of their own lives and they are not making a lot of money doing it.” Why has the Minister become so arrogant that he now engages in not only rejecting recommendations, but also in insulting members of boards and committees, who are volunteers, who make serious recommendations to the government?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: I did not insult anyone. I would suggest that $180,000 is quite a bit over budget. It means they must have made some money.

Question re: Yukon Fish and Wildlife Management Board, recommendations

Mr. Harding: The Minister’s opinion seems to depend on the last person he has talked to.

In the election platform of the Yukon Party, in their four-year plan, the Yukon Party promised to implement the recommendations of the Fish and Wildlife Management Board. I have that plan here. It says that they will implement the recommendations of the Yukon Fish and Wildlife Management Board - not some, but all. Now that the arrogance of the government has set in, why have they totally backed out of yet another election promise?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: We did not totally back out. There were 16 recommendations. We chose to change two of them. We did not even totally change those recommendations, if the Member will read them.

Mr. Harding: They pick and choose. The Minister must hear something. The co-chair of the Fish and Wildlife Management Board, who is very apolitical and very well respected, said yesterday that the previous government rejected one recommendation in seven years. This government has rejected four recommendations in seven months. He did not believe that was the way it is intended through the umbrella final agreement, and that the umbrella final agreement may have a little trouble if the government takes this approach, especially if they start talking about King Tut.

Why has the Minister done a complete flip-flop on promises and taken to publicly berating and insulting good citizens of the Yukon?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: I believe I have answered that a couple of times.

Mr. Harding: The acting Government Leader has in no way answered any questions. He made excuses.

Regarding the recommendations and restrictions of the board on bull caribou hunting, specifically, the Minister rejected the board’s recommendation on moral and ethical grounds - not biological. Yesterday, he said the moose restriction rejection was based on biological reasons and outfitters’ requests.

When will the Minister stop flip-flopping on excuses and start listening to the board and native people, who have warned him about low moose numbers, rather than just succumbing to the wishes of outfitters?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: I do not bow to the wishes of anyone. I try to listen to everybody, and I try to be fair. It is quite apparent, if you try to be fair in this Legislature, you do not get much credit for it from the Opposition.

Question re: Energy rate increases due to Curragh shutdown

Mr. Cable: Yesterday, the Yukon Public Utilities Board released its interim decision on the rate applications now before it by the Yukon Energy Corporation and the Yukon Electrical Company Limited. The decision indicates that the board is still trying to come to grips with the potential Faro mine closure. Material filed by the corporations indicates that, under various scenarios relating to the Curragh shutdown, the ratepayers could be faced with rate increases ranging from 2.5 percent to 40 percent.

Could the Minister responsible for the Yukon Energy Corporation and the Yukon Development Corporation tell this House if the government has decided, as a matter of policy, whether the loss of profits that the Yukon Energy Corporation will experience because of the possible Faro mine closure will be borne out of general revenues or by the ratepayers?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: It is premature for us to make that sort of decision. We are still awaiting the final number crunching with respect to the figures that will be put into the amended rate application, as a result of the Curragh shutdown.

Mr. Cable: Of course the final hearings will be taking place in July and the intervenors will require that information some time before the hearing. It is hoped that that information will be made public - and not at the last minute.

On another policy matter, in December and again in March, I asked the Minister when the pricing policy relating to major industrial consumers would be in place. The Minister indicated in March that the policy would not be ready for at least three months. In view of the upcoming rate hearings in July, and in view of the fact that the intervenors will undoubtedly want to have some time to consider the policy, can the Minister assure the House that the policy will be in place in adequate time for the intervenors to review that policy?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: The current policy is one of acceptance of the recommendations of the Public Utilities Board, which speaks to industrial rates being charged at cost of service.

Mr. Cable: That is the problem in view of what I would call a rate shock from the decision yesterday.

Let me ask the Minister another question of policy. With respect to the profits - if in fact there will be profits of the Yukon Energy Corporation - will the Minister advise the House as to whether the intercorporate transfers that may take place between the Yukon Energy Corporation and the Yukon Development Corporation, by way of dividend or whatever, will be made subject to the review of the Yukon Public Utilities Board?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: The transfers that occur between Yukon Energy Corporation and Yukon Development Corporation are predominately transfers that occur in order to keep the equity/debt ratio at a fairly constant level of 60/40. This is done to reduce cost to the ratepayer because the return on equity is greater than return on debt.

We have a lot of faith in the process, which requires the Yukon Energy Corporation to appear before the Yukon Public Utilities Board. We will be interested in any comments that that board has when it hands down its recommendations after a full hearing has been completed.

Question re: Yukon Outfitters Association

Ms. Moorcroft: I have a question for the Minister of Renewable Resources.

Outfitters have long been recognized for their contribution to the rural economy of the Yukon and have formed an organization to represent their interests. Does the Minister of Renewable Resources recognize the Yukon Outfitters Association as a legitimate special interest group?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: I do not whether it is “special” or not, but it is an interest group, yes.

Ms. Moorcroft: The Yukon Party government is on record as stating that the territory has been too long in the grip of a government that reacted to special interest groups and did not represent the interests of real Yukoners. Lawrence Joe of the Champagne/Aishihik First Nation expressed the views of the First Nation in 1991, that there was a problem with moose numbers and that band members have known for some time that caribou numbers were down and the herd was in trouble in the Aishihik area. Can the Minister tell me whether he is interested in the views of the First Nations when it comes to game management, or are they simply another interest group that should be ignored?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: I have never ignored the Champagne/Aishihik Band, the elders or the people. We worked with them very closely on the caribou management plan.

Some Hon. Member: Taga Ku.

Hon. Mr. Brewster: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Leader of the Official Opposition wants to talk.

Some Hon. Member: “A-choo”, he said; he sneezed.

Ms. Moorcroft: Since the House met yesterday, Members of the Fish and Wildlife Management Board have again confirmed that, apart from outfitters, no one else made submissions to the board opposing a ban on moose hunting in the Aishihik area, a flat-out contradiction of the Minister’s assurances to the Leader of the Official Opposition that this was not the case.

In view of this fact, is the Minister prepared to withdraw his statement that this assertion was not true, and acknowledge that in his books, Yukon outfitters are in fact a special, special interest group whose views are given weight above and beyond those of others who express opinions on wildlife management, including the Fish and Wildlife Management Board?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: No, I am not going to withdraw anything.

Number one, they went to all the meetings as everyone else did. My department visited all of the rurual communities and the majority said - although they did not like permits - they wanted a permit hunt and in most areas they said that the outfitters should get part of those permits.

Question re: Yukon Fish and Wildlife Management Board, recommendations

Mr. Penikett: I have a question for the same Minister.

Effective cooperative wildlife management, called for in the land claims agreement and ratified in this House, depends absolutely on ministerial respect for the integrity of the legally appointed, legitimately established Fish and Wildlife Management Board, which solicits management advice from departmental biologists, First Nation elders, hunters and all interested citizens at large.

I want to ask the Minister this: does he appreciate that, by rejecting the recommendations of the Fish and Wildlife Management Board in favour of the advice from some other friends of his, apparently, he is not only repudiating the judgment of the board but also undermining the confidence in the cooperative wildlife management system itself - mechanisms that were established in the land claims legislation recently passed in this House?

Speaker’s Statement

Speaker: Order. Order please. Just before the Minister answers the question, I would like to say that I have been quite generous with the Members, and especially the Member for Faro in his questions that I think were argumentative. They contained inferences, they imputed motives and cast aspersions on the Minister of Renewable Resources. I do not want the Leader of the Official Opposition to take his lead from the Member for Faro. In my opinion, using the term “doing something for friends of his” imputes motives on the Minister of Renewable Resources and I would not want the Leader of the Official Opposition to be guilty of that.

Mr. Penikett: On a point of order, the Minister himself has conceded that he rejected the advice of the legally appointed board and listened to other people whom he privately consulted. He has not told us who those people are but he inferred yesterday that they were outfitters.

Speaker: Order please. There is no point of order. The Leader of the Opposition may want to challenge my ruling but that is my ruling and I do not think there has been any indication that the Minister of Renewable Resources consulted with his friends on it and made a decision based on that. The Leader of the Official Opposition was accusing him of that; in the Speaker’s opinion, that is imputing motives and, without that inference, the question is in order and I will allow the Minister of Renewable Resources to answer it.

Hon. Mr. Brewster: I certainly did not consult just with the Outfitters Association. The decision was made in my department by a committee of scientists and biologists who understand it. The Leader of the Official Opposition has said before that they are valuable people and we pay them a lot of money. I accepted their recommendations.

Mr. Penikett: Yesterday, the Minister told the media that he rejected the wildlife biologists’ advice and he rejected the board’s advice. I want to ask the Minister again: does he not understand the critical importance of the board’s recommendations? If I could quote to him something that he said last year when the government delayed implementation of one board recommendation, “How can you expect the Yukon Indian people to have faith in the board established pursuant to the land claim settlement?” I would like to ask him this: can he advise the House what has caused him to so completely change his mind from the position that he advocated last year and the incredible position that he is now defending in the House today?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: Because of advice that I received from my department and also several other things that this House is unaware of.

Mr. Penikett: The Minister’s answer is incredible. The advice from the department is supposed to go to the board. The board is then supposed to advise the Minister. If the Minister rejects their advice, he is supposed to make the decision in writing. The Minister’s decision to reject the board’s advice will inevitably shake public confidence in the board established under the land claims legislation; the entire system of co-management, which aboriginal people and non-aboriginal people have agreed to share is in this negotiated agreement.

I would like to ask the Minister what steps he is going to take to repair the damage that he has done to people’s faith in the system of co-management, and the faith that First Nations people have in the system of co-management, which is designed to limit ministerial power, not expand it.

Hon. Mr. Brewster: The Yukon Fish and Wildlife Management Board have received letters explaining why we did this. They will be made public tomorrow. We have done everything that we were told to do under the terms of reference.

Question re: Yukon Fish and Wildlife Management Board, recommendations

Mr. Harding: On the noon news, Champagne/Aishihik Chief Paul Birckel said that the moose population is very depressed. He said he thought that they made a promise to the people that they were opposed to this and that there would not be any hunting allowed in those areas, but they just went ahead. Now, it seems like they are protecting the outfitters more than anything else.

Perhaps the Minister could tell us how he intends to repair the broken relationships with both the Fish and Wildlife Management Board and the Champagne/Aishihik First Nation.

Hon. Mr. Brewster: The outfitters are on a quota of two moose each and one for the other. In other words, four moose is all they are permited to take out of there.

Also, on that same recommendation, they will be checked again. There are 1,800 moose in that area right now. I am told that, biologically, the 10 moose we take out of there will not hurt the herd. If they do not recover this year, there will be no more hunting for outfitters in that area.

Mr. Harding: First the Minister says that he was listening to native people. Then he said he was listening to biologists, whenever it gets tough. Now native people are saying that there should be a moose ban, as does the Fish and Wildlife Management Board.

I ask the Minister how he can, for one second, start to repair the damage he has created with the very important Fish and Wildlife Management Board, which will affect resource councils, and, also, how will he repair the relationship with the Champagne/Aishihik First Nation, who thought that the government had made a promise?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: I think I have been around long enough in this world and in the Yukon that most people trust me and understand why I try to do things.

Mr. Harding: I think that we have heard an outrageous answer today in the Legislature. The Minister says that there are reasons for his rejecting the recommendations - four in seven months - as compared to the previous government, which rejected one in seven years. He said there are reasons that people in this House do not know.

Will he share those reasons with us and apologize to the people of Champagne/Aishihik and the people on the Fish and Wildlife Management Board, whom he has publicly berated and insulted?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: If the Leader of the Official Opposition wants to meet with me, I will show him the one problem we have, in private.

Question re: Land claims, land selection within Whitehorse

Ms. Joe: My question is for the Minister responsible for Community and Transportation Services.

On Monday, May 17, the Minister of Community and Transportation Services informed the House that, after his meeting with the First Nation that morning, and at the request of the Kwanlin Dun, he would be drafting a letter to the First Nation stating their plans for land development in the greater Whitehorse area.

Could the Minister tell the House whether or not this letter has been sent to Kwanlin Dun? Will he table a copy in this House, if it has?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: The letter was sent to the Kwanlin Dun. They are dealing with it at 2:00 this afternoon. I would not like to table it in this House until after the letter has been perused by the membership of the Kwanlin Dun.

Ms. Joe: The Minister also made a commitment to have the working group up and running by today, at the latest. Is this in place? Has the group met or contacted Kwanlin Dun?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: My understanding is that the group has been put together, but they have not met with Kwanlin Dun. I could be not exactly right on my timing, but I believe that meeting with Kwanlin Dun is going to happen tomorrow.

Ms. Joe: The Minister was also asked about the mandate of this working group. I would like to ask the Minister whether he could tell us today what the mandate of this working group is. Will it be a matter of public policy?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: There has not been a clear mandate given to the working group, mainly because the Kwanlin Dun member has not met with them at this point in time. I had hoped that the working group would create its own procedures and policy on how they are going to be effective.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mrs. Firth: Before I ask my question, I would like to ask all Members of the Legislative Assembly to help me welcome the grade 7 to 9 students from G.A. Jeckell School. They are debating students, and they have come to watch the elected representatives debate in the Legislature this afternoon. Their supervisor, Carol Harwood, is also with them.

Applause

Question re: Yukon College board chair, appointment of

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

I have a private Member’s bill on the Order Paper to amend the College Act. The bill calls for the chair of the college’s board to be appointed by the board, instead of by the Minister of Education.

Since I will not have an opportunity to bring this bill forward and debate the bill in this session, I would like to ask the Minister if he would tell us whether or not he supports this initiative?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: I have had discussions with the Member about the bill that she has tabled in the House, and I have advised the Member that I do support the concept of the chair of the board being selected by the members of the Board.

I think that it is important that the college have their autonomy and that is one way to guarantee more of that.

Mrs. Firth: Will the Minister make a commitment that he will bring forward this change to the College Act?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: I will give the Member assurances that I would like to see us bring in an amendment to the College Act, to allow that to happen before the end of this term of government.

Mrs. Firth: I would like it done a little sooner than that if the Minister agrees with the initiative.

Perhaps the Minister would make a commitment - I appreciate that this may be too short notice to ask for it in this session, but will he bring it forward in the fall sitting?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: I was hoping, in a round aboutway, that I could gain support from the Member for Riverdale South to keep the government alive by telling her “to the end of this term”, so if we waited a little longer, she would vote for the budget and a few other things in the House so that she could get her wish.

I can give the Member assurances that I will work as hard as I can to get that on the agenda. I cannot guarantee it this fall, because we have not yet sat down and talked about the fall agenda, but I will raise that when we get to that point.

Question re: Grum stripping

Mr. McDonald: I have a question for the Minister responsible for Economic Development. The government has taken the trouble to update their vision statement, Toward Self-Sufficiency by the 21st Century, presumably filling in any cracks and correcting deficiencies in that document. The latest edition, entitled Yukon Resource Infrastructure Initiative, was published on April 16, a month after the legislative session began.

Can the Minister say why, in the most recent update, amidst supposed negotiations to reopen the Curragh mines, there is no mention at all of the largest engine of the private sector economy, the Curragh mines in Faro and Watson Lake?

Hon. Mr. Devries: The reasoning for that was that the Grum stripping is an issue outside that initiative; it is an initiative we have given top priority to, and it will take the lead over all those other initiatives.

Mr. McDonald: That is a bit of a puzzle because, in the original document, the first edition, amidst negotiations to reopen Curragh, the Grum stripping was featured prominently - in fact, featured as a number one initiative. What reason could the Minister have for excising any reference at all to the Curragh mine in the latest edition, which is dated April 16 of this year?

Hon. Mr. Devries: As the Member very well knows, that paper is geared toward getting self-sufficiency money from the federal government, and the federal government has indicated that it has no interest whatsoever in contributing to the Grum stripping. We still have the Grum stripping as a high priority for this government, and that is the reason it is not in there.

Mr. McDonald: Is the Minister saying that this latest, updated document is not for Yukon consumption but, really, is to be delivered to the Deputy Prime Minister or to some other federal official? To whom is the document directed?

Hon. Mr. Devries: I am not sure which one he has there, but I assume it is the document that was presented to Mr. Siddon, when he was up for the mining meeting here several weeks ago.

Question re: Wolf control program

Mr. Cable: I have a question for the Minister of Renewable Resources. Members will recall that yesterday I asked the Minister if his government had yet decided whether it was going to adopt the wolf conservation and management plan prepared last summer. The Minister advised that First Nations had some problems with the plan, and that he would not bring that plan before Cabinet until those problems had been addressed. Would the Minister tell the House what those problems are?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: Mr. Speaker, are you going to allow me to get them all in, or should I just tell him that there are 10 questions that they would like answered?

Speaker: Perhaps if the Minister of Renewable Resources has something there to send over to the Member for Riverside, that would be helpful, rather than reading it completely.

Mr. Cable: Not having seen the letter, I can only guess at its contents. I would appreciate the document being tabled, if that is the Minister’s intention. What is the government doing to address the concerns that I presume are outlined in that letter that he just produced for the House?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: Number one, we started out by doing what they asked us to do and that was to turn it over to the Fish and Wildlife Management Board so they could come back with their recommendations. When they have recommendations, we will go from there.

Mr. Cable: I do not actually have one. The answer somewhat surprised me. Perhaps after I have read the letter, I can ask questions tomorrow.

Question re: Grum stripping

Mr. McDonald: This is an impressive display for the debating students I am sure. The document entitled, Yukon Resource Infrastructure Initiative, that the government updated on April 16, 1993, calls for some expenditures to support various mining and road projects. One of the projects is the Grew Creek mine, which the Minister has been less than enthusiastic about in recent weeks, in terms of its viability. That particular project requires $600,000 for underground exploration and development work. Can the Minister tell us how materially that work differs from the Grum stripping project for the Curragh operation?

Hon. Mr. Devries: The focus of that project has changed considerably over the past few months. The company that now owns the Grew Creek property is no longer asking for this underground exploration work.

Mr. McDonald: I am not talking about what the company is asking for. I am asking what the Minister’s intentions were in putting into a document, which they were going to give the federal government, a request for $600,000 for underground work. Because this is actual development work, and not dissimilar from the Grum stripping project, how does this request differ materially from the Grum stripping project, which the Minister indicated should not be in the document, because it was the wrong kind of infrastructure to show the federal government.

Hon. Mr. Devries: I thank the Member for his question. Again, the federal government made it very clear to us that they were not interested in assisting us in the Grum project. At that time, there were still indications that perhaps Grew Creek could be made a make-work project, associated with the unemployment problem in Faro. If the Member disagrees with that concept, I suggest he say so.

Mr. McDonald: If there was any make-work, I think the people of Faro would prefer to strip the Grum ore body and get to work. Can the Minister indicate to us with whom in the Yukon community the government consulted in their most recent update of this document and, particularly, whether or not they consulted with the Council for Yukon Indians?

Hon. Mr. Devries: We had discussed the original presentation with the Council for Yukon Indians. We know the Ross River Band is very interested in training jobs on the Grew Creek property, and that is why it is included in there.

Question re: Power rate increases

Ms. Joe: My question is for the Minister responsible for the Yukon Development Corporation. In response to earlier questions in this House, Ministers have expressed concern about possible increases in rates for telephone service and have made commitments to monitor Northwestel’s rate application to the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission. Is the Minister similarly concerned by the Yukon Public Utilities Board approval of an interim seven-percent increase in electrical power rates for residential consumers, and a 20-percent increase for industrial and, if so, what is he prepared to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: With respect to the application by Northwestel, in my capacity of Minister responsible for Justice, I advised that the Government of the Yukon would be intervening in the CRTC rate application. In my capacity as the Minister responsible for the Yukon Development Corporation, I am cognizant of the interim rate increase allowed by the Yukon Public Utilities Board, which was 6.75 percent, not seven percent - I am sure the Member misspoke her question.

We have faith in the process through which the Yukon Public Utilities Board will hear all arguments and intervenors, and will rule on the allowable increase some time later in the summer. I guess we will be awaiting with great interest the recommendations of that Yukon Public Utilities Board.

Ms. Joe: In answers to previous questions this session, the Minister has acknowledged that there are options available within the government to provide some relief to ratepayers. Since consumers and businesses are hit by seven-percent and 20-percent electrical power increases, on top of a Yukon Party-made recession and tax increases, is the Minister actively considering, or proposing to take to Cabinet a proposal lowering the rate of return to the Yukon Energy Corporation in order to give consumers and businesses a break?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: It would be premature for me, as Minister responsible, to take anything to Cabinet until we see what recommendations are made by the Yukon Public Utilities Board. I am sure the Member, in misspeaking twice and calling it a seven-percent increase, rather than a 6.75-percent increase, is aware that the Yukon Public Utilities Board, in so doing, did not go along with the request made by the two utility companies.

Ms. Joe: Since the Minister and the governing party have repeatedly spoken about providing a supportive environment for industry, and the Minister has previously drawn a distinction between a reduced rate of return and providing relief to consumers, is the Minister prepared to establish a rate-subsidy program to assist surviving Yukon industries to weather these harsh economic times?

Speaker: The Minister responsible for the Yukon Development Corporation - as briefly as possible, please.

Hon. Mr. Phelps: Sometimes, it is difficult to be brief.

With respect to that question, which opens a can of worms, let me simply say that it is for Cabinet to make a determination as to whether or not the taxpayers of the Yukon should provide any kind of subsidy to industrial users of electricity. As I am sure the Member knows, at this time there are no industrial users online, United Keno Hill having been shut down for some time and Curragh no longer using the energy supply from the Yukon Energy Corporation.

Question re: Energy rate increases due to Curragh shutdown

Mr. Harding: I have another question for the Minister regarding the same subject of power rates. Last week, the Yukon Energy Corporation announced that Curragh will have to pay a power bill of $500,000 a month whether they are operating or not. This will create a further impediment to reopening the mine, which will lead to consumers facing massive power increases.

What is the Minister going to do about this serious situation, given that he has had a week to think about the question that he received last week?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I have thought about the question for a week and I think that it is as premature and silly now as I thought it was a week ago; that is after a lot of very careful consideration.

The issue of whether or not the Curragh corporation owes money to the Yukon Energy Corporation for power is one that, in the first instance, is determined by the Public Utilities Board.

If, in the course of events sometime in the future, there are negotiations involving this government and Curragh with respect to opening the mine, the amount of the outstanding bill would be considered in those negotiations.

Mr. Harding: The Minister’s answers are as pompous and arrogant as they were last week.

The Cabinet can direct the Public Utilities Board. What specific recommendations will the Minister take to Cabinet to avoid this final blow to our mines and increased power rates to consumers?

Speaker’s Statement

Speaker: Order please. Before the Minister answers, I should say that both Members are in breach of the proprieties of the House in their remarks and I would ask them to police themselves, following parliamentary procedures and adhere to the guidelines, and not force the Speaker to intervene.

Hon. Mr. Phelps: We are doing our best on this side of the House.

As I have already said, there is a possibility that that issue will become the focus of attention by government in the course of negotiations leading to the reopening of the mine at Faro, if that eventuality comes to pass. It would be premature at this time to start talking about overruling the Public Utilities Board until we see exactly what is transpiring.

Mr. Harding: The government handling of the Curragh situation, the handing out of power bills when companies are not even operating and huge corporate tax increases are sending out horrible signals to the mining community and will hurt investment by the mining community in this territory.

How will the Minister try to repair this damage in the short term as it relates to energy consumption?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: All I can say is that the Member’s questionable question is based on false premises. There is no evidence to show that, in following in an arm’s-length way, the ruling of a public utility board, the corporation is, in any way, doing anything to act as a disincentive to mining companies that wish to invest in the Yukon. The approach the government will take will be based on actual negotiations with operators who wish to open mines.

I just cannot agree that, for a change, this government is not only saying it is open for business but, for an extreme change, acting in an arm’s-length way, with the corporation and the Public Utilities Board not interfering on a daily basis, as was the case under the previous government - anything to turn off potential investors in the Yukon. I would think, and I am quite certain in this, that what we are doing will encourage people to invest here.

Speaker: Order. Order please. Time for Question Period has now elapsed.

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 by the Government House Leader 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 now call Committee of the Whole to order.

Is it the wish of the Members to take a brief recess?

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.

Chair: We will take a brief recess at this time.

Recess

Chair: I will call Committee of the Whole to order. We are dealing with Bill No. 24, An Act to Amend the Municipal Act.

Bill No. 24 - An Act to Amend the Municipal Act - continued

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Perhaps I will just quickly summarize. The first section of this bill allows a municipality to acquire heat from another source and use it for municipal purposes.

With the permission of the Executive Council Member, the municipality may also sell and distribute heat surplus to municipal requirements.

The second section allows Cabinet to delegate authority, under any act, to the Yukon Municipal Board, if the act permits it.

Mr. McDonald: Just to summarize the Opposition comments to date, we had a brief discussion about the first section of the bill, which was ultimately to permit the Town of Watson Lake to sell and distribute waste heat to someone other than government or to their own government facilities. As I recall, we agreed to agree on the principle and intent of that clause. In fact, we took the position that this provision encouraged energy management innovation at the community level. We felt that this was, in fact, a good provision.

We had some reservations about the second provision of the bill - not to the extent that the Minister described the government’s intent, but to the extent that it was actually outlined in the legislation itself. The Minister indicated that he felt that the Municipal Board had proven itself to be responsible and dutiful in the duties that had been assigned to it so far. However, he also indicated that, in order to save money in the future, it might be worthwhile to assign further responsibilities not contemplated under the Municipal Act, to this board.

The Minister went on to cite the Lands Act, the Area Development Act and the Assessment and Taxation Act as candidates for consideration when the Cabinet wanted to delegate some of its authority to a board.

We in the Official Opposition feel that that may be a reasonable thing to contemplate, but felt that the wording in the proposed bill provided far too much latitude to the government to consider the Municipal Board for duties far afield from those that are contemplated in the areas of land and municipal affairs.

Consequently, as the Minister is aware, I was going to suggest an amendment to that particular clause during clause-by-clause debate. The amendment would delineate the responsibility and focuses it on the bills that the Minister cited as being useful candidates.

The Minister indicated that they had no intention at this time of assigning responsibilities to the Municipal Board in fields other than lands and municipal affairs, and we agree that that is reasonable.

We do feel, though, given the fact that we spent a lot of time in the Legislature matching board makeup and responsibilities and trying to ensure that the boards are given a mandate that is reasonable under various specific circumstances, and that it would be inappropriate at this time to give a wide open mandate to the Cabinet to delegate any of its responsibilities under any act to this board without some concrete examples.

I would suggest that we do consider an amendment that meets the needs of the Minister, but also ensures that we do not get carried away. I would like to ask the Minister if he would be prepared to entertain such an amendment when we get to it.

Essentially, I am suggesting that we should take the Minister’s word that we permit the board to perform such duties as the Commissioner in Executive Council delegates to it, pursuant to the Municipal Act as well as the Area Development Act, Assessment and Taxation Act and Lands Act.

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I am quite confident that this side of the House would support an amendment from the other side similar to what has been proposed by the Member opposite. I guess the time to introduce that amendment would be during line-by-line debate of the bill.

Mr. Penikett: I thank the Minister for that undertaking. I wonder if the Minister would permit me to use this occasion on this general debate on this bill to explore with the Minister, for a few minutes, his thinking about the purposes of the Municipal Board and its relationship to the Minister.

I have two reasons for wanting to ask the Minister about this. The first is a very general concern about the operations of the Municipal Board, and this concern arises from the Minister’s indication yesterday that he intended a review of the Municipal Act itself, the act that creates the Municipal Board, a body that came into being with the last amendment to the Municipal Act.

At the time that that act was debated, I personally expressed some concerns that we were borrowing an instrument from Ontario - a province with nine million people and hundreds of municipalities ranging from cities the size of Toronto, with several million people, down to very small villages, and also a province that has counties and many overlapping jurisdictions. I was concerned about the utility of a board like that in the Yukon; at least, I was when the act was first debated some 10 years ago.

My second concern is a particular one. I wonder if the Minister will allow me to take a minute to illustrate it. It is best illustrated by the recent experience of people in the McLean Lake area.

I hope the Minister will not take offence at this. One of the frustrations of my constituents is that they are having a hard time figuring out what the Minister has done in respect of a decision that originally came out of the Municipal Board, vis-a-vis a previous Minister’s decision in respect to the Municipal Board and vis-a-vis the intentions of a municipal council. There has been some discussion in this House about area development regulations, zoning, official community plans and about a city bylaw that the Minister has approved.

In simplest terms, if you cut through all the legalisms, I understand that City Hall believes that they now have essentially a mandate from this Minister to go ahead and develop a Riverdale-type subdivision on top of an area that many people believe is unsuited to that - the Squatter’s Row area, which consists of rocky and undulating land forms, and in which it would be difficult to install water, and an area that many local residents believe is highly suited to country-residential development. It is a plain fact that the city council of Whitehorse - which does not operate on a ward system but on an at-large system, and which contains no elected representative from the general area of the McLean Lake residents, is seen by McLean residents to be notoriously insensitive to their wishes. They have essentially turned a deaf ear to them.

McLean Lake residents believe that what has happened is that, in a dispute between the city - which wants to turn their area into a Riverdale-type area - and themselves - who would like to keep it as a country-residential area - the Minister has essentially weighed in on the side of the city.

The Minister’s statements in this House do not indicate that he believes that but that is what the residents of the area believe. They believe that, not only have they been done an injustice by the city, but the Minister has aggravated it by endorsing it.

When the Minister first started asking questions about this, he referred to the fact that a former Minister had received advice from the Municipal Board and decided to act in a certain way. I believe there was a legal issue around an appeal of a Municipal Board decision that was heard by a different board than had heard the original decision, and that raised one legal issue. The Minister said he was not sure whether he was empowered to make a different decision than a previous Minister in respect to the same matter. Just to refresh the Minister’s memory, he told me, on the floor of this House, that he would consult with the area residents prior to making any change - I think his words were - in their lifestyle.

The fact is that, a few days after he made that comment, he approved of the change at City Hall. City Hall believes that they have essentially received the Minister’s approval to do whatever they want to do in the next few years in respect to turning it into a conventional, urban-residential neighbourhood. The area residents are upset. They believe that, because this matter has already gone to the Municipal Board, they probably do not have any appeal to that body. They believe they have an unsympathetic Minister, who has basically taken the side of the powerful agent - in this case, City Hall - and not listened to them.

The prospect in this bill of the Minister, for example, changing the relationship between the Minister and the board is a very interesting one. What the Minister is asking for here is the power to delegate.

If, in fact, the Minister were asking for the power to delegate, for example, his power to approve a municipal bylaw, I think the Minister would see that could potentially very much change the relationship now between the board, the Minister, between municipalities and the relationship between the board, municipalities and citizens, in that, if the Minister delegated this power, as is proposed under this act, to the board - this may be a hypothetical situation, but I do not know the Minister’s intentions - the citizen would have the right only to appeal to a body that now had acquired executive power from the Minister, and that would give them essentially no avenue of appeal at all, because they might be appealing again to the body that had made a decision.

I wonder if I could just use the general proposition of the wisdom of a Municipal Board and the recent unhappy experience of McLean Lake residents in respect to the official community plan, and ask the Minister to reflect on what he thinks should be the actual relationship between the Minister, the board, municipality and citizen, and perhaps he could use the McLean Lake area case as an example. I confess that I thought I understood some of these things really well, but the Minister’s answers in this House seemed to indicate to me that he believes he has done something quite different from what I think the municipality and what the McLean Lake residents believe has been done. He may have good reasons for that but, I confess, I do not understand them.

Hon. Mr. Fisher: The Member opposite and I could probably go on here for a couple of days. Whether we could finally resolve who was right and who was wrong, or whether the city was right or the residents were right, I do not know, and I hope we do not do that.

To start with, when a board such as the Yukon Municipal Board is given quasi-judicial powers and there are requirements under the act for certain people to nominate certain people to the board, I think it is important that we be very, very careful who we put on that board, especially on this particular one, which serves at pleasure.

Those people, as the Leader of the Official Opposition pointed out yesterday, could be there forever, until they die.

I think that when a board like that is appointed, first of all, we have to be extremely careful about who is appointed to the board and that they are not only fair, but, for legal people in the House - and I believe that this is a requirement by law - they must also appear to be fair. We must be extremely careful about that part of it.

When we have carefully created this board - being as careful as one can - I think there is a responsibility to follow its recommendations. I believe that the role of the Minister in approving certain bylaws in a municipality that are so required under the legislation - in villages and towns there are budgets, borrowing bylaws and zoning and so on - is to ensure that everything has been done in a legal manner. I do not think that because the Minister has the ability to approve or not approve certain legislation in municipal council it automatically gives the Minister license to reject something he or she does not like.

In the case of the McLean Lake official community plan amendment, the process at the time - and I am going back in my recollection a few years - was followed. The process that was outlined in the act was followed. There were various hearings. I agree that the residents of the McLean Lake area did put forward a good argument about why there should not be urban-residential, high-density dwellings in the area. They had quite a good argument. Technically, however, it could be done. The engineering people can do just about anything they put their minds to, if someone is willing to pay the price. The residents’ argument was good in that some soils investigations should take place before the area was zoned urban residential.

I agree; I think that it should be done and that there should be soil investigations before any residences are constructed.

I think that the previous Minister was wrong in not signing the bylaw approving the amendment; he said at that time, “if you get the soils investigation done, then I will sign the bylaw.” The soils investigation probably would have cost the City of Whitehorse somewhere in the neighbourhood of $250,000 to $300,000. It did not do anything for the residents of McLean Lake, except that it would cost the City of Whitehorse a substantial amount of money to do what they intended to do in the first place.

My argument to the City of Whitehorse was that if they could satisfy the requirement that the residents of McLean Lake have - that they will continue to have their rural lifestyle and country-residential lots - in McLean Lake and not be put into a situation where they are forced to move or subdivide, then I would have no problem with signing the bylaw.

The City of Whitehorse responded with the requirement for an area development scheme. In that scheme it states that before any development takes place, all of the things that the previous Minister had asked them to do would in fact be done. What the previous Minister has suggested or required from the municipality is still there and covered under the area development scheme. Under that scheme they must do a soils investigation prior to any development.

The second thing - I see my colleague would like me to hurry up, but I have to finish this.

The second thing that I think is very important for the Leader of the Official Opposition and the Members opposite is that there has been no change in zoning. The zoning of those lots at McLean Lake is country residential. The overall official community plan puts the whole area, right from Granger around to the South Access Road, including the McLean Lake area, as urban residential. But the official community plan is a 10, 20 or 40-year plan of what they would like to develop at some point in the future. In the meantime, those lots are all zoned country residential. Everyone who lives there can do anything they so choose with their lots, under the country residential zoning requirements.

One of the comments I made during Question Period one day - maybe somewhat heated - was that those people are protected better than they were under the previous Minister’s direction. I do believe that to this day, because the previous Minister said that if the City of Whitehorse does a soils investigation, then we will sign the bylaw.

I have said I will sign the bylaw; however, there is still the requirements of soils investigation, but not only that, there is another complete consultation process put in the area development scheme that was missing from the previous Minister’s requirements.

Mr. Penikett: Let me just add a few comments. I know the Government House Leader is getting twitchy about the passing of time, but I was going to suggest that perhaps my colleague, the Opposition House Leader, could take the Government House Leader for coffee, and the Minister and I could carry on with this important discussion.

There are three points I would like to make in response to the Minister’s concern. The Minister said there is no change in lifestyle, but he would have to concede that, if you are living on a country-residential lot with a certain kind of rural lifestyle now and, as a consequence of the official community plan being changed and subsequent development, your area is surrounded by townhouses or Riverdale-style houses, you have a major change in lifestyle.

Try to imagine Alex Jones’ wonderful little home and plant, in which he produces his incredible sculptures and other works of art, suddenly no longer being in a bush or country setting, but with row housing on one side and an arterial road on another, and quality Riverdale or Granger-type homes all around. To state the obvious, it would not be the same, nor would the natural feature of McLean Lake be the same.

That is my point, and I think it is the view of the residents that it is not what happens to their own lots, but it is what happens all around them that produces a major change in their lifestyle. In my view, it is a fundamental proposition of fairness in municipal planning decisions that the people most affected by the decisions - in other words, people in the immediate neighbourhood - should have a voice in those decisions.

This is how this is germane to the Municipal Board. The fact of the matter is that we do not have a ward system. The people in the area have been very articulate and very persuasive, as the Minister has said, but they have not succeeded. They have not been listened to, in the sense that their views have really been taken into account, they believe.

Let me explain why they feel that. Even though the Minister says there is no change in zoning, and that the country-residential lots and the rural lifestyle is protected, the Minister referred to an area development scheme.

As I understand it, at the moment when council and the Minister approved the bylaw, the council had not even seen the area development scheme in draft. In fact, I am told that there is no more than communication between officials at Community and Transportation Services and officials at city hall. Councillors had not even seen the scheme that would do what the Minister says, and that is protect the lifestyle of the residents. The guarantee that the Minister believed was attendant on the passage of that bylaw does not, as far as I know, have any legal existence.

This brings me to my third point, which is about the role of the Minister and the role of the Municipal Board. The Minister argues that even though the Minister has to approve certain kinds of changes - he mentioned borrowing bylaws and zoning - that that should not be seen as a licence by the Minister to go contrary to the wishes of the locally elected council. I would agree with that proposition.

It is also quite clear that the drafters of the law - which was in fact drafted by his party when they were last in government - clearly intended that the Minister have some power. I should stop myself there and concede immediately that the Minister is a different personality type than the previous Minister of Municipal Affairs, or the one who was Minister for so long. He may have a much more democratic attitude toward municipalities than did his predecessor, or some predecessors of 10 years past.

It was clearly intended in the law that the Minister have some leeway. I believe it was put in the law because the Minister had the right to say “yes” or “no” to certain propositions. I think that the Minister would agree that the Minister was given that power not simply to be a rubber stamp. Nowhere in the parliamentary system, or the legislative system, is the Minister supposed to be a rubber stamp. The only case that I know of is where the Prime Minister of Britain is expected to rubberstamp the nominee of the Anglican Church for the Archbishop of Canterbury. In that case, what actually happens is the two nominees are put forward. The first one is the real nominee and the second one is the “also-ran”. It is clearly understood that the Prime Minister is supposed to endorse the number-one choice and send it on to the Queen, not to weigh in on behalf of number two.

In most cases when Ministers are given a choice to do something in our system, it is intended that the Minister make a decision - exercise a choice in some way.

I believe that the argument for the Minister exercising a choice is the argument of responsibility to all citizens to guarantee that there be fairness in decisions, that minority rights of citizens - even a small group of citizens - be protected. It is quite possible that a legislature such as this can decide that the body that is there to guarantee fairness is a quasi-judicial one, and it is quite possible for a legislature like this to decide that the Municipal Board, as the Minister said, should be a quasi-judicial body with some independence, with some admirable people among its membership, and that they would be there to protect the interests of small groups in the community or minority voices or just to make sure that there is due process.

I do not want to promise the Minister this, but I have no interest in debating this, as the Minister says, for two days. He might agree to get back to me on this question about the area development scheme. My impression - well, it is not my impression; I was told for a fact and I believe one of our researchers called his department to confirm it - is that the councillors, at the point when they passed this bylaw, had not even seen this area development scheme in draft.

That is information that was provided to me. There have not been that many cases before the Municipal Board. We have not dealt with, as they have in Ontario, hundreds and hundreds of cases; in the last 10 years, there have been a certain number. This has been a difficult one, and the Minister across the way is perfectly entitled to disagree with the decision of a previous Minister, but I wanted to ask these questions because if a board is to have delegated powers - if I can express my own view here - I think the board should have a delegated power to be able to look at a situation where there is a dispute between two groups such as the Municipal Council of Whitehorse, which is the most powerful municipal body in this territory, and a small group of residents in a very tiny, little neighbourhood like McLean Lake, and, if you like, rebalance the power relationship here - not that the city council is frustrated in its will to do what it appropriately should, but to make sure that the rights of the people who live in a small neighbourhood are also protected and guaranteed, and that we do not have the weight of City Hall always predominating.

I would hope that, in cases like this, the Municipal Board would be able to play a role in making sure the argument was simply on the facts, on the logic of the situation, rather than just on who had the most clout. This is where I differ a little bit with the Minister’s statement - not of today, but the Minister’s statement of a few days ago - where I think he saw his role simply as being a neutral person. My view is that the Minister has a special responsibility as a Minister.

It will guarantee fairness and a hearing for everyone and that justice is done for everybody in processes like this. One of the ways of doing this is to mandate something like the municipal body to act in a quasi-judicial manner. In that respect, I do not disagree with the Minister.

Hon. Mr. Fisher: The comments the Leader of the Official Opposition made with respect to the area development scheme are interesting. I am going to follow up on that particular scheme. The bylaw that I have has the area development scheme attached to it. My understanding, and I believe I got this right from the area development scheme, is that it is a policy of council. It appears, on my copy, that it has been approved by council.

I certainly will check that. If someone has been led down the garden path and if that someone is I, I will be quite upset about it. I believe that these things have to be totally above board. I will get back to the Leader of the Official Opposition with what I find out on this particular thing.

On the comments made earlier in the Member’s speech about the rural residential lifestyle, and having an urban-residential subdivision right up against some of the lots, and, in fact, interfering with that type of lifestyle, unfortunately that would have happened whether the official community plan amendment had been changed or not.

The city had the ability to change the community plan right up tight to those lots. They could change the zoning so that, regardless of whether we keep the zoning for country residential - and I am quite confident that those people are protected and that that will happen - and this amendment would have passed or not, if and when the city decides to develop urban residential in that area, which will probably not be for quite a few years, it will come right up against the lots of those people, with whatever is provided for a buffer zone. I would hope that at the time it happens we will be able to provide some sort of buffer zone. Regardless of how this would have worked out, that exact situation could happen.

Under the Municipal Act, our current legislation is restrictive legislation. It is not permissive, but the legislation has developed over the years and it is becoming more and more permissive.

I believe that is the way it should be and there were several reasons why the original act - I guess, it was the 1979 act that was amended in 1983 and eventually came into effect in 1984 - should be quite restrictive at the time. It was mainly due to the fact that five of the eight municipalities then in the Yukon had just come from being local improvement districts where they had very little legislative power. The act allowed them to make bylaws, but it was very restricted as to what they could legislate for, and it had to have ministerial approval.

As the municipalities have evolved, I think that it is necessary that the Municipal Act evolve along with them - actually, it should be ahead of them a little bit - and along with that evolution comes less and less authority for the Minister of Community and Transportation Services. I think that government should have less to do with the actual operation of the municipalities. There are some things that I believe we have to control to a certain extent, but I think that we essentially should be allowing the municipalities to run their own affairs. Again, that is my opinion and not always agreed to by people I have worked with professionally, and it may not even be the opinion of all of the Members on this side of the House; but it has been my opinion, based on working with municipalities going through the growing stages.

Again, I do not want to debate this for two days, even though it is very enjoyable; I would welcome having a private debate with the Member opposite sometime.

Mr. Penikett: I would be quite happy to do either. I do not need to spend much time on this, although we now have the opposite problem - if we want to finish it off - of getting back the actual critic on this bill, who has gone for coffee with the Government House Leader.

I would like to make one or two points and then ask a question. The comments made by the Minister about the desirability of municipalities having the proper authority to do things in their jurisdiction without ministerial oversight or without ministerial veto is, I agree, generally a good idea.

In fact, I would be a supporter of that kind of devolution of power and authority to municipalities. I think that a lot of what we did when my party was in government was proof of that. However, I also think it is necessary, if you are going to give power to a body, to also make sure that the rights of minorities, the rights of citizens and the rights of neigbourhoods are protected. That is why I believe very strongly that once a municipality gets to a certain size - and this is my own personal view; the Minister gave his and I will give mine - you have to have a ward system, because if you do not have a ward system, the less affluent and populated neighbourhoods in a city tend, over a long period of time, not to be represented or heard. I do not want to go into the history of cities like Vancouver, where that has been a huge problem, or other municipalities - I am not going to debate that now.

I would point out to the Minister that even in a case where we recently were legislating self-government powers, and I know a little bit about that because we are really the first jurisdiction in Canada that has legislated anything like the self-government arrangements that Yukon First Nations have here, and where we were not delegating power or devolving power, but recognizing the inherent right of First Nations to govern themselves, everybody involved in the negotiations wanted to make sure there were guarantees or protections there for individuals, such as the Minister of Renewable Resources being concerned  the Charter of Rights would apply. He was not alone among Canadians on that score. There were others who wanted to make sure that there would be democratic systems in place, others who wanted to ensure that while we were doing away with the incredible, dreaded colonial legislation, the Indian Act, in terms of governance of aboriginal people’s lives that there would be constitutions written by the First Nations that might respect the traditional ways of doing things, but would in and of themselves also be democratic in the best sense of the word - that they would give every member of that First Nation a say in what was going on and make the people who hold office in a First Nation accountable to them.

I think the same idea ought to apply. Since the Minister has indicated he is going to be overhauling the Municipal Act, I think it is extremely important to establish in law who is the guarantor of those neighbourhood or citizens’ rights. Is it the Minister, the Municipal Board or is it the courts? I would submit that the present Municipal Act is confused on that score.

In section 20.6, it suggests that there is an avenue, where the people can go to the courts to get a bylaw quashed. There is the Ontario-style Municipal Board created, and there is also the ability of the Minister to veto certain kinds of legislation passed by municipal bodies.

I want to make an appeal to the Minister, not just in respect to this legislation, but in respect to a review he is doing on the Municipal Act, that whatever you do, especially when you are dealing with larger municipalities - in this territory, I would include Watson Lake, Dawson, Faro and Whitehorse in this - you have to make sure that councils are obliged to act in a way that is fair and just to citizens. I am not saying they do not do that most of the time, but you have to guarantee it. If you take a look at the number of people who turn out for municipal elections, as compared with territorial elections, councils are often elected by a small percentage of the population.

As someone who once studied voting behaviour, when I was a student of political science, it is a fact in Canada that, the more affluent you are, the more likely you are to vote, and it is especially true at the municipal level. Property owners own much more than renters, and affluent property owners turn out in larger numbers than low-income voters.

I want to correct something. I referred to the clause as 20.6, but I think it is clause 206 in the Municipal Act.

I want to finish by asking the Minister this question: when I first started asking questions some weeks ago about the McLean Lake situation, the Minister made a remark that has fascinated and puzzled me, and I wonder if he could explain it before we move on.

He said, in respect to the Municipal Board recommendations that the previous Minister had reviewed, that when he came into office, he had some advice that indicated it might be illegal, or raised a question of questionable legality, for him to change the previous Minister’s decision. I am not asking him to reveal his private legal opinion, whatever it was, but could he explain what he was talking about when he made that remark? It was made in Question Period. I understand the structure of Question Period often will not allow us to explain ourselves fully, but perhaps the Minister could explain that now.

Hon. Mr. Fisher: To answer the Leader of the Official Opposition’s question, naturally, as soon as I took office, there was some representation to have me sign the bylaw. I did not know what the legality would be. The Yukon government had rejected that particular bylaw, so I sought a legal opinion, and it indicated that I could be challenged, because the previous Minister had Irefused it. If I were to just overturn that particular decision, I could be challenged, and there should be a change to more or less include the requirements that he had put there previously.

I did not know whether that was a good legal opinion or a poor one, but it did not matter. I felt sort of that way myself, that I would not just overturn a decision that had been made previously. That is why I indicated to the city that I would not sign the bylaw in its current form.

Mr. Penikett: Did the Minister get a subsequent legal opinion that recommended that he proceed in the way he did? My reason for asking that question is because, as the Minister now knows, there is considerable confusion about what the result is of his decision. I am getting one message from City Hall about what the effect was, a different message from McLean Lake residents, and I asked the question about the area development scheme. I do not know for a certain fact that I am right. I just know that I was told that by our researcher, after calling Community and Transportation Services. I am curious about what is going on. Did he get a second legal opinion that recommended the precise course he did follow?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: No, I did not bother getting a second opinion at all.

Mr. Penikett: Could I close this debate just by asking the Minister briefly what it is, not what city council did, but what it is he believed he did in respect of the McLean Lake decision, understanding that we previously had a Municipal Board decision, we previously had a ministerial decision, and we had a petition - a lobby - from city council for him to overrule the previous Minister. Could he just very briefly summarize what he believes he did as the Minister?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: What I believe that I was able to do was to provide the comfort to those residents of McLean Lake. I believe that I have provided a level of comfort for a number of years and, at the same time, I have allowed the City of Whitehorse to carry on with their official community plan and their long-range planning.

So, I think I have been able to achieve both those items, and the lifestyle of the people in McLean Lake will not change. It will at some time in the future, but we know that, some 20 years down the road, Riverdale may very well look differently than it does right now. I do not think we can say never will we be putting in some sort of urban residential, or whatever it may be, but we can protect it for a period of time, and I think that is what I have been able to do.

Mr. Penikett: I take it from what the Minister says that that would only be true if the area development scheme has been adopted by city council, as he believes it has.

Hon. Mr. Fisher: That is correct. I am going to double-check that, as I indicated before.

On Clause 1

Clause 1 agreed to

On Clause 2

Clause 2 agreed to

Amendment proposed

Mr. McDonald: I would like to move the amendment that I indicated I would in general debate.

I move

THAT Bill No. 24, entitled An Act to Amend the Municipal Act, be amended in Clause 2 at page 1 by deleting the words “or any other act” and substituting for them the words, “act, Lands Act, Area Development Act and the Assessment and Taxation Act.”

Chair: Would the Members like me to read the amendment to the clause?

Is there any debate on the amendment?

Amendment to Bill No. 24 agreed to

Clause 2 agreed to as amended

On Title

Title agreed to

Chair’s Statement

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Mr. Chair, I would move that you report Bill No. 24, An Act to Amend the Municipal Act through Committee, with amendment.

Motion agreed to

Chair: Before moving on to Bill No. 92, entitled An Act to Amend the Assessment and Taxation Act - as most of the bills before Committee of the Whole today are amending bills, I would like to make sure that Members know that general debate should be related only to the contents of the bill before Committee of the Whole and not to the act being amended.

We will now move on to Bill No. 92, entitled An Act to Amend the Assessment and Taxation Act.

Bill No. 92 - An Act to Amend the Assessment and Taxation Act

Chair: Is there any general debate?

If not, we will proceed with clause-by-clause reading of the bill.

On Clause 1

Clause 1 agreed to

On Clause 2

Clause 2 agreed to

On Clause 3

Clause 3 agreed to

On Clause 4

Clause 4 agreed to

On Clause 5

Clause 5 agreed to

On Title

Title agreed to

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I move that you report Bill No. 92, entitled an Act to Amend the Assessment and Taxation Act, through Committee without amendment.

Motion agreed to

Chair: We will be discussing Bill No. 71, entitled An Act to Amend the Jury Act

Bill No. 71 - An Act to Amend the Jury Act

Chair: Is there any general debate?

If not, we will proceed with clause-by-clause reading of the bill.

On Clause 1

Clause 1 agreed to

On Clause 2

Ms. Joe: I wanted to ask the Minister a couple of questions in regard to this. I understand his rationale for introducing it in the House and making the changes. I posed a question yesterday during second reading in regard to how effective it was going to be. I know this is not going to guarantee that there will be aboriginal representation on juries. I know the thought behind the whole thing was to try to meet that need.

I would like to ask the Minister how he feels this is going to work. It will not guarantee it, but we do have representation on juries, where applicable. If it does not, can anything in this act be changed so that representation would be guaranteed?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: In debate at second reading, I stated, and I will state again, that this is an extremely modest amendment, intended to do away, in the section itself, with lists that are, by their very nature, discriminatory - in particular, the assessment rolls.

If that is in the act, the sheriff has every right to use those rolls as one of the main sources of names. It is our position that, by removing that list in particular, it simply removes one impediment from the direction from the department to the Minister that the makeup of the jury panels be representative of the area in which the alleged incident took place.

That would mean that, in a situation such as that in Dawson City, one would expect to have the percentage of Indian-to-white people on a panel of 48 people to, at least, reflect the population in the Dawson area at that time of the year, and gender also, of course, to be reflective at least of that.

The difficulty that was brought into the public arena by the defence lawyer at that time was that when he showed up with his client, who was of Indian ancestry, there were only four people of the 48 who were of Indian ancestry on the jury panel. That was obviously not fair.

Number one is that if a person is to be tried by his peers, there should be a representative makeup of people on the panel that is used for selection.

Then you get into a different issue, and that is should there be some kind of quota that guarantees that on the jury itself there will be an X number of women or an X number of Indian people, or an X number of professional people, or an X number of labourers, or whatever. My concern about that issue is that it is quite a different issue.

I would respectfully submit that, particularly the accused person in a criminal case, has the right, according to his or her choice, to feel that they have some control over the people who might sit in judgment. I just suggest that that varies with a whole number of things. It would be very unlikely to get two people to agree on who they might get the fairest shake from, from a panel of 48 jurors. I have never seen people really agree on who they should challenge and who they should allow on the jury.

We are trying not to deal with that issue. We want to make sure that if you have a trial in a place like Carmacks you have 55 or 60 percent Indian people and the balance white, and the makeup gender equal. It is then up to the lawyers and their clients to figure out what they think is the best chance they have for people who might see their side of the story, and there are always two sides to a story.

This is a very modest amendment. I am not trying to pretend that it is anything great. It does get rid of the list that is most discriminatory and that is the assessment list, which, of itself, certainly discriminates against Indian people who are living on lands set aside and so are not on those lists.

Ms. Joe: I think this is a positive step, and there will be a wider list of people to choose from for the panel but, in the end, there is no guarantee that there will be that representation that people are saying right now should be on it. I guess my concern is in regard to whether or not they are going to be satisfied. They may be satisfied that there is a wider list to choose from and that you may get, for instance, 50 percent of the aboriginal group on that panel, but the accused and their lawyer may choose a jury who may not be of Indian ancestry at all. That could very well happen. I guess what we have to do is just wait and see whether it works, and we hope it will.

Hon. Mr. Phelps: All I can say is, from experience, sometimes, in a situation where the accused is an Indian person, he might get a tougher shake from Indian people on the jury because of the nature of the case and the type of defence he tries to raise. He might have a defence that those people see through, for example. It is an interesting and tough issue. What we are attempting here is much less controversial and a very modest step to remove the impediment of the departmental direction that we have panels that are reflective of the population.

Ms. Moorcroft: I would like to ask if this clause allows access to lists of band members, as well as to municipality and voters lists?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I would submit that the sheriff could have access to band lists. It does not spell that out. My concern is that I would prefer to see the voters list used as the main list. There are a number of reasons for that, but one is that band lists, to my knowledge, are not very reflective of the population in an area, in many situations. For example, I can remember a time when the Carcross-Tagish First Nation had probably three times the numbers of people on its list than who actually resided in the Carcross-Tagish area. The concern is to have a jury of peers who live in the area where the alleged incident occurred.

Ms. Moorcroft: Certainly it is a laudable goal to address concerns that the Jury Act was discriminatory in the selection of jurors. Did the Minister consult with the Council for Yukon Indians and other First Nation groups when he drafted this amendment?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I have had discussions with First Nations groups, although not officially with the Council for Yukon Indians as such. I wrote them saying that we would be coming forward with this amendment and I made it clear to the people I discussed the issue with that I was not going to be attempting to get a quota system on the jury list. There are two different things at play.

Certainly, there are bound to be some Yukoners and some CYI members, no question, who would like to see quotas on jury lists. My view is that I am not attempting to meet that request, primarily on a Charter of Rights-based rationale.

Ms. Moorcroft: Which bands did the Minister consult with? Did he consult with anyone other than the bands?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I discussed the issue with some individuals from the Kwanlin Dun Band, who were fairly outspoken on the issue. I discussed it with some of the criminal lawyers in town. I discussed it with individual Indian and non-Indian people.

I have not consulted with any First Nation as a First Nation in the formal sense that the Member is referring to.

Ms. Joe: In the section here in the sixth line, it says “or any other public officer or of a municipality”. Is that supposed to be there?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: Even without her glasses, she has better eyes than I have. I would submit that it should be taken as a typo and the “or” deleted.

Chair:  It is agreed to accept that as a typo. That is line six. Delete “or”.

Mr. Cable: I wonder if that still makes sense. It is something I was also curious about. The said officer appears to modify only the municipal-type officer. The previous subclause refers to the Chief Electoral Officer and a public officer of a municipality.

The Chief Electoral Officer is, of course, not an officer of the municipality, so it does not make sense here.

Hon. Mr. Phelps: It looks to me like the word “other” should not be there. I will ask that we stand this aside and look into this before we finish the day and find out what it ought to say.

Clause 2 stood over

On Clause 3

Clause 3 agreed to

On Clause 4

Clause 4 agreed to

On Clause 5

Ms. Joe: In this section, we are allowing the sheriff to excuse certain people under these sections, and I am wondering whether or not the judge plays in any role in this, since that responsibility has been given to the sheriff. Does the judge become involved in this process?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: There is an automatic, informal appeal to the judge if the sheriff refuses.

If you go to the sheriff and ask to be excused on one of these grounds and the sheriff says no, then without cost or formality, you can go before the judge. The idea is that a lot of the judges’ time was taken up with fairly straightforward requests for being excused from jury duty.

Clause 5 agreed to

Chair: Is it the wish of the Committee to take a break at this time? Perhaps Mr. Phelps could review clause 2 so that we can come back and discuss it.

Recess

Chair: I will now call Committee to order.

Hon. Mr. Phelps: With respect to the clause we were looking at and the wording, which is awkward, I want to say that that particular part of the section is identical to the amendment to the Jury Act, passed in this House in 1991.

However, I am not completely pleased with the wording, so I would ask that we report progress on Bill No. 71.

Motion agreed to

Bill No. 76 - An Act to Amend the Judicature Act

On Clause 1

Clause 1 agreed to

On Clause 2

Clause 2 agreed to

On Clause 3

Clause 3 agreed to

On Clause 4

Clause 4 agreed to

On Title

Title agreed to

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I move that you report Bill No. 76 out of Committee without amendment.

Motion agreed to

Bill No. 4 - Second Appropriation Act, 1992-93 - continued

Department of Tourism

Chair: We will be dealing with Bill No. 4, Second Appropriation Act, 1992-93, and we are discussing Tourism. Is there any general debate?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: I just have a few comments before I take questions. The Member for Faro, the critic for Tourism, provided me with a list of questions that he would like answered and I would like to put some of the answers on the record now for his information.

One of the questions he asked me was if I could explain the overexpenditures and the underexpenditures, especially in the development area, which is market building and infrastructure.

In 1992-93, the O&M underexpenditures for development grants resulted from a staff vacancy of a secretary and reduced travel. The 1992-93 capital overexpenditures for the development branch resulted from high revotes from the previous fiscal year for strategic planning and the sign program. These were offset by minor reductions in other branch capital areas.

He asked why there was a $198,000 increase in administration and the main reason for this increase is for funding to the Yukon Anniversaries Commission. The increase is partially offset by reductions in staff vacancies.

He asked if we had a commitment to wilderness travel because there was a $2,000 decrease in that. We feel this small decrease will not have an affect at all on the program. In fact, we have done several things in the wilderness market. We have recently produced a brochure, which I passed out to the Members earlier and we focused our testing on those individuals; our response to that particular brochure is up some 50 percent above our expectations - we are pretty happy about that.

As well, we had a meeting earlier this year with the wilderness companies. They formed an association that we are now working with. We are also working on establishing some licensing and certification for these companies, as well as dealing with the cross-boundary licensing between B.C. and the Northwest Territories. Our groups can start in the Yukon and end up in other jurisdictions. That is something that has been a problem in the past, especially with people using rivers that cross our boundaries.

Now that Alaska Highway celebrations are over, he asked whether the government plans to maintain this level of tourist activity. We are hoping that the level will be maintained. Although it must be pointed out that last year was the best year that we ever had in tourist numbers. We did have it focused on anniversary celebrations.

We do not have an anniversary this year, or next year, to draw people here. We are hoping that the spinoff from the anniversary will continue. Indications now are that numbers will be reasonably high this year. They may not be as high as last year. It is hard to tell right now. Some indications are that they are up, and some indications are that in some sectors they are down a bit. Overall, it looks like the highway traffic will be reasonably good. There are some bus tours that have been cancelled because of lack of bookings. Some other tour companies are up and some are down. We think, overall, our forecast is that it will be similar to last year. If it is down, it will be down marginally. We are kind of hoping that that will be the case.

Yet many of the other departments saw a decrease. We also have maintained historic levels of funding in museum operating assistance, TIA convention marketing and funding of the arts programs; in fact, we saw an increase in funding in the arts programs. Heritage and development programs saw slight reductions, but all other branches have slight increases.

As well, he asked me about the Anniversaries Commission and when we would be announcing the Anniversaries Commission office location. I know the Member prepared these questions prior to that weekend, but I have since announced that the office will be located in Dawson City, and I understand the Anniversaries Commission is now looking at office space and is working with individuals in Dawson to work out the technicalities of relocating the office to Dawson City. I know Dawsonites are pretty pleased about that.

As well, it is important to note that, in the new budget coming up, there is a line item for the Anniversaries Commission core funding, which was a recommendation of the study group that worked on the Anniversaries Commission report. They talked about the need for core funding and it is hoped that we have taken care of that concern in the new budget.

The Member for Faro asked what policies we presented at the tourism AGM in Dawson City. In fact, we did not present any new policy initiatives there. What we did do, though, at the request of TIA, was take several of our officials to Dawson City to give the people of TIA a more accurate reflection of what the various branches in tourism are doing presently. It was helpful for some people. A lot of it was numbers, so it takes awhile to absorb this stuff, but I think it was a good step to take. Some people felt it was very positive to have a better understanding of what the Tourism department does, and the people in the department got some good feedback from those presentations.

The Member also asked me if I would table the policy announced. I did not announce any policy there, so I do not have anything to table.

The Member also asked me about the different items in our party platform. I can tell the Member that, although that is in the 1993 main estimates - and I will talk about it more there - there is very little that we are going to go ahead with in that platform this year, simply because there is no money to embark on some large, new initiative.

Like every other department, the Tourism had to shoulder some of the responsibility in trying to get the budget back in line, and that is the reason why there are no major initiatives taking place there this year.

I know that the Member is surprised, and I know that he thought he would see all kinds of major initiatives spending millions of dollars in the budget, but we had to be a little more responsible, considering the financial position in which the government was left.

I have briefly talked about the government’s plans for advertising and marketing. We have a new program that I hope to be announcing shortly. This is a European program that I will be talking about in further detail, and I hope to make a ministerial statement or announcement very shortly on that.

As well, there is the brochure that I just passed around for the Members on the adventure travel, and we are continuing with our marketing road show in the United States and the various other marketing programs that we have had in the past.

Other than the European program, there are no new initiatives that are taking place.

The Member also asked about the ambassador program, and I can address that in the 1993-94 budget, because that is a more appropriate area to address the issue, and that is where there is some funding for that.

The Member asked about a $10,000 decrease in marketing equipment, promotionals and videos, and whether this will be replaced by a bunch of pins as part of the revised ambassador-at-large program. No, the money did not come from there. This decrease in the capital budget is a result of an annual needs assessment regarding that replacement of old, outdated, audio-visual equipment and is not part of the ambassador program, which is an operation and maintenance budget item.

We are looking at embarking on a European marketing program, and I will be making a more definitive statement on that in the near future.

Regarding the wildlife viewing areas, rafting opportunities, off-road access, the Member asked if the infrastructure is in place to host these new market areas. It is happening rather quickly. Every year, we are seeing two or three more new individuals providing new products in the marketplace. It is something we have to work more on. At the tourism summit in the fall, I hope we will be talking more about packaging and putting these kinds of things together for the individual in the future. There is a great future in that kind of wilderness travel, and it is something the Yukon should capitalize on.

He asked me about the predictions for the number of tourists this year. I have already answered that. We think we will hold our own this year, if the indications we have now hold up.

He asked me if there had been any indications from tour companies that they had cancelled their flights. We heard Holland-America had some cancellations, but other companies are up marginally. I believe Princess Lines has larger ships coming into Skagway this year and, in some cases, there are more buses coming to Carcross than there were in past years. Overall, I think it will balance out with the other indicators we have out there now.

On the shoulder season, there is not a lot of change. We just had two or three conventions in Whitehorse in the last few weeks. I think there is one taking place now, or it has just ended, for Workers’ Compensation. There are plans, with the convention office, to market the shoulder seasons more in the future.

He asked me a question about conventions. Are we assisting in creating a convention centre? We are assisting with a convention coordinator. We pay $25,000 toward the salary of that individual. TIA is also doing a study on the needs of future convention facilities and marketing initiatives on which we can embark. I met in Dawson City with the individual who is doing that study. He is a highly respected individual, and he asked for my suggestions and ideas on the direction of convention marketing in the future. I understand that, later this spring or early summer, he will have a report for us.

We have the Canadian Association of Medical Administrators coming to Whitehorse in the near future for another convention.

The Member asked me about the airport tax, saying that it would be detrimental to Yukoners travelling to British Columbia. I advised the Member that I have written a letter to the B.C. government, expressing my concerns about this particular tax. We are supporting the chamber in its initiative to have this decision reversed.

The Member asked me a question about upgrading and improving alternate routes through the Yukon. As other Ministers have spoken about, one of the areas I would like to pursue in the future is the upgrading of loop roads. That would be the Top of the World Highway, the Campbell Highway and the Carcross-Tagish Road. I would be encouraging my colleagues to upgrade those routes, because I think that is the way to go in the future.

That probably concludes most of my comments in those areas. I would be more than pleased to answer any questions the Members may have.

Mr. Harding: I will not spend much time responding to that record, because it is an old record and most people do not listen to old records too much. I would like to say that I am glad to see that the new Government of the Yukon managed to get their finances under control with the $483 million budget, the biggest budget in history. In these tight financial times, they only have the biggest budget in history to work with. I can appreciate the toughness of the situation. They have the only accumulated surplus in the country, unless of course the books are cooked and we put extended care facilities in one fiscal year, when they should not be; nonetheless we will have that argument at some other time.

It is my understanding that in the new year, the O&M vote is actually an increase and the capital is a decrease. In terms of O&M, I really think that the Minister’s comments are kind of disappointing. I had hoped to discuss this more in the mains. I will ask a few questions as we go through the line by line. I am also wondering - seeing as how the Yukon government is opposing the tax increase on the Vancouver airport and will be working on that effort - if the Vancouver Board of Trade will be protesting our Yukon tax increases implemented by the Yukon government. That is going to be interesting to see.

I was somewhat confused by the Chamber of Mines; when all these big tax increases were under their noses, they did not have much to say about them. They had to go to B.C. to find one. It is also my understanding that that particular tax increase is not a governmental initiative. It is kind of an interesting situation. I do not know who the Minister wrote in the government. Perhaps he could tell me at some other time who he wrote and what jurisdiction he feels the person who he wrote to has to wipe out that tax. I thought that was kind of interesting.

My main concern is - and the Minister does not have to get back to me on this now, he could do it by way of a legislative return - what policies and programs were implemented by the department during the period of the supplementaries in the last fiscal year that were new initiatives, not started by the previous government but started by the new government. What policies were changed? What directives did he give to change them - in case I missed something in the questions that I gave the Minister. He does not have to get back right to me now with them.

I am just wondering where the Yukon Pride litter campaign went that was announced in the throne speech in December. It was not initiated in the fiscal year that it was announced in.

I guess that would be the extent of my questions in the supplementaries. Most of the questions I have would be better answered in the context of the mains.

Hon. Mr. Phillips: I thank the Member for his very constructive comments on my speech and I appreciate his support. The Member mentioned the capital budget decrease, and he was disappointed by that, but I should tell the Member that the reason the capital budget decreased was because we do not have to build - thank goodness - another visitor reception centre that cost us $3 million in the last year. We do not have to build a major VRC this year, so that is why the capital budget decreased dramatically.

Regarding the Yukon Pride anti-litter program, I can tell the Member that three or four departments are working on it now. The Renewable Resources, Community and Transportation Services, Tourism and Education departments are all working together right now on the program. I believe it is almost ready to come to Cabinet. It is a year-round anti-litter program, and I am looking forward to seeing that. I have seen various drafts and I have looked at what Tourism and other departments are doing, so I am looking forward to the four departments coming together with the government-wide, anti-litter program. We hope to announce that in the near future.

Mr. Harding: I hope this Minister moves faster on Yukon Pride than the Minister of Economic Development did on the Faro contingency plan - I guess that will remain to be seen. I am glad to hear that it is ready to go before Cabinet, and I will be anxious to see what the extent of the program is.

I was not disappointed that the capital budget was decreased. That is not what I said. What I said is that I was disappointed in the Minister’s comment regarding fee budget - anyway that is a moot point.

Hon. Mr. Phillips: One last comment about the anti-litter. It is not as if nothing is being done now while we are developing the program. In fact, Community and Transportation Services is continuing with its program on the highways, where it cleans up the highways and organizational groups get paid money for it. Various other programs are already ongoing and many of the schools are being cleaned up; the schools are having various little projects and competitions going on. There is an awful lot happening right now, just while we speak; it is not as if nothing is happening until the program is developed.

As well, there is a departmental challenge tomorrow. Renewable Resources, I believe, issued a challenge to all departments, and all the departments tomorrow are going out to clean up and I would invite the Member to join us if he wishes. We can provide the bags and clean up a little bit of the river bank.

Mr. Harding: I know I have had this discussion in the Legislature before. We still have to come up with the date but I am well aware of the proceedings tomorrow because my caucus has the bags all ready in my office and my pick-up sticks so I will be out there to do my part for humanity. The Minister does not really have to invite me. I have already been invited.

On Operation and Maintenance Expenditures

On Administration

Administration in the amount of $198,000 agreed to

On Heritage

Heritage in the amount of $50,000 agreed to

On Development

Mr. Harding: Could the Minister give a breakdown of that reduction? I am concerned a little bit about that area and where the government is going with it.

Hon. Mr. Phillips: We have a $9,000 reduction in staff vacancies, a $5,000 reduction in travel, a $6,000 reduction in consultant services and a $2,000 reduction in miscellaneous.

Development in the amount of an underexpenditure of $18,000 agreed to

On Marketing

Marketing in the amount of $22,000 agreed to

On Arts

Mr. Harding: Could the Minister give a breakdown on this number?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: We have an $18,000 reduction in staff vacancies, a $221,000 increase in forecasted recoveries from the Yukon Lotteries Commission, a $100,000 reduction in budget cuts and that was due to the fiscal restraint. We cut $100,000 but the main reason for that $100,000 was to implement the arts policy; when we came into power, there had been nothing done about the arts policy so there was nothing to implement. The $100,000 was sitting there so it lapsed.

Arts in the amount of $104,000 agreed to

Operation and Maintenance Expenditures in the amount of $356,000 agreed to

On Capital Expenditures

On Administration

On Office Accommodation, Furniture, Equipment and Systems

Mr. Harding: Could the Minister tell me when this equipment and office accommodation was purchased?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: It was late January, or early February, when the request came in.

Office Accommodation, Furniture, Equipment and Systems in the amount of $58,000 agreed to

On Heritage

On Museums

On Museum Assistance

Hon. Mr. Phillips: The revote for 1991-92 for the museums assistance planning for the Dawson Museum storage facility is $35,000. A $50,000 grant was received from the federal government for artifact inventory and cataloging, and there was a $6,000 reduction in heritage studies.

Museum Assistance in the amount of $35,000 agreed to

On Artifact Inventory and Cataloguing

Artifact Inventory and Cataloguing in the amount of $50,000 agreed to

On Research

On Heritage Studies

Heritage Studies in the amount of an underexpenditure of $6,000 agreed to

Heritage in the amount of $79,000 agreed to

On Development

On Destination, Regional and Community Planning

On Strategic Planning

Strategic Planning in the amount of $23,000 agreed to

On Wilderness Resource Assessment

Wilderness Resource Assessment in the amount of an underexpenditure of $2,000 agreed to

On Destination, Site or Product Assessment

Destination, Site or Product Assessment in the amount of an underexpenditure of $6,000 agreed to

On Product Development

On Signs and Interpretation

Signs and Interpretation in the amount of $5,000 agreed to

Development in the amount of $20,000 agreed to

On Marketing

On Visitor Reception Centres

On Low Frequency Radio Transmitters

Low Frequency Radio Transmitters in the amount of $3,000 agreed to

On Television, Audio-Visual and Other Equipment

Television, Audio-Visual and Other Equipment in the amount of an underexpenditure of $4,000 agreed to

On Yukon VRC Development

Mr. Harding: Will any of this expenditure be lapsing?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: This is for the Yukon visitor reception centre, and it covers revote funds for completion of the project beyond March. All these costs were incurred by the previous government, and the project is still incomplete.

The poor canopy design will require the replacement of the canopy. Landscaping still has to be finished; accessibility, especially for the disabled, is difficult. I understand about $14,000 of that money will lapse.

Yukon VRC Development in the amount of $828,000 agreed to

On Carcross VRC Development

Mr. Harding: What was this money spent on?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: This was a revote of $27,000 and a transfer from Heritage of $6,000. It was used to upgrade the new VRC in Carcross, the train station.

Carcross VRC Development in the amount of $33,000 agreed to

On Travel Marketing Equipment, Displays and Productions

On Purchase and Maintenance of Displays

Purchase and Maintenance of Displays in the amount of an underexpenditure of $10,000 agreed to

Marketing in the amount of $850,000 agreed to

Department of Tourism in the amount of $1,007,000 agreed to

Women’s Directorate

Hon. Mr. Phillips: The Women’s Directorate is requesting supplementary funding of $20,000 in O&M for hosting the meeting of the federal/provincial/territorial Ministers responsible for the Status of Women, held here in Whitehorse in June. That is for a total of $14,000. The remaining $6,000 is for additional personnel costs of increasing the Yukon bonus rates, acting pay, summer student and casual relief in the Directorate.

Ms. Moorcroft: As my colleagues have done, I will save most of my questions on this department for the mains; however, I do have some questions regarding the contracts for the department.

Could the Minister tell me about the virtues project contract - a workshop healing TLS for family in the amount of $1,600. That contract was dated December 8.

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I do not have that information with me, but I can get it back to the Member by way of a legislative return.

Ms. Moorcroft: I note that there are some contracts for transcription and summaries of focus group testing. I wonder if the Minister could provide me with a copy of that summary, as well as the transcripts.

Hon. Mr. Phillips: I am not sure whether I can provide a copy of the summary. I understand they are almost to the stage now where they are ready to release the results of the focus group testing. I have not seen it myself yet. I would like to have a look at that first. After that, I would be more than happy to provide it to the Member.

On Operation and Maintenance Expenditures

On Public Information

Public Information in the amount of $20,000 agreed to

Operation and Maintenance Expenditures in the amount of $20,000 agreed to

Women’s Directorate agreed to

Yukon Housing Corporation

Chair: Is there any general debate?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: This supplementary No. 1 consists of a reduction in both the O&M and the capital budgets. The O&M was reduced by $2,848,000, while the capital was reduced by $214,000.

The $2,848,000 reduction in O&M is mostly as a result of delays encountered in bringing various programs onstream. The delays in the opening of the extended care facility account for the majority of that reduction. The projects were not cancelled; they still went ahead. As such, the reduction in O&M is more of a deferment of expenses, rather than a cut.

The reduction in capital is the net effect of numerous changes to the funding levels of the various programs. These changes are easier to understand if examined through a line-by-line approach. I am now prepared to answer any questions the Members may have.

On Operation and Maintenance Expenditures

On Gross Expenditures

Gross Expenditures in the amount of an underexpenditure of $2,848,000 agreed to

On Capital Expenditures

On Non-Profit Housing

On Construction/Acquisition

Ms. Moorcroft: Could the Minister provide me with a breakdown of this reduction?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: The reduction for the capital budget for the non-profit housing program is explained by the sum of the following: $2,002,000 for the delays in the construction of the Gateway housing project; $209,000 is the transfer of salaries and benefits from capital to 0&M; $1,809,000 is the reallocation of funds by the Yukon Housing Corporation board of directors to other programs, i.e., $600,000 to the home improvement program and $1,209,000 to the home ownership program.

Ms. Moorcroft: Can the Minister provide me with the status report on the Gateway housing project and on whether funding will still be available from the federal government for a revised Gateway project?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: The funding will be available until June 30.

Ms. Moorcroft: Does the Minister expect that they will be able to resolve this project prior to June 30?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: My understanding is that the society and the neighbourhood residential group have come to an agreement, and they have jointly approached the city for a development permit.

Ms. Moorcroft: When will this development permit be granted or denied?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I am not sure. It is in the city’s hands. I believe they went to the city in the last two or three days, and I do not know if the city council has actually dealt with it.

Ms. Moorcroft: Does the Minister agree with non-profit housing, and could he give his definition of non-profit housing.

Hon. Mr. Fisher: There are people from segments of our society who require some sort of social housing. As such, I agree with it. We have people on social welfare, and we have our elders, people on old age pension or on some sort of a fixed income. We have the working poor, a lot of which we see in the service industry, who are just unable to make enough money to carry a conventional mortgage.

In that respect, I do agree with the program.

Ms. Moorcroft: Is the government planning any changes to the method of delivery of this program?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: There has been one change recommended by the board of directors. Apparently it was recommended quite some time ago. I have agreed with that change. It is a change to go back to - I am trying to remember the terminology - the rent geared to income. It will be an economic encouragement for people to actually get out of social housing. Twenty-five percent of their income will go to rent. What we found was that there were quite a few people who had, at one time or another, moved into some sort of non-profit, low-income housing, and then their times had changed and they were getting the low-income housing at a very much reduced rate from what they were able to afford.

We have actually put this into effect starting September 1. Notification has gone to all of the people who we believe will fit into that category. They are quite aware of it. I think that it affects somewhere around 50 people throughout the territory.

Ms. Moorcroft: What is the length of the waiting list for non-profit housing?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: The latest figures I have is that it is somewhat over 150 people, I believe all in the City of Whitehorse.

Ms. Moorcroft: Does the Minister anticipate that this change he was just describing is going to result in anyone moving out of non-profit housing?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Yes, preliminary indications are that people will. In fact, I think that three have already moved out.

Ms. Moorcroft: Low-cost housing, or rental suites, are at a premium in the territory. What is the government planning to do to alleviate this problem?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: We have the loan program for rental suites, and we are going to continue with that program. That is the only actual program we have for rental suites.

Mr. Joe: Can the Minister tell me more about the rental program? In my riding, some people have not been working and are paying about $600 a month. Sometimes, some people get a job for the summer, and they have to pay 25 percent. This has been a problem in my riding. There are a lot of people complaining about it.

It is a problem with housing. Can the Minister tell me what happened with the $600 a month they used to pay? Now they have to pay 25 percent of their wages whenever they have a job.

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I thank the Member opposite for the question. The calculation of the rentals on a monthly basis has been changed. It is now based on one’s previous year’s income. If someone has an income of $600 a month most of the time, and then they go to work for a couple of months in the summer and make $2,500 in those two months, the rent would be geared to the whole year’s income, not just those two months. It would not go along at $150 a month, then jump up to $700, and fall back down in the fall. It would be geared to the total yearly income.

Ms. Moorcroft: It was my understanding that rent was geared to income and that has been in effect for the last 10 years. Can the Minister indicate exactly what this change is?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I am not sure what the reason for it was. There were people on, what they called, market rent. The rent was set at a maximum of $600 a month. They called that market rent. I do not know when or why that came into effect. It was quite some time ago.

There were some people on RGI, or rent geared to income, and some people on the market rent. In fact, what we have done is pulled the market rent entirely out of it. The rent is now all geared only to income.

Ms. Moorcroft: What would the percentage of market rent households be, in comparison to rent geared to income households?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: It is approximately 50 people out of 600, which would be eight percent.

Construction/Acquisition in the amount of an underexpenditure of $4,020,000 agreed to

On Extended Care Facility

Ms. Moorcroft: Could the Minister give me a breakdown of this reduction?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: The reduction from the capital budget for the extended care facility is the result of two items. There is a reduction of $1,295,000 for the transfer of the capital budget for equipment and furnishings from the Yukon Housing budget to the Health and Social Services budget. An expenditure of $620,000 was incurred in the 1992-93 fiscal year that was originally budgeted for in 1991-1992.

Ms. Moorcroft: What was the nature of the expenditure that was budgeted for in 1991-92 and is now being applied to 1992-93?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: My understanding is that it was for construction costs.

Extended Care Facility in the amount of an underexpenditure of $675,000 agreed to

On Proposed Development Funding

Ms. Moorcroft: What is the supplementary amount of $100,000 for on this line?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: It was mainly for the Gateway housing project. I believe that we extended $90,000 to that project.

Proposed Development Funding in the amount of $100,000 agreed to

Non-Profit Housing in the amount of an underexpenditure of $4,595,000 agreed to

On Home Improvement

Home Improvement in the amount of $1,722,000 agreed to

On Home Ownership

On Direct Lending

Direct Lending in the amount of $1,000,000 agreed to

On Owner/Build

Owner/Build in the amount of $209,000 agreed to

Home Ownership in the amount of $1,209,000 agreed to

On Staff Housing

On Construction/Acquisition

Ms. Moorcroft: Can the Minister tell me what communities the staff housing units are located in?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Was the question: is there staff housing and in what communities? There are two in Dawson City, two in Carmacks, six in Watson Lake, one in Beaver Creek, one in Pelly Crossing and three in Faro.

Mr. McDonald: Is the Minister confident that the staff housing construction will be totally cost recovered? I noticed that the Yukon Housing Corporation has been somewhat confident that this a full cost-recovery program now. Is the Minister sure that that is the case and that expenditures here will be recovered over a certain period of time?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I do not believe that we do recover the full cost right now. Rent is set at $600. There is a mortgage on all of the housing, so the $600 does not pay for the upkeep and the mortgage. The board of directors is looking at staff housing and looking at the possibility of raising the payments.

Again, we do have some problems with union agreements and so on.

Mr. McDonald: I will make this point: in the event that the full cost recovery is not required, the Yukon Housing Corporation will have to come back to collect more money from the general taxpayer in order to provide this program.

The concept of full cost recovery is a reasonable one, over time, but I think we should be honest with ourselves about whether or not that will, in fact, take place. If there is some doubt about it, at this point, we should be aware of it.

Construction/Acquisition in the amount of $1,350,000 agreed to

On Joint Venture

On Joint Ventures

Ms. Moorcroft: Could the Minister provide a breakdown of this item?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Program applications require additional funding. This amount was transferred from the rental suite program.

Ms. Moorcroft: Could the Minister describe the programs provided for under Joint Ventures?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: The Takhini Place condominiums are an example of the joint venture program.

Ms. Moorcroft: Is that the only venture covered under this amount?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I believe it is the only one covered, but we will provide a legislative return for the Member opposite if there are more.

Joint Ventures in the amount of $150,000 agreed to

On Rental Suites

Mr. Cable: I wonder if the Minister could describe that program and advise whether it includes rental suites for seniors.

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Actually, the rental suite program is a loan program for people who would like to provide a rental suite in their homes in applicable neighbourhoods, I guess within the City of Whitehorse - I believe that is the only place. It is available for the territory but, apparently, the only places where we have had people apply for the loans is the City of Whitehorse.

The rental suites are available for whomever, seniors included.

Rental Suites in the amount of an underexpenditure of $150,000 agreed to

On Central Services

Ms. Moorcroft: Could the Minister provide us with a breakdown of that expenditure.

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I guess the Member’s microphone was not on, but I believe the Member requested a breakdown.

The funds are required for additional office equipment and office furnishings.

Central Services in the amount of $100,000 agreed to

Capital Expenditures in the amount of an underexpenditure of $214,000 agreed to

Loan Capital and Loan Amortization

On Loan Capital

On Expenditure

On Loans to Third Parties

Hon. Mr. Brewster: The $5 million new expenditure is an appropriation authority for the Curragh loan made last spring. As Members know, the Legislature granted approval to a special bill to enter into an agreement to make the loan and this bill simply confirms that such an agreement was made and seeks the appropriation authority.

Equivalent sums shown as a recovery merely indicate that the loan is an asset on our books of account and does not therefore impact upon our surplus or deficit position.

The $155,000 shown as an additional interest expenditure in period 8 was an estimate of the cost of the interest that we would have to pay to the bank in 1992-93 on our line of credit.

As the Members know, our financial situation is such that the government is now borrowing money to finance operations on an almost constant basis. We delayed bo