Whitehorse, Yukon

Wednesday, June 2, 1993 - 1:30 p.m.

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

Prayers

Eulogy to Wilfred Gordon

Mr. Joe: I stand here again today to talk about another person from my riding who has passed away - Wilfred Gordon. He was a long-time resident of Mayo and passed away on Monday. Wilfred first came to the Yukon in 1933, when he worked in Dawson, then, with his wife Jean, moved to Mayo in 1945. He worked in the mines. He was a good trapper, logger and became an important figure in the community. Many people in my riding will miss him.

DAILY ROUTINE

Speaker: We will proceed with the Order Paper.

Introduction of Visitors.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Ms. Moorcroft: It is my pleasure today to welcome Jon Breen to the House. Jon is the executive director of Challenge Community Vocational Alternatives, the co-chair of the Health and Social Services Council and a newly appointed Yukon Human Rights Commissioner. Jon has been active with the National Access Awareness Week Committee, and I would like to welcome him here today.

Applause

Mr. Cable: I would like to introduce Ms. Terry Price, the incoming president of the Yukon Teachers Association. Sitting beside Ms. Price is the outgoing president of the Yukon Teachers Association, Ken Taylor.

Applause

Speaker: Are there any Returns or Documents for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I have the Yukon Government 1991-92 Employment Equity Corporate Report and two legislative returns.

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I have for tabling nine legislative returns relating to Community and Transportation Services.

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

Speaker: Are there any Reports of Committees?

Petitions.

Introduction of Bills.

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

Are there any Notices of Motion?

Are there any Statements by Ministers?

This then brings us to the Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Question re: Curragh Inc., court application

Mr. Harding: Today is a pretty important day for the territory. The future of the last two mines that were operating in the territory - Faro and Sa Dena Hes - are hanging in the balance as Curragh Inc. goes to court today to discuss protection from creditors.

I would like to ask the Government Leader if he could tell us what news he has heard from the courts today, and could he also tell us his understanding of how long a protection period Curragh is seeking today?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: It is our understanding that Curragh would be in court at 3:00 p.m., Toronto time. The hearing was scheduled for 1:00 p.m., but they asked that it be deferred until 3:00 p.m., which is noon our time.

I do not yet have a report on what has happened. I have heard via our people in Toronto that Curragh would be asking for an extension of protection under CCAA until August 31, 1993.

Mr. Harding: The Government Leader had a very good opportunity last week when the federal Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, Mr. Siddon, was visiting, to discuss the situation here in the Yukon regarding those two mines. I would like to ask the Government Leader if he discussed our mines situation with Mr. Siddon, regarding support for the mines, now that Mr. Frame is willing to give up his firm control of the mine. What was the Minister’s view on the deferral request on the abandonment plan?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: That is quite a lot to try to answer during Question Period in one question. I guess I will just try to cover it as broadly as I can. The Minister and I did have some discussions pertaining to Curragh. The federal government does not seem to have much interest in getting involved in the situation, regardless of whether Mr. Frame is giving up his multiple voting shares or not. The Minister indicated to me and to members of the press that it was too early to deal with the request regarding the mine abandonment plan.

Mr. Harding: I am glad that the Government Leader brought it up with the Minister. I hope that he pursues further the abandonment plan request so that we can quickly learn what the position of the feds is. Could I ask the Government Leader if the government has adopted any new approach regarding a position in the Curragh Inc. loan guarantee negotiations? Has there been some planning for the start of negotiations?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: To date, there has been no position taken, because we have had no counter proposals from the company. We are waiting for the company to ask for a meeting after this court case, which they indicated to me last week they would be doing, and we will be pursuing the matter at that time.

Question re: Curragh Inc., court application

Mr. Harding: Since the Government Leader mentioned negotiations and a request that is going to come from Curragh, could he tell us when he would prefer the negotiations would start? Could he tell us what the government’s position is regarding where the negotiations will take place and who will be doing it on behalf of the government?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: It would be premature for me to start elaborating on those issues right now. These are issues to be dealt with when we meet with Curragh.

Mr. Harding: I am concerned about these answers, because we are seeing a real lack of planning in the position taken by the government, resulting in nothing different from the conclusion we faced last time. As we all know, the last negotiations did not result in any agreement, either between the union and Curragh, or the government and Curragh.

Will the government be taking an approach of trilateral negotiations, rather than the bilateral negotiations that took place last time, to try and avoid the previous failure?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I am not entirely certain who the Member is referring to when he is talking about trilateral negotiations.

Mr. Harding: What I was referring to regarding the negotiations was a stated need by the Government Leader for the union to be involved, as a result of his discussion with the Koreans. Last time there were bilateral negotiations taking place between Curragh and Local 1051 in Faro, and the Yukon territorial government and Curragh - two sets of bilateral negotiations. I am wondering if, because they resulted in a failure last time, the Government Leader will try a trilateral approach this time to try to come to some kind of an agreement?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: Those are questions that I cannot answer at this time. The negotiations between the union and Curragh are in relation to a collective bargaining agreement; I believe that is an issue that will have to be settled between the union and Curragh. I do not know that the government has a role to play in those negotiations. On the financial end, I see that there are negotiations taking place between themselves and Curragh.

Question re: Casino mine, energy requirements

Mr. Cable: I have some question for the Minister of Economic Development on the Casino project. It has been reported in the media recently that the Casino copper and gold project could be in production in the year 2000, yet I note in the Department of Economic Development’s document, entitled Economic Forecasts for the Winter of 1993, dated January 19,1993, it was noted that Casino could be in production as early as 1998. Will the Minister of Economic Development tell the House what date his officials in the department are using for forecasting purposes for the date of startup or production from this mine?

Hon. Mr. Devries: The information that we have is that 1998 is still the target goal. If that has changed recently I have not been informed of such. I still assume that it is 1998.

Mr. Cable: In another Yukon government document, entitled A Yukon Resource Infrastructure Initiative, dated April 16, 1993, and tabled in this House recently, power requirements for Casino are estimated to be 20 to 30 megawatts. It is indicated that some additional capacity will be necessary to meet those requirements.

Is it the government’s policy to offer to provide that additional capacity to the mine developer?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: We will be in consultations with the mine proponents about that issue, and will be proceeding accordingly as a result of those conversations and consultations.

Mr. Cable: I was asking about the government policy.

Let me push on with this question: what in the view of either Minister is the approximate time frame for bringing a coal-burning or hydro-electric plant onstream?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: It entirely depends on the results of this season and the manner in which the development company wants to proceed.

We have already seen some different time horizons as to when they expect they will be in full production. Toward the end of the season, we will be able to see exactly what their plans are.

Question re: Grum stripping contract

Mr. Harding: I want to ask a question once again about mines that are here now, today. I would like to ask the Government Leader a question. Statements have been made by the government that they believe that a contractor has a fully binding contract with Curragh Incorporated for the Grum stripping work, that cannot be retracted or altered. I would like to ask the government if they have seen this contract and the details of it, and can they indeed confirm whether or not this is true.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: No, I have not seen a copy of the contract.

Mr. Harding: That is somewhat alarming, considering previous discussions I have had with the government on this issue.

I would like to ask the government this: before they take another position about who should perform the Grum stripping, will they demand to see this document so that all efforts can be made to get Faroites doing the work on the Grum stripping, if it is going to proceed, first and foremost?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: These are all issues that we will have to deal with when we negotiate with the proponents of the Faro operation. I cannot give answers to those questions today. This is all part of the negotiating process.

Mr. Harding: It appears that adopting a mandate and preparing and planning is not high on this government’s priority list, seeing that we have been in this situation for months. I would like to ask the Government Leader this question: has the government considered any planning for the terrible situation and high anxiety that will be felt by Faroites when people from outside Faro perform work on their claim while they have to endure the torture of no work and sitting in the town? I certainly do not want to see a situation of another Yellowknife here in the Yukon.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: The company, prior to closing down, had certain contracts or arrangements with private developers as well as with the union. All of those things will be taken into consideration when we sit down to negotiate.

Question re: South Klondike Highway, winter maintenance

Ms. Moorcroft: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Transportation Services.

In 1986, the Yukon government and Alaska cooperated to sign an agreement for permanent, year-round traffic on the South Klondike Highway to Skagway, to provide access to tidewater for the efficient and competitive transport of goods and services into the territory. The agreement was also intended to help with the transport of ore from the Faro and Sa Dena Hes mines.

In light of the current economic activities, or lack thereof, what is the government’s plan for the upcoming winter? Does the government plan to keep the road open?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I had a meeting with the people from Skagway. Actually, it was the same day as the Association for Yukon Communities spring general meeting.

If Curragh does not operate the mine this coming winter, we are going to be dealing with the Alaskan government to come to some kind of agreement on keeping the highway open.

Ms. Moorcroft: Currently, the Yukon government pays for 50 percent of Alaska maintenance and is also obligated to provide some capital toward the South Klondike Highway.

What is the government’s position on road maintenance and the capital projects if they do indeed keep the road open?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: If we keep the road open, then the agreement will have to be amended to reflect more of a commitment from the United States government, mainly because the agreement was based on the ore haul.

Ms. Moorcroft: Regardless, these agreements will be coming up for renegotiation in the near future. A lot of Yukon companies have relied on the year-round access that American consumers have enjoyed to make their purchases here. When does the Minister anticipate that he will meet with the Alaskan government to begin negotiations?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I would expect that we would be meeting with the Alaskan government probably in August, likely no later than September.

Question re: Public Works Canada, housing units in Whitehorse

Mr. McDonald: On May 28, the federal Treasury Board announced that Public Works Canada would be disposing of all federal housing units in Whitehorse over the next three to five years.

Can the Minister responsible for the Yukon Development Corporation tell us what effect this initiative will have on the Whitehorse housing market, and whether or not the Yukon Housing Corporation has done any market analysis the Minister would be able to table in the Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I will have to get back to the Member opposite. I am not aware of a market analysis. There may very well be one, but I will have to get back to the Member opposite.

Mr. McDonald: If there is not one, there probably should be one shortly, I would hope. I know the Minister is aware that there are a number of people living in federal housing under the Yukon government’s social housing program. Could the Minister tell us whether or not the government is taking care to ensure that the disposal of federal housing does not result in a net loss of social housing units in the Whitehorse area?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I thank the Member for his question, or possibly advice. We will be taking that under advisement.

Mr. McDonald: We are obviously breaking new ground here. I will ask this question of the Minister, perhaps as notice. The government has a somewhat aggressive land program, which has been somewhat truncated by recent developments. I would like to ask the Minister whether or not the federal initiative to divest itself of its housing program will have any impact on the government’s land development program in Whitehorse, particularly with respect to subdivision development?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: The lot development in the Whitehorse area had taken federal housing into consideration. However, our situation right now is that we may not be able to do the amount of development, that was anticipated, for other reasons.

Question re: Northern Accord, First Nations involvement

Ms. Joe: I have a follow-up question for the Government Leader on the Northern Accord question yesterday. The Government Leader said yesterday that as far as he was concerned, there was nothing left to negotiate with CYI on the Northern Accord when he took office. Can the Government Leader tell us if CYI was aware of that decision that the Northern Accord was a done deal?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I think the Member opposite will have to ask CYI whether they considered it a done deal or not. I stand by the statements that I made in the House yesterday that upon taking office, I was advised that the Northern Accord had been negotiated and that it was a matter of trying to wrangle a few hundred thousand dollars more out of the federal government. That is all there was left to do on the Northern Accord.

Ms. Joe: The CYI has stated that this government did not live up to its UFA obligations to consult with First Nations. The Government Leader has several times commented that the UFA had not been signed at the time that accord negotiations were concluded. Does this mean that the Government Leader will guarantee First Nations meaningful involvement in ongoing and future devolution discussions, now that the UFA has been signed, or does he intend to ignore UFA obligations, as he has in the past?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: That is not at all the case. We have been trying very hard all winter to get some sort of a forum set up so that we could all - ourselves and the CYI - live by the terms of the UFA. I will continue to do that. I will continue to try to find some kind of a forum that is acceptable to the First Nations people, so that we can discuss issues of devolution.

Ms. Joe: Although the Government Leader has referred to a devolution table several times when asked about consultation with First Nations on federal transfers, as far as I can determine, nothing has been done to establish it.

Can the Government Leader advise when the devolution table will be established, and can he offer First Nations assurances that the bargaining positions will be brought to the table for discussions and not just final deals?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: To say that nothing has been done at the devolution table is simply not true. We have been working very hard on it. Federal officials, as well as our own, have had several meetings in the last few months. What has been proposed so far has not been acceptable to CYI. We will continue to work to get those roadblocks out of the way so that we can get a forum set up to discuss devolution issues.

Question re: Downsizing government through layoffs

Mrs. Firth: My question is for the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission.

Yesterday, I asked the Minister several questions about auxiliary and term employees who were being told that as soon as the Legislative Assembly was no longer sitting they would be receiving notices that their services would no longer be required with this government. The Minister was to table the policy yesterday afternoon. He failed to do that. The legislative return that has been tabled today is not a policy either.

Yesterday, the Minister said that he could not recall any such instructions being given by himself. I would like to ask the Minister if his memory is any better today and if he now remembers giving these instructions and to whom?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: My memory is not any better today. We have stated - for the record - that the policy is not to issue layoff notices during the session or after the session, but only as a last resort, after every other avenue has been explored to put these people in different positions. We have been doing that. The legislative return that I tabled today lays that out. Most of the people who have been displaced by the downsizing of government, for the most part, have been able to find other positions within government, if they so chose.

Mrs. Firth: Then the government has not been downsized, has it? I want to ask the Minister this: if he did not give those kinds of instructions about waiting until after the session was finished, could he tell us who is authorized to make that kind of decision and give that kind of instruction to the supervisors and who we are to hold accountable for that kind of action when it comes to terminating employees with this government?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: In regard to the Member’s questions yesterday, I had PSC poll all departments - all departments - and we cannot find anything, outside of one or two employees who are going to have to be moved from their positions. There is nothing major afoot saying that there is going to be a bunch of layoff notices given after this session is over. We have checked every department on this and cannot find evidence of it.

Mrs. Firth: Will the Minister, then, stand in this House this afternoon and give us a commitment - on behalf of the employees who have come and made representation to me and the employers who have made representation to me that they have been directed to do this - to these people that there will not be any layoff notices or any terminations or any terminating of these people’s jobs immediately after the session finishes?

These people are looking for some kind of reassurance that there is not going to be a massive layoff once the Legislative Assembly is finished, and I would like the Minister to give us a commitment that that will not happen.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I have no problem giving the Member a commitment that there will be no massive layoff. We have said that time and time again, but we have also said that there may be some. We have always said that, and it does not matter whether the session is in or out; it is going to be a last resort.

Here is the Member opposite, who has said she does not want to see revenues increased; she wants to see government downsized -

Speaker: Order. Order please. I think the Government Leader has answered the question.

Question re: Downsizing government through layoffs

Ms. Moorcroft: Yesterday, in the Government Services budget debate there were significant decreases in information services, purchasing, Queen’s Printer, building maintenance and plant operations and custodial services, due to reductions in auxiliary personnel and not staffing indeterminate positions.

In his introductory remarks, the Minister of Government Services said vacant positions will be reviewed to see if work could be accomplished through other means.

Will the Minister of Government Services tell this House what “other means” he was considering?

Hon. Mr. Devries: Basically, it would be if, for instance, the decision is made to discontinue a certain position that person would have the ability to provide for one of the other vacancies.

Ms. Moorcroft: These reductions in personnel in several areas of his department look like layoffs. Could the Minister tell us how many person years, full-time equivalents - how many people are losing their jobs - that these proposed cuts total up to?

Hon. Mr. Devries: No one is losing their jobs; there are some auxiliaries who are not being recalled.

Ms. Moorcroft: The Minister informed us that some of the vacancies were related to not filling the jobs for people who take maternity leave. With no replacement worker in the position, they face a mountain of work when they get back to work. Is it government-wide policy not to fill vacancies? Does the government consider it irresponsible for someone to get pregnant and take leave and that they should be punished in this way?

Hon. Mr. Devries: In those instances, some of the other staff are taking up some of the responsibilities the person had. By the same token, through these measures we can determine how efficiently departments are operating; at some point we may be in a position where we can move positions around or discontinue some of them. A person on maternity leave will be assured of a job on her return.

Question re: Casino Mine energy requirements

Mr. Cable: I have some further questions for the Minister of Economic Development or the Minister responsible for the Yukon Development Corporation on the Casino energy requirements. I hope the answers will not be verbal candy floss again. The Dogrib First Nation in the Northwest Territories, I understand, has entered into an agreement with the Northwest Territories Power Corporation. It relates to the production of electricity from hydro sites and the sale of the electricity to the utility.

This has the advantage to the First Nation of providing economic development opportunities and has the advantage to the utility of reducing the capital requirements. Has the Minister, or his officials, approached any of the Yukon First Nations with a view to determining whether they are interested in developing hydro or coal-based electricity generating projects for the Casino mine?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: We have had some very preliminary discussions with some of the First Nations and CYI with respect to that possibility and the possibility of First Nations being partners in new power generation, particularly thermal coal. They have been very preliminary discussions. I have had them with three or four of the First Nations, as well as in general terms with CYI. I will be following up on that, if we ever get out of this House. It is difficult to pursue many of these things when you are here day after day, for a record session - a record filibuster - congratulations.

Mr. Cable: What is the government’s policy on the use of independent power producers, such as the First Nations, for feeding into the grid to supply these major projects? Is the Minister in favour of involving the First Nations in these projects, as independent power producers?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: That principle was enunciated; I have said this many times in the House. That principle was enunciated at the meetings we held with the Chamber of Mines, First Nations and the Minister of DIAND when he was here in April. That certainly is a principle that we are going to pursue in conjunction with First Nations, once we know exactly what the requirements are going to be for new generation. Right now there is no requirement, but as soon as it makes sense to start looking at a specific amount of energy and how it might be produced, we will be very interested in talking to First Nations about them participating in coal mining ventures and in production and power ventures.

Mr. Cable: Let me ask the question I asked earlier about the lead time required for coal generation for hydro projects. In the Minister’s view, what is the lead time required to develop a hydro project, whether through the First Nations or otherwise?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: Again, this information has been tabled in this House, and spoken to in this House many times, even during the period of time when the Member opposite was president of the Yukon Development Corporation. With respect to hydro, the policies tabled in this House by my predecessor spoke in terms of six years’ lead time for hydro. With respect to coal, it is about half that.

Question re: Monetary policies

Mr. McDonald: Yesterday, the government issued a press release stating that the federal/provincial/territorial Finance Ministers plan to meet John Crowe, Governor of the Bank of Canada, this fall. Several provincial Ministers have made it clear that they plan to question the tight money and high unemployment policies of the bank.

Can the Minister of Finance indicate what his government’s position will be?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: The Member is quite right. There have been several Finance Ministers who are questioning the tight money policy of the Bank of Canada. Mostly, the Finance Ministers are of the same philosophical beliefs as the Members opposite.

I believe that we have to continue with our tight monetary policies, if we are going to get our deficit under control. I do not think we have much room to move.

Mr. McDonald: It is really unfortunate that the Finance estimates have cleared the House already. I am sorry we did not engage in this subject a little more thoroughly.

Can the Minister indicate which method he prefers the Yukon government to use to promote an economic recovery? Does he prefer tackling high unemployment or fighting inflation?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I believe we have to find a proper balance. Ten percent and higher unemployment - double digit unemployment - is not acceptable. However, I believe that if governments were to abandon their pursuit of deficit and debt reduction at this point, we would fall into the same old, vicious circle we fell into time and time again, where we have a higher inflation and an increase in interest rates, which would lead to more unemployment in the long term.

There is going to be some short-term pain, there is no doubt, but I believe the governments are on the right track, and I hope they continue to pursue this.

Mr. McDonald: We are probably bordering on a decade of short-term pain and, in some people’s minds, enough is enough.

Given that, this year, the YTG has presented its biggest budget ever, can the Minister indicate whether or not he supports the Governor of the Bank of Canada’s call for smaller and smaller government budgets, even if that means some hardship for the elderly, the working poor and the unemployed?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I believe that we can continue on the path of smaller budgets. I think that we did that when we brought our budget in this year. Eight of 16 departments came in with a lower O&M budget than they did last year. The increase in the O&M budget, as we have said time and time again in this House, is because the devolution responsibilities were taken over from Ottawa. It will continue to go up, but we must get the cost of delivering services to the people under control and that is what we are trying to do.

Question re: Placer mining committee, representation on

Mr. Penikett: I have a question for the Government Leader in respect to board appointments, which arises from a comment made yesterday by the Minister of Economic Development in this House. He said that the Yukon government agreed with the federal government decision to remove First Nation representatives and conservation representatives from the new placer mining committee.

My very simple question is that looking at Hansard, the Minister said that he agreed with it. I have got it right here in Hansard. I want to know why the Government of Yukon agreed with that decision?

Hon. Mr. Devries: The First Nations and the Yukon Conservation Society were never on the Implementation Review Committee board, as far as I know. The committee existed for about four years under the previous administration. They were never represented on the committee at that time, to the best of my knowledge.

Basically, the concerns of the First Nations are very well covered by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the fisheries people and the Yukon Conservation Society likewise. This is strictly a committee that considers discharge standards for placer miners.

Mr. Penikett: My supplementary is to the Government Leader. So far, on matters of economic policy this government has only consulted with the chambers of commerce, the Yukon Chamber of Mines, the placer miners and, of course, its own party. In the midst of an economic crisis, does the Government Leader believe that the public interest requires that he consult only with those bodies, or does he not agree that other Yukoners, too - whether they represent the labour movement, the aboriginal community, the women’s community, municipalities or others - deserve a right for some input into matters and policies designed to address this current crisis?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: The Member is quite right. All Yukoners should have input. I have to disagree with the Member opposite when he names the people with whom we have consulted. I would draw to the Member’s attention that last winter, when we were in Opposition, we held public hearings on many issues. We did not limit the consultation to anyone, no matter what political stripe they were. We will continue to consult with the public at large on economic and other issues.

Mr. Penikett: The difference is that when we were in government we consulted with everybody; when they are in government they consult with only those people who would tend to confirm their own previous opinions.

That was confirmed, I think, by the information that we received this morning. While the Government Leader had invited the Liberal Party to submit nominations for the Yukon Territory Water Board, the Official Opposition was not invited to do so.

May I ask the Government Leader if it is a matter of policy of his government not to consult with the Official Opposition on appointments or public policy, and as a matter of public policy, why does he think that the constituents whom we represent are not entitled input into these decisions?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: It is certainly not this government’s policy to not consult with the Official Opposition. I am not sure why they did not get a letter on that and I will certainly check into it.

Question re: Downsizing government through layoffs

Mrs. Firth: I have another question for the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission.

As I said yesterday, I am very concerned about the way this government is treating people and the way they are doing things. The government’s actions are affecting people’s lives and their ability to earn a living.

In the legislative return that was tabled today, one of the statements that was made by the Minister in this return says, “to date no auxiliary employees have been laid off pursuant to the collective agreement or the Public Service Act, but some have been notified that there will be no work for this season; however, they continue to have recall rights.”

Can the Minister tell us how someone who has been told that they will have no work this season is supposed to make a living and feed their family - but they have not been laid off?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: That is the dilemma one is in when employed by a government that is trying to downsize and trying not to raise taxes any higher than we have to raise them to create revenue and to be able to balance the books. No matter which way we choose to go, we receive criticism from the other side of the House. There has to be some displacement somewhere along the line and we are trying to keep it to a minimum.

Mrs. Firth: We are talking about people who work part time, who are probably some of the lower income earners in the Yukon. We are not talking about $70,000-a-year, salaried employees who have a desk and an office and a secretary and four palm trees in their office.

I want to ask the Minister if these people, who have been told that they are not laid off but that there is going to be no work for them this season, are able to collect unemployment insurance?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I presume if they qualify for it, they would be able to draw it.

Mrs. Firth: That is absolutely unacceptable. The Minister stands and tells us that somebody has to get hurt somewhere and he has no idea of how he is affecting these people’s lives, whether they can even feed their families. I am getting to my question, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister if he will look into this matter and if he will report back to the House tomorrow whether or not these people can get unemployment insurance and, if they are not able to, what he is going to do about this whole issue.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: Surely, the Member opposite knows that if the auxiliary people were laid off last season, because they were not hired this year will not disqualify them for unemployment insurance. That would not disqualify them for unemployment insurance. When we are talking about downsizing government - and the Member talks about it - the number of people on the bottom end of the scale who have been affected is very, very small. The area we are looking at is middle management, and we have taken major steps already to eliminate positions so that they would not be refilled. That is where the emphasis of this government is going - on the middle- to upper-income jobs.

Speaker: Time for Question Period has now elapsed. We will proceed to Orders of the Day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Bill No. 37: Second Reading

Clerk: Second reading, Bill No. 37, standing in the name of the Hon. Mr. Phelps.

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I move that Bill No. 37, entitled An Act to Repeal the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act, be now read a second time.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister of Justice that Bill No. 37, entitled An Act to Repeal the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act, be now read a second time.

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I would like to make a few remarks with respect to the principle of this bill and listen, with some interest, to any response from other Members in this place.

As most Members know, prior to 1992-93, the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act was funded under a 75/25 cost-sharing agreement. Under this agreement, the federal government contributed 75 percent of the program costs. The federal government withdrew their funding, effective March 31, 1992. Over the past three years of the program, costs have accelerated. Amendments were made to this act in the spring of 1992 to restructure the Compensation for Victims of Crime Board to operate more administratively. This did have a positive impact, in that the current board members handled more cases for less money.

To give some idea of the scope of the problem and the growth of expenditures under this act, in 1989-90, there were 15 cases handled and a total compensation award of $88,223; in 1990-91, there were 35 cases handled and a total compensation award of $202,397; in 1991-92, there were 44 cases handled and a total compensation award of $419,750. The following year, under the former board, in the first two months of that fiscal year, $138,655 was awarded in 219 cases.

As I have already said, the board was replaced, and the current board sat from November 1992, until the end of March 1993. They handled 60 cases during this period. The total for 1992-93 was $308,000.

Since November 1992, the new board has administered the program in a very diligent and frugal way. At this time, I would like to commend them for their hard work and efforts and their success at bringing down the costs somewhat. These improvements notwithstanding, the federal withdrawal has left the Yukon totally exposed to program costs that are estimated at being at least $320,000 this year. They could be more.

We want to repeal the existing act for two reasons: to respond to the expenditure issue brought about by the withdrawal of the federal government and to move the victim services program from financial compensation to a more service-oriented and community-based system.

Repealing the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act will not affect a victim’s ability to apply for, and the board’s ability to award, compensation for crimes that occur before the repeal comes into force. Applications, under the existing act, will be received up to the end of this calendar year. The remainder of this fiscal year will be used to wind down the program, as it currently exists. Accurate projections are not possible, but we anticipate expenditures of $210,000 for the fiscal year, a saving of $110,000 from previous estimates.

As Members know, last year we passed the Victim Services Act, and surcharges imposed on fine amounts are deposited into the victim services fund. Right now, there is almost $60,000 in trust. It is anticipated that additional potential revenue from surcharges on territorial fine offences will bring this amount to approximately $100,000. We intend to put enough money into the victim of crimes program to be looking at approximately $200,000 a year in future years.

We would like to integrate a new program with the Victim Services Act to offer comprehensive services to victims of crime in the Yukon. Such amalgamation will also provide project funding to community-based organizations to enable them to develop programs and services for victims. There has been an identified need for support to be given to victims in all Yukon communities. That was one of the clear messages that was delivered and now regained at the recent First Nations justice conference held in Burwash Landing.

Counselling and support services in the community will be the primary focus. The program will give priority to addressing the needs of victims of child abuse, sexual assault and family violence. Persons who have received personal injury, due to acts of crime, may receive limited compensation for direct costs such as loss of wages or medical expenses.

Consultation and development of regulations will occur over the balance of this year. Details of the new program remain to be worked out. We will be consulting with stakeholders on the following issues: direction over expenditure of additional Yukon funding, or the new program, which will be at least $200,000 a year; provision of information including written, oral and audiovisual, to victims on the rights and responsibilities of victims, available services, crime prevention, case project reports, the criminal justice system and its procedures and any related material on victims of crime; the design of direct service programs, which provide crisis response, personal support and follow-up assistance to victims; training and educational services, including conferences, workshops, forums, et cetera, for volunteers and community resource workers; other activities, which may be valid and reasonable in the provision of services to victims of crime, or professionals in the field of victim services. Priority for funding will be given to training, to sensitize community resource workers and caregivers as to the needs and concerns of victims.

The type of approach that we are embarking upon has already been taken by other jurisdictions such as Nova Scotia, the Northwest Territories and Saskatchewan, in an attempt to provide more comprehensive services to persons victimized by crime. I am advised that most jurisdictions have, as a result of the federal withdrawal, moved away from the old program that was funded and initiated by the federal government.

I personally believe that the kinds of services that we envisage ought to be of a higher priority to government. I think that simply awarding cash payments to victims of crime does not really adequately deal with the serious trauma that some victims experience.

It certainly does not adequately deal with the situation of people needing some assistance and counselling to get out of abusive situations. It is important that we put a stop to a program that is really out of control and is really not meeting the priority needs of victims of crime so that we will be able to focus on a more holistic approach to the problem of victims of crime and to try to ensure that there are some services available to victims in the small communities, where there is virtually none at this time, and where this is one aspect of an approach to healing that, in many communities, as I am sure all Members of this House are aware, is an urgent priority.

Ms. Joe: I would like to thank the Minister for providing me with the information on his plans on what would happen when this act was repealed.

He has mentioned the cost of the program in the last few years and it certainly has skyrocketed. When I was the Minister, of course I did have some concerns in regard to where the program was going, especially after the federal government chose to withdraw its funding - they did pay 75 percent of the cost.

In the past there was some suggestion by individuals involved that the program was being abused by applicants and that some of the awards were not as appropriate as they should be. I was looking at the possibility of making changes to the act - rather than repealing it, as the Minister is doing - in regard to further restrictions that would apply. In the past, people would apply for compensation and the criteria, as interpreted by individuals in the program, did not require even that a crime be reported.

So there was some question about whether or not that was fair. I think that in the past, surprisingly, more men were being given awards than women and that did not seem to add up, to my way of thinking.

I will be supporting the act, with reluctance. I did not want to completely get rid of the program, but I understand the rise in costs and the information that was given to me about where the Minister proposes to go from here in regard to enhancing the program under the Victim Services Act.

I do have a couple of questions that I would like to have him answer for me, possibly in Committee of the Whole, about some statements that were made in the news this week about funding going to the communities. Because of that comment that he made to the media, people in the communities will probably feel that there might be funding available this year, when in fact we will be accepting applications up until December 31.

The amount of money that is already in the budget may even be exceeded, so that funding will not be available to anyone out of the money budgeted for this year, because I am sure that there will be other people who will be applying for compensation. I understand that there are about 50 or 60 applications already, and in addition to that there will be some other people who will apply before December 31.

I would like to know more about the enhanced program that the Minister was talking about. I know that we have a few months to look at that, but sometime, as the plan proceeds to develop these new programs of counselling services and spreading the costs around to the communities in future, I would like to know how that is going to happen.

The other question that I have relates to the Victim Services Act that allowed a victim surcharge to be added to territorial offences. I am wondering why that has not come into force yet, and why, at this late date, nothing has been done about it. That could have added to the fund in existence right now by the amount of surcharge monies from Criminal Code offences.

I would like to know the reason why that did not take place.

I would just like to mention that, since the news to the public that this act was going to be repealed, I have received some calls from individuals who have a concern with regard to whether or not new programs will be as effective as the Minister hopes they will be, and some concern from individuals who have been able to use the awards to help them do many things - to seek counselling, to relocate - and whether or not it will be a detriment to some of those people who are applying for compensation.

I have one more question that I am hoping he will respond to in Committee of the Whole; it is in regard to compensation under the Victim Services Act for loss of wages and medical assistance and, possibly, money for relocation of individuals who may have to leave the territory to get away from an abusive situation. Who is going to make those decisions? Will they be made by a new board or by people within the department? I would like to know that.

I will have further questions in Committee of the Whole, and I will ask them at that time. I will say once again that I will support this with great reluctance.

Mr. Cable: I would just like to get on the record that I will be supporting the bill but, again, with some reluctance. I would like to explore in Committee what the Minister’s thinking is on the bill, why he apparently sees victim services as mutually exclusive of compensation, and I would like to have him delineate what he sees as the needs of the various victims and how they are going to be met by the regulatory compensation section under the Victim Services Act as opposed to the statutory compensation under the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act.

Mrs. Firth: I also want to get my position on the record with respect to this piece of legislation. I will be supporting the act to repeal the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act. I have some questions for the Minister, and I would like to get them on the record now so that he can either respond to them when he gives his final comments this afternoon or can be prepared in Committee of the Whole.

I understand that, according to the Victim Services Act, the fund is limited in amount but it can be used to pay financial compensation to victims of offences and that that can be prescribed by the Commissioner in Executive Council or the Cabinet. I would like to know if the Minister could give us an outline of what exactly the government is intending to do in that area - whether they have some kind of criteria set out already.

I am particularly interested also in the project funding to the community-based programs that the Minister has made reference to. I would like to know specifically who will be giving out that money and whether it will be the Minister or the Cabinet, what the process will be for accessing those funds, and I would like to know if I could have a copy of the criteria and the plan of that program this afternoon when we do the line-by-line debate on the bill.

I know the Minister has indicated in previous discussions that we are talking about an amount of money that is approximately $200,000. Perhaps he could also present us, this afternoon, with some preliminary budget figures his department has done regarding the project funding to the community-based programs. I will be looking forward to getting that information when we go into Committee.

Speaker: If the Minister of Justice now speaks, he will close debate. Does any other Member wish to be heard?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I will attempt to answer some of these questions in Committee of the Whole, when we get there. I would like to make it very clear that, first of all, the proposed new program is far from being finalized. There is going to have to be consultation with the stakeholders.

With respect to the comments I have made about trying to get victim services breathing in the smaller communities, the approach I envisage is, in consultation with some communities, a few at a time, to enter into contracts with them for program development in their community. It would be a situation where the community takes the lead. It will not be open-ended funding. We do not see huge amounts of money going into this, in any given community, at all. We do think there is a need to develop a program in conjunction with the healing centres, or whatever other organizations are interested in this particular area in the communities.

The kind of programming we would be looking at would be fairly fundamental. As I mentioned in my main speech, it would involve the provision of certain kinds of materials for education and, somehow or other, getting a handle on how the healing centre or community organization would respond to situations where there is obvious abuse, and that sort of thing. There is a preventive role and all kinds of things to explore.

I do not see all the communities wanting the same program, and I do not see them all coming at once to develop them. The idea is to develop these over time, maybe two or three communities at a time.

In essence, I would like to make it clear that I was not intending to make it sound as though this was going to be a very big, extensive program. It is going to be an attempt to redirect the funds that we are spending to enhance community healing and community-based initiatives in this vein, to enhance the literature and other teaching tools that we have for victims, and to enhance counselling.

Speaker: I believe the yeas have it. I declare the motion carried.

Motion for second reading of Bill No. 37 agreed to

Bill No. 76: Referred back to Committee of the Whole

Clerk: Third reading, Bill No. 76, standing in the name of the Hon. Mr. Phelps.

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I move that Bill No. 76, entitled An Act to Amend the Judicature Act, be not now read a third time, but be referred back to Committee of the Whole for the purpose of reconsidering subsection 35(1)(9), as found in Clause 4.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister of Justice that Bill No. 76, entitled An Act to Amend the Judicature Act, be not now read a third time, but be referred back to Committee of the Whole for the purpose of reconsidering subsection 35(1)(9), as found in Clause 4.

Motion to refer Bill No. 76 back to Committee of the Whole agreed to

Bill No. 56: Referred back to Committee of the Whole

Clerk: Third reading, Bill No. 56, standing in the name of the Hon. Mr. Ostashek.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I move that Bill No. 56, entitled Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act, be not now read a third time, but be referred back to Committee of the Whole for the purpose of reconsidering the amendment adding Clause 3.1.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Hon. Government Leader that Bill No. 56, entitled Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act, be not now read a third time, but be referred back to Committee of the Whole for the purpose of reconsidering the amendment adding Clause 3.1. Are you agreed?

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.

Some Hon. Members: Disagree.

Speaker: I believe the yeas have it.

Motion to refer Bill No. 56 back to Committee of the Whole agreed to

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

Speaker: It has been moved 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. Are you prepared to take a brief recess at this time?

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.

Chair: We will take a brief recess.

Recess

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

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

Chair: We are dealing with Bill No. 71, An Act to Amend the Jury Act.

On Clause 2 - previously stood over

Hon. Mr. Phelps: My recollection of the last time we were here dealing with this act is that we stood aside section 2, on page 1, and I want to move a motion in regard to that clause.

Amendment proposed

I move

THAT Bill No. 71, entitled An Act to Amend the Jury Act, be amended in clause 2 at page 1 as follows:

In the proposed section 9,

(a) in the English text, the expression “under the control of the Chief Electoral Officer or of any other public officer, or of an municipality, and the officer or municipality shall furnish” is substituted for the expression “under the control of the Chief Electoral Officer or any other public officer or of the municipality and the said officer shall furnish”.

(b) in the French text, the expression «Le fonctionnaire ou la municipalité fournit» is substituted for the expression «Le fonctionnaire fournit».

Chair: The amendment reads

THAT Bill No. 71, entitled An Act to Amend the Jury Act, be amended in clause 2 at page 1 as follows:

In the proposed section 9,

(a) in the English test, the expression “under the control of the Chief Electoral Officer or of any other public officer, or of a municipality, and the officer or municipality shall furnish” is substituted for the expression “under the control of the Chief Electoral Officer or any other public officer or of the municipality and the said officer shall furnish”; and

(b) in the French text, the expression «Le fonctionnaire ou la municipalité fournit» is substituted for the expression “Le fonctionnaire fournit”.

The amendment is moved by the Hon. Willard Phelps.

Hon. Mr. Phelps: By way of explanation, there was some confusion over the original wording in the section and essentially this just cleans up that wording, which got that way when we amended the Jury Act a year or so ago.

Chair: Is there any further debate on the amendment?

Amendment agreed to

Clause 2 agreed to as amended

On Title

Title agreed to

Hon. Mr. Phelps: Mr. Chair, I move that you report Bill No. 71, entitled An Act to Amend the Jury Act, out of Committee with amendment.

Motion agreed to

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

On Clause 4 - revisited

Amendment proposed

Hon. Mr. Phelps: This was originally moved out of Committee and then moved back this afternoon, in third reading, and I want to move

THAT Bill No. 76, entitled An Act to Amend the Judicature Act, be amended in clause 4 at page 2 by repealing subsection 35.1(9) in the said clause and substituting the following subsection 35.1(9) therefor:

“(9) This section comes into force on the date that sections 11 to 14 of the Interest Act (Canada) cease to have effect in the Yukon Territory.”

And, in French, le même chose.

Chair: The amendment reads as follows:

THAT Bill No. 76, entitled An Act to Amend the Judicature Act be amended in clause 4, at page 2 by repealing subsection 35.1(9) in the said clause and substituting the following subsection 35.1(9) therefor:

“(9) This section comes into force on the date that sections 11 to 14 of the Interest Act (Canada) cease to have effect in the Yukon Territory.”

Hon. Mr. Phelps: This amendment is replacing the word “act” with the word “section”.

Chair: Is there further debate on the amendment?

Amendment agreed to

On Title

Title agreed to

Hon. Mr. Phelps: Mr. Chair, I move that you report Bill No. 76, An Act to Amend the Judicature Act, out of Committee with amendment.

Motion agreed to

Bill No. 37 - An Act to Repeal the Victims of Crime Act

Chair: We will move on to Bill No. 37, An Act to Repeal the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act.

On Clause 1

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I had a few comments to make in response to some of the issues that arose in second reading. With respect to the fine surcharge in place on territorial fines, I was asked about the progress on getting that in place. It has been slowed down at the administrative stage, because the act has been in force. They are going through the changing of the wording on the backs of tickets, and such, and meeting with the various departments that have these various forms, to add the wording on the back. They think they are almost completed, but I, like the Member opposite, am rather surprised that it has taken so long to do.

Chair: Is there further debate?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: There is one other question that was raised that I may not have answered adequately in second reading, by the same Member for Whitehorse Centre. For the most part, we see this being handled administratively to keep the costs down. We would see money being made available to pay for victims directly to move out of a violent situation, and that sort of thing.

With respect to whether there might be certain extraordinary offences where there might be some compensation paid directly to the victim, there may be. We have not resolved whether there would be that category under the new act. We will be interested in hearing from all parties on that, including the Member.

Ms. Joe: I just wanted to mention something that I did not mention in second reading. It is the responsibility of the new committee that has been appointed. I forgot to mention that they did do a really good job. I felt that there had to be some kind of committee in place that would understand a lot of the situations and people involved. I would like to pass on to them that I appreciate their diligence, knowledge and responsible reasoning in making the awards they did. They did a fine job.

The other question I have is in regard to further applications from those people who have applied - the 50 or 60 - and the people who will apply until then. Will this committee be hearing those cases until then?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: Our intention is that the winding down of the act that is being repealed, the hearing of all the applications to date and the ones for crimes to date that can be filed between now and the calendar year-end will be heard by the same committee. I echo the Member’s comments; they have certainly done a good job. It is a tough task.

Ms. Joe: Will they possibly be carrying cases up until the end of the fiscal year, as a result of applications being made until December 31?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: That is right. I would suspect that they will be hearing cases right through until March 1994. There could be late filings around Christmas.

Mr. Cable: I would like to be comfortable in my mind with the withdrawal of the previous act and what appears to be a substitution of regulatory financial compensation. Could the Minister outline what he saw specifically as the problems with the act that we are now about to repeal? Were there any specific problems that he could identify?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I guess the first issue is whether or not it is a priority to funnel money to victims, as opposed to other needs that I would place as a much higher priority. That is the first issue.

What we need is more focus on dealing with traumatized victims, such as follow-up and counselling and that is best done by providing those kinds of services and following up, not by just giving people money.

We see a very real need in dealing with victims who really need to be moved out of certain living conditions where they continue to be victimized.

Again, simply giving money to people in that situation and saying that we hope you use this money to move, often does not work. Quite often, the money ends up going to the criminal, which I do not think anyone intends when an award has been made to the victim. Often that is the case, because there are husbands and wives in commonlaw situations and guess who spends the money? Those are the high priorities in my mind.

The other thing is that there has to be a lot more done for victims so that they can appreciate and understand their rights and what they are expected to do, and that society does recognize them as victims.

I think that recognition does not have to take the form of money. Recognition can be accomplished by better services from all of the players, including the RCMP, and that was acknowledged in the recent conference sponsored by the RCMP at Yukon College. It is obvious that there is a need for more sensitivity by not only the RCMP - not to single them out - but all players in the court system.

There is a need for more information to be disseminated to victims about their rights, responsibilities and what is expected of them. I am sure that some of this money could go into teaching materials such as audio/visual presentation in libraries.

Finally, there is a very real concern in small communities where virtually nothing is done for victims - which is acknowledged by most people who are keenly interested in community justice - and programming and materials are needed to be developed and brought there.

No doubt some of the compensation that was paid in the past was probably good, but there are a lot of cases where I have a hard time really seeing it as being the right way for government to respond to a situation where you have severely traumatized victims of rape, sexual abuse or situations where it is clear that the person needs to be removed from the environment.

Nothing else will really serve to resolve the problem, which often is a continuing problem.

Mr. Cable: The Minister leaves the impression that he sees that victim services and compensation are mutually exclusive. Is this where the Minister is coming from? If so, is this a philosophical or a financial problem, as he sees it?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I am not coming from the position that they are mutually exclusive. It just seems to me that there are priorities that are higher than financial compensation. That is the bare-bones position. Sure, scarce resources are a big issue and the open-endedness of the current act that we are repealing here is rather frightening. It is obvious that the cases of applications could grow in leaps and bounds from here on in. It is quite apparent that is just catching on and the costs could just skyrocket, which would mean that we would not have resources to deal with the more important priorities, which, as I have already said, are counselling, trying to remove people out of abusive situations, education and some programming in the communities.

Mr. Cable: I think everybody in this House agrees with the Minister that the victim service aspect of it is perhaps more important than the financial compensation aspect. Is the compensation problem a financial problem not rectifiable by a change in the statute, a tightening of the rules?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: With respect, I do not believe so. I feel that the Victim Services Act will allow for some compensation in exceptional circumstances. I think that our focus, with scarce resources, has to be what the best services are for victims.

Mr. Cable: One of the areas that I like in relation to compensation is where the criminal, say, is toted off to jail and the victim - who is perhaps rendered incapable of working - can look to this compensation fund as perhaps an unsatisfied judgment fund, or something with that flavour, rather than going on social services. Where does the Minister intend to go with this regulatory financial compensation that is referred to at section 2(2) of the Victim Services Act? What does he propose to do with that power?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: We do not have any firm direction in mind at this point in time. We intend to spend some time consulting with the stakeholders and coming forward with a package as the existing program winds down. Those are issues that are still open, in terms of where we are going to go.

Mr. Cable: I have just one last question. Who does the Minister see as the stakeholders?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: There is a broad array of people who have a stake in these issues, but we will certainly be talking to the people who work in the shelters; we will be talking to the police, health and social services workers, and those community groups that take an interest in crime prevention and rights of victims. Clearly, in the smaller communities, the people who are running the healing centres have a very keen interest in seeing some programming for victims. So, it is a broad array of people.

Clause 1 agreed to

On Clause 2

Clause 2 agreed to

On Title

Title agreed to

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I move that Bill No. 37, entitled An Act to Repeal the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act, be moved out of Committee without amendment.

Motion agreed to

Bill No. 56 - Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act - revisited

Chair: Is there any debate on Bill No. 56, entitled Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act?

Amendment proposed

Ms. Moorcroft: I move

THAT Bill No. 56, entitled Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act, be amended after clause 3 at page 1 by rescinding the amendment adding the new clause 3.1.

By agreement of House Leaders in our caucuses, this amendment is being withdrawn.

Chair: It has been moved that Bill No. 56, entitled Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act, be amended after clause 3 at page 1 by rescinding the amendment adding the new clause 3.1.

Amendment agreed to

On Title

Title agreed to

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: Mr. Chair, I move that you report Bill No. 56 with amendment.

Motion agreed to

Bill No. 62 - An Act to Amend the Yukon Development Corporation Act - continued

Chair: Is there any debate on Bill No. 62, entitled An Act to Amend the Yukon Development Corporation Act?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: When we adjourned debate we were still on general debate as I recall and the issue had to do with further consultations with CYI. I have gone back and engaged in further consultation with CYI. I received, today, a letter from Judy Gingell, which expresses concern about section 2 of Bill No. 62. I have had discussions with her legal council, Mr. Dave Joe. I just met with him at the break. I showed him the proposed amendment to section 2, which would leave the mandate as it was in the act, but change the wording of the old section 4(c) and he approved that change.

I would also advise that when I went back for consultation on May 19, we faxed over to CYI the proposed amendments that had been brought to me by the Member for Riverdale South and by the Member for Riverside.

We had a look at those, as well. They will be satisfied if we amend clause 2, which amends section 4 of the old act, as I have just described.

On Clause 1

Clause 1 agreed to

On Clause 2

Amendment proposed

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I move

THAT Bill No. 62, entitled An Act to Amend the Yukon Development Corporation Act, be amended in clause 2 at page 1 of the said bill by substituting the following clause for the said clause 2:

“2. Paragraph 4(c) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

“(c) to assure a continuing and adequate supply of energy in the Yukon in a manner consistent with sustainable development, and”.

In French, le même chose.

Chair: The amendment reads

THAT Bill No. 62, entitled An Act to Amend the Yukon Development Corporation Act, be amended in clause 2 at page 1 of the said bill by substituting the following clause for the said clause 2:

“2. Paragraph 4(c) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

“(c) to assure a continuing and adequate supply of energy in the Yukon in a manner consistent with sustainable development, and”.

Amendment agreed to

Clause 2 agreed to as amended

On Clause 3

Clause 3 agreed to

On Clause 4

Amendment proposed

Mr. Cable: I would like to propose an amendment to clause 4. It relates to the Deputy Minister of Economic Development sitting on the board ex officio. I believe this amendment has the approval of the Members of the House. I do not intend to belabour the point.

I move

THAT Bill No. 62, entitled An Act to Amend the Yukon Development Corporation Act, be amended in clause 4 at page 2 by deleting in (2) the words “The Deputy Minister of Economic Development and”.

Chair: It has been moved by the Hon. Mr. Cable

THAT Bill No. 62, entitled An Act to Amend the Yukon Development Corporation Act, be amended in clause 4 at page 2 by deleting in (2) the words “The Deputy Minister of Economic Development and”.

Amendment agreed to

Clause 4 agreed to as amended

On Clause 5

Amendment proposed

Mrs. Firth: I was handing the amendments to the Page. I am sorry to be late getting to my feet.

I have discussed this amendment with the government Members and they have agreed to accept it. I have also given notice of it to Opposition Members. I move

THAT Bill No. 62, entitled An Act to Amend the Yukon Development Corporation Act, be amended in clause 5 at page 2 by deleting the expression “The President of the corporation shall be” and substituting for it the expression “The board of directors shall select”.

Chair: It has been moved by Mrs. Firth, Member for Riverdale South,

THAT Bill No. 62, entitled An Act to Amend the Yukon Development Corporation Act, be amended in clause 5 at page 2 by deleting the expression “The President of the corporation shall be” and substituting for it the expression “The board of directors shall select”.

Mr. Penikett: On a point of order, I would just like to call attention to the presence in the gallery of representatives of the third order of government, Mr. David Joe and Mr. Victor Mitander.

Amendment agreed to

Clause 5 agreed to as amended

On Clause 6

Mrs. Firth: I have another amendment to propose at clause 6, which I have also given notice of to the government and received agreement with, as well as giving notice to the Opposition Members.

Amendment proposed

I move

THAT Bill No. 62, entitled An Act to Amend the Yukon Development Corporation Act, be amended in clause 6 at page 2 by inserting the following words at the beginning of “10":

“On the recommendation of the members of the Board, and subject to the certification by the Public Service Commission,”.

Chair:  It has been moved by the Member for Riverdale South

THAT Bill No. 62, entitled An Act to Amend the Yukon Development Corporation Act, be amended in clause 6 at page 2 by inserting the following words at the beginning of “10":

“On the recommendation of the members of the Board, and subject to the certification by the Public Service Commission, ”.

Amendment agreed to

Clause 6 agreed to as amended

On Clause 7

Clause 7 agreed to

On Clause 8

Clause 8 agreed to

On Clause 9

Clause 9 agreed to

On Title

Title agreed to

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I move that you report Bill No. 62, entitled An Act to Amend the Yukon Development Corporation Act, out of Committee with amendment.

Motion agreed to

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

Chair: We will continue with general debate of the capital estimates in Government Services, Bill No. 6, entitled First Appropriation Act, 1993-94.

Department of Government Services - continued

On Capital Expenditures

On Corporate Services

Mr. McDonald: I would ask that you give us 60 seconds to move from the other bills to the main estimates, so that we can collect our thoughts so that we do not pass $20 million before we blink.

If the other Members are ready, Members of the Official Opposition are; it looks like the Liberal Party is also ready.

Chair: Are we ready to go line by line, or is there any general debate?

Ms. Moorcroft: I have just quickly been looking through the legislative returns that came today and I did not see a copy of the property management policy relating to government contracts and government tendering in construction. Did the Minister provide that?

Hon. Mr. Devries: I did not. I am not certain if we have that with us or whether we were going to deliver it to the Member’s office.

I have just been informed that it will be over later this afternoon or tomorrow morning.

Ms. Moorcroft: I did want to ask some questions related to that policy that I cannot really proceed with without seeing it, and also how it relates to the hospital construction. I am not sure if they were able to work on that portion of the return as well.

Hon. Mr. Devries: Perhaps we could stand that line over for a few moments and we will see if we can get somebody to rush something down.

Ms. Moorcroft: Thank you, I would appreciate it if the Minister could do that.

Chair: We will stand over general debate on Corporate Services and go on with line by line.

On Business Incentive Policy

Ms. Moorcroft: Is this increase in the Business Incentive Policy line related to the government’s initiative to now extend the business incentive policy to all government contracts?

Hon. Mr. Devries: It is a combination. Some of the guidelines have been improved to where more people are taking advantage of the business incentive policy. It used to be a very cumbersome process. Many contractors thought that it did not seem to be worth the trouble. We have streamlined this considerably. There are more contractors utilizing it. This is the main reason for the increase.

Ms. Moorcroft: How did the department streamline the business incentive policy program?

Hon. Mr. Devries: It used to be very cumbersome with a lot of paperwork and record keeping, et cetera. It has been streamlined considerably. We still get the same information in a much more streamlined process. This has increased the uptake. It used to be a very detailed submission that had to be produced. It is much easier now. We have been working with industry on changing this policy. Everyone is very happy with it.

Ms. Moorcroft: The Minister said that he is working with industry. Yesterday as well, he was talking about how the department does regularly meet with the Yukon Contractors Association. Are there any representatives of the labour movement, or the construction unions in those conversations?

Hon. Mr. Devries: Yes, the Employee Benefits Working Group is included in that. Also in the business incentive review policy, the Building Trades Council is involved with that.

Business Incentive Policy in the amount of $250,000 agreed to

On Office Facilities and Equipment

Office Facilities and Equipment in the amount of $5,000 agreed to

Corporate Services stood over

On Information Services

Chair: Is there any general debate?

Ms. Moorcroft: Could the Minister outline this for us? Is the decrease due to the devolution of information resources infrastructure to departments?

Hon. Mr. Devries: It is a reduction in several areas, and I will give the subcomponents. It is an overall reduction: central facilities, $668,000; YTG communications, $59,000; corporate data administration, $215,000; corporate system development, $100,000; research and special equipment, $64,000; records services, at $15,000; and departmental impacts at $186,000.

On Information Resources Infrastructure

Information Resources Infrastructure in the amount of $1,308,000 agreed to

On Supply Services

Chair: Is there any general debate?

On Queen’s Printer Equipment

Queen’s Printer Equipment in the amount of $37,000 agreed to

On Central Stores

Central Stores in the amount of $1.00 agreed to

On Transportation, Motor Vehicles

Transportation, Motor Vehicles in the amount of $1.00 agreed to

Supply Services in the amount of $37,000 agreed to

On Property Management

Chair: Is there any general debate?

On Capital Maintenance and Upgrade

Ms. Moorcroft: Can the Minister explain the reduction in this item?

Hon. Mr. Devries: This is mainly the area where we have priorized ongoing projects. The reduction is due to the fiscal restraint. There are several areas that the Member is aware of where things have been priorized. If she wants more detail, I can get into it.

This year we will definitely be doing the sprinkler systems testing and repair, fire alarm testing and repair, insulation upgrades, selective siding repairs at various locations, mechanical systems controls replacement and upgrade, furnace and boiler cleaning, replacement and upgrade, replacing doors and windows territory-wide, foundation stabilization, reroofing, inspection, replacement and repair, reflooring and repainting. Again, many of those will be priorized to a certain extent, as will the handicapped access, about which I know the Members are very concerned.

Ms. Moorcroft: Could the Minister then explain to me the difference between insulation upgrade, new doors and windows, and reroofing in the Capital Maintenance and Upgrade line, and the kinds of projects that come under the next line, Energy Conservation Retrofits?

Hon. Mr. Devries: The energy conservation projects are exclusively based upon energy audits, whereas the others are all general, routine upgrades.

Mr. Cable: Do the retrofits refer to government buildings, or to third-party buildings?

Hon. Mr. Devries: It would be exclusively government buildings.

Mr. Cable: Do these retrofits have a payback? Does the government anticipate the money invested yielding a return?

Hon. Mr. Devries: Yes. As I mentioned yesterday, the priority would be given to the buildings that are on diesel-generated power sources.

Mr. Cable: If there is a return on this sort of investment, why has the amount expended been reduced so markedly?

Hon. Mr. Devries: It is fiscal restraint we are faced with this year. As the various departments reorganize, we hope we can pick some of this up next year.

Capital Maintenance and Upgrade in the amount of $250,000 agreed to

On Energy Conservation Retrofits

Energy Conservation Retrofits in the amount of $25,000 agreed to

On Building Development Overhead

Building Development Overhead in the amount of $1,301,000 agreed to

On Common Facilities

Common Facilities in the amount of $100,000 agreed to

On Property Management Equipment

Property Management Equipment in the amount of $15,000 agreed to

On Prior Years’ Projects

Prior Years’ Projects in the amount of nil agreed to

Property Management in the amount of $1,691,000 agreed to

Chair: Ms. Moorcroft, do you need some time to read the document?

Ms. Moorcroft: Yes, Mr. Chair. I was just going to request that we set this aside until after the next department is cleared, then return to it.

Chair: Capital Expenditures is stood over for Government Services, as well as the department total.

Government Services stood over

Chair: We will move on to Justice.

Would Members like a recess at this time?

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.

Chair: We will take a brief recess.

Recess

Department of Justice

Chair: I will call Committee of the Whole to order. We are discussing vote 8. Is there any general debate on the Department of Justice?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I am pleased to present the Department of Justice combined estimates for operation and maintenance and captial expenditures for the 1993-94 fiscal year.

The Department of Justice plays an important role in the lives of Yukoners. Its broad responsibilities are to administer justice and to ensure protection of the public interest. Through the fulfillment of this important role, Yukoners are free to exercise their legal rights and obligations so that they can invest in the economic and social development of the territory.

The 1993-94 budget for the department reflects this government’s commitment to a responsive, fair and accessible justice system. To that end, the department’s operations and maintenance estimates for the coming year total $29,528,000; the capital estimates are $2,825,000.

These estimates represent the government’s ongoing assurance that it will continue to promote access to justice for all Yukoners while delivering quality services that balance demand with available resources.

Some of these services and programs include the administration, victim impact statements, maintenance enforcement, victim/witness assistance and compensation for victims of crime.

Other services encompass such areas as legal services, labour services, consumer services, corporate affairs and boards of inquiry, correctional services, native courtworkers, crime prevention program, legal aid, family violence protection unit and the Human Rights Commission.

In addition, the department has the ongoing responsibility to manage the 20-year RCMP police services contract.

In the 1993-94 fiscal year, we will be improving some existing initiatives and carrying out some new ones, ensuring that they reflect the priority of Yukoners and are properly managed.

This government is committed to a justice system that encourages active community participation and the delivery of justice programs and services. I am confident that this philosophy will have two important effects: the establishment of more meaningful partnerships among stakeholders and a better sense of what kind of justice system meets the needs and aspirations of all Yukoners.

To those ends, the department has allocated $403,000 for community-based programs and services. They are designed to improve and promote cross-cultural understanding, while increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of the justice system. Some of the programs and services that will contribute to this goal include community justice workers in six First Nations communities, for a total of $90,000, and the community tribal justice officer for the Teslin Tlingit Council, at a cost of $45,000.

The Kwanlin Dun crime prevention worker will continue to be funded for a total of $30,000. This position is part of our commitment to build safer communities through increased public awareness and alternate community justice initiatives.

Recently, at a special Kwanlin Dun First Nations dinner, I was honoured to accept a plaque recognizing the important community justice partnership between the Department of Justice and the Kwanlin Dun First Nation.

The healing and treatment programs at the Whitehorse Correctional Centre will continue to be funded. It is no secret that at any one time 60 to 80 percent of our corrections population in Yukon is made up of aboriginal people. That means we support programs delivered by CYI that are intended to reduce repeat offending.

To that end, $56,000 has been allocated for half of the 1993-94 fiscal year to provide a range of First Nations programming. This includes spiritual teachings and ceremonies, community support, traditional medicine and cultural values. Group and individual counselling on such issues as mission school syndrome may also be included, depending on the needs of the First Nation offenders.

In continuing to encourage community participation to help heal offenders through the implementation of culturally relevant programming, we are continuing with plans to build a 25-bed minimum security correctional centre in Teslin. This facility will cost $2,812,000. It is also important to note that it will generate new jobs and training for some Teslin residents, a reflection of this government’s commitment to provide Yukoners with the first opportunity for employment and advancement within the public service.

In the 1993-94 fiscal year, $15,000 has been allotted within the RCMP policing service budget to fund the territorial First Nations policing committee. This committee has been struck to examine the federal government’s First Nation policing policy and to produce a discussion paper as to how this policy affects both the Yukon government and Yukon First Nations. As part of its mandate, the committee will soon be conducting a series of community meetings.

It is a sad fact that the physical harm and mental anguish caused by crime takes a terrible toll. In view of this, the department has fully implemented the victim impact statement program for the coming fiscal year, at a cost of $64,000. The victim services officer helps victims of crime prepare victim impact statements and assists these victims through the court process.

In the past, boards of inquiry have been given a $1.00 vote. These boards primarily refer to medical inquiry boards, which investigate complaints about physicians, and the Public Utilities Board, which regulates the cost of public utilities in the Yukon. In the 1993-94 fiscal year, $300,000 has been allotted for these activities.

The government makes excellent use of its own lawyers, but there are times when demand exceeds available resources, or specific expertise is required. In these cases, the Department of Justice turns to the legal community for assistance. In the past, $1.00 has been budgeted for outside legal counsel, in spite of continuing expenditures. In the coming fiscal year, $600,000 has been allotted for this activity.

The department has a longstanding responsibility to protect the legal rights of Yukoners. Therefore, funding for the Legal Services Society, which administers legal aid, will receive $990,000. This figure will maintain present service levels.

Delivery of occupational health and mine safety programs is now the responsibility of the new Workers’ Occupational Health and Safety Board, through a contribution agreement with the Department of Justice in the amount of $329,000.

Since 1991, all new Yukon legislation must be available in both of Canada’s two official languages. This year, $729,000 has been provided for the drafting of French language legislation. This amount also includes the French language publication of all pre-1991 Yukon legislation by January, 1994. The costs are 100 percent recoverable from the federal government.

In closing, I believe the services and programs outlined in this budget have been closely examined, carefully chosen and will be prudently administered. In keeping with this government’s policy of ensuring responsible fiscal management, we are confident they will enhance our justice system by helping to build better and safer communities for all Yukoners.

Ms. Joe: I thank the Minister for the information he provided to me prior to us dealing with this budget. It was information I had asked for during the supplementary budget but would also apply to what is happening in the budget for this fiscal year.

I do have a couple of questions - not a whole lot but I do have some. In a response from the Minister about justice-of-the-peace training, he indicated that there was ongoing training with regard to JPs who would be qualified to sit on the bench, and I am quite aware that there has been training in existence. The question I was asking the Minister was in regard to whether training was forthcoming for newly appointed JPs, to allow them to sit on the bench. I speak specifically of the aboriginal people who have been appointed as JPs and the francophones, because I know we do not have a lot of sitting JPs who are aboriginal people. That is one of the things that is lacking in the system, and the very same applies to the question I was asking him about women and First Nations people in the courts in Whitehorse. I know we do have JPs appointed but they are not sitting on the bench, and it is very important that we do have those people sitting on the bench. There just is a lack of it and I am wondering whether or not there will be training for those newly appointed aboriginal justice people, and also if he will look at the possibility of more women and First Nations people in the courts in Whitehorse. They may be appointed for one level but a level that does not allow them to sit on the bench, and I think it is really important that we look at that aspect.

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I thank the Member for her comments and I agree wholeheartedly with her.

We have appointed a good number of JPs over the past seven months and we intend to continue in that vein. There has been fairly intensive training provided for these JPs.

I believe that I looked at a return or a briefing note recently, and something like 60 percent of the JPs are aboriginal and there is a good percentage of female JPs now appointed.

The issue with respect to training is that they want to move them along through the training levels as quickly as possible; however, I understand it is the Chief Judge’s feeling - and this is shared by Mr. Cameron, the head JP - that it takes a certain amount of practical experience in sitting on the bench, sometimes with a senior JP before they feel comfortable to handle the higher level work on their own.

There is a commitment to move as quickly as they feel is practicable and there is a desire to see JPs take on more and more of the community-based justice system initiatives, such as circling sentencing.

I am quite pleased with the progress that they are making. Certainly, the training and quality of many of the JPs is far better than it was when I used to practice 15 or 20 years ago, and I think that many of the JPs are ideally suited to grow into the role of being the person who presides over - particularly circle sentencing, but also the other activities that JPs have been doing for some time in the traditional course of their duties.

Ms. Joe: I have another question about the minimum wage, and the Minister has indicated in his legislative return that there has not been any move to look at the possibility of increasing the minimum wage. I understand that if the Employment Standards Board came to them with a recommendation, they would carefully consider that recommendation.

I would like to say that the minimum wage may be one of the highest in Canada, but it is still not high enough to help support some of those young, single mothers who have to live within that wage rate. It is very difficult to live within that range.

I do know for a fact that some single parents, making a minimum wage, have to go to Health and Social Services to apply for subsidies for day care, housing and many other things, because it is just not possible for them to live from month to month or week to week on the wage that they are making.

I would like to ask the Minister whether or not he has given any direction to the Employment Standards Board to look at the possibility of increasing that minimum wage. I would also like to ask him, while I am still standing, if there have been any new appointments to the board.

Hon. Mr. Phelps: There have been new appointments to the board. I will have to bring that back to the Member. They were based on recommendations made by people on the board. They were done some time ago. I will get that information for the Member. I do not have a briefing on it.

With respect to the issue of minimum wage, we are acutely aware of the problem of the working poor. We mentioned this when we debated the other department in this House.

There is no question that one of the reasons for the high level of growth in social assistance program money requirements is due to the working-poor issue. I think that the Employment Standards Board, in reviewing this issue, has to be cognizant of those facts, as I am sure they are. They also have to be relatively careful not to do something that might result in a reduction of job availability for people. It is a tough issue.

I will answer the rest of the question a little later.

Ms. Joe: I want to comment on the information I received regarding the collection of wages that were owed. I received the information from the Minister indicating how much money has not been collected. There is a total of $34,000 for this fiscal year to date. If we are looking at an increase in wages that the branch, program or department has not been able to collect, are we looking at an increase over what it was last year?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: While we are looking that up, the chair of the Employment Standards Board is Glenis Allen.

Perhaps I could ask the Member to repeat her question. I have the answer here but I am not sure what form it is supposed to take.

Ms. Joe: It is in regard to wages owed by companies to people who have applied to collect them through the department. We have a total here of $34,000 so far this fiscal year, and I am wondering whether or not we are looking at a possible increase of wages uncollected this year, and how this compares with last year at this time.

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I will have to bring that back. This information does not show that.

Ms. Joe: In regard to Glenis Allen as the chairperson - she was recommended to us while we were in government and what would normally happen, at least when I was the Minister and probably the Minister before me, is that we would look for a mutual agreement between the labour groups and the Chamber of Commerce, and I just wondered if that was done in this case.

Hon. Mr. Phelps: There were some enquiries made. The appointment took place some time ago - about four months ago - and it had just slipped my mind as to who it was. There has been no negative feedback whatsoever about that appointment.

Ms. Joe: I do know Glenis, and I agree that it is probably a good appointment.

I have a question in regard to information that I got back from the Minister on the aboriginal justice program. The funding that was available, - at least last year and hopefully this year - was in the area of $92,000. There is a listing of all of the programs that were funded from that $92,000. I was just looking at them and I thought that some of the groups that were listed had had money given to them for aboriginal justice that had previously been taken out of other sources, other than the money that was set aside for aboriginal justice. I would like to ask the Minister if that is the case?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: Once again, I will bring that back to the Member.

Ms. Joe: I made a commitment to get through with this budget, with the help of all the people on this side of the House, sometime today. I hope that we can do that. If he is not able to get it, I would appreciate having it shortly, within the week.

I asked about the aboriginal justice coordinator’s position. When I did, the Minister did not appear to be knowledgeable about it not being renewed. It was a term position and the information that I received is that the term just ran out. I would like to ask the Minister whether or not he feels that it is a valuable position. If he feels it is, why was it not renewed?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: That decision was made, when it ran out, on the basis of information that I received from the previous deputy minister. I was advised at that time by the department that that was something that we would have to reconsider with respect to where we were putting our money.

Ms. Joe: I do not mind saying it here, but there was a lot of unhappiness from the former deputy minister about what this person was trying to do, an attitude I did not support, as the Minister. I would certainly hope that it would be reconsidered. I think that it is very important. Although the department is doing a lot to try to improve the system in regard to aboriginal people, I would hope that there would be a specific person in the department who would accommodate that need.

One of the things the Minister mentioned is that new things had been created in aboriginal justice and one of those was the aboriginal justice coordinator in Teslin. I would like to know if that is the same position that Matthew Thom has.

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I believe it is.

Ms. Joe: So then it is not something new that has been created as listed in this legislative return.

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I will have to check it out.

Ms. Joe: I have another question about crime prevention. During the election - and I know that the Member is not a Member of the Yukon Party, although he is a part of the happy coalition and, as the Minister of that government, should try to carry out the election promises of the Yukon Party - one of the things the Yukon Party was promoting was crime prevention, as we all do. I seem to have read somewhere, whether it was in the budget speech or somewhere else, that the crime prevention program was going to be cut and I looked for it in the budget and I cannot find it. I do know that I read it somewhere and I want to ask the Member if it has been cut and if so, why has it been cut when the Yukon Party was promising to do something about crime prevention. What other way are they going to look at crime prevention when they cut the budget, if they have?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: We see the whole issue of crime prevention in a holistic way, I guess, rather than just some education in schools, and that sort of thing. The direction this government is taking is on all fronts, and certainly the initiatives we are taking in the smaller and aboriginal communities and circle courts, and so on, are all directed at the reduction of crime.

With respect to younger people, it is our intention to develop policies and programs, and enhance those programs for kids at risk. We are looking at the concept of such things as youth centres, and things for kids to do in the communities. In Whitehorse, we are concerned about the lack of any kind of a teen centre. There was one when I was kid here - the town is much bigger and now there is nothing.

There is very little for kids at risk, so we will be focusing on those areas. In addition, in working with the RCMP we are going to be looking at such things as a possibility fairly soon of a store-front detachment office in the downtown area - somewhere close to the shopping mall, we hope.

Hon. Mr. Phelps: That is a concept that has been used in other jurisdictions in Canada. We want to follow through on that and certainly we want to see many of the First Nations police officers spending the time on crime prevention as was the original intention. That is something that has not been done in recent years, so there will be more of a focus in the RCMP.

We have just appointed Constable Dave Buchan from Carcross to the Health and Social Services Board to try and help us coordinate doing things with youth at risk. He was the prime mover behind the youth centre in Carcross that was up and running so quickly.

I have also had several conversations with the chief superintendent about moving in this direction. The other community right now that seems most concerned about getting something going for kids is Old Crow.

We are working with Old Crow leaders at this time about this issue and we are also trying to see what role the RCMP can play.

I am hoping that some of my officials will be able to travel to Old Crow fairly soon to discuss some of those issues with community leaders there. I just signed a letter to Old Crow on that score.

Ms. Joe: I have only a couple of questions left, and I thank the Minister for that information that he provided to me. I would like to ask the Minister if he would commit, from time to time, to providing me with a report on what is happening. As well as being a critic, I am very interested in the kind of progress that we are looking at and I think that it would be very helpful to me.

I also asked if there had been any organizational changes in the department, and we only have the one organizational chart for the whole government. The Minister mentioned that the community programs unit has been moved from the policy, planning and communications branch to the corrections branch. I would like to know, when we get into that, if the government will let me know where that has been included in the corrections branch; I guess that might be under solicitor general.

I would like to make a comment, because I think that we are looking at an amendment in this budget for the compensation for victims of crime in the amount of $100,000. If we are, I would suspect that the pending 50 to 60 applications for compensation for victims of crime - there will probably be a lot of people applying, knowing that the funding is going to be cut prior to December 31. There are going to be a lot of extra people applying, so this budget of $210,000 may well go into $310,000 or possibly more.

How does he think that we are going to be able to live within $210,000, if he takes away the $100,000? He may very well be coming back to the House with a supplementary of $200,000.

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I take the Member’s point. What happened last year was that there was, I think, $139,000 used up early in the year. The new committee came in November and dealt with about 60 cases. The balance was the difference between $320,000 and $136,000, which is less than $200,000. It is more or less based on that projection.

The Member is quite right. It is going to depend largely on how many more people take it down. We do run the risk of an overexpenditure by the time it finally gets wound down. However, we hope that our experience with the new board will prove to be reasonably accurate.

Ms. Joe: At least for me, there are a lot of new things happening in the aboriginal justice programs. I would like to know if the Member could, from time to time, as he makes these decisions to open up or enhance new programs, send me a report. I would appreciate that. We will not be sitting again until the fall, and lots of good things might happen before then. I would appreciate having that kind of information.

Hon. Mr. Phelps: Certainly. I think I have mentioned, during supplementary debate, that I, as Minister, am just getting into the Justice field. Most of my time was preoccupied with trying to get processes in place to deal with the out of control costs in the other department.

We hope that we will be able to get moving fairly rapidly, gaining momentum over the summer months. As I have already said, the primary focus will involve various groups and will be an interdepartmental thing on the issue of crime prevention, particularly kids at risk. We will be trying to do things to deal with the kids that do not get involved in organized sports, and those types of things.

Mr. Cable: I have just a few questions of a general nature.

The Minister has brought forward some legislative amendments this session, dealing with a variety of issues. Are there any other issues of significance that the Minister is considering that will result in legislative change?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: One of the first areas we are going to be looking at is the whole area of corrections and corrections policy, largely with a view to looking at incorporating facilities in the outlying communities. We might be looking at healing centres, like the Cultus Lake sort of thing, in Burwash. We are going to have to have a policy on how we are going to approach that initiative. It is going to have to be a policy that, when it comes to corrections, states a number of various things. I am convinced that, when the policy is finally fleshed out, between what we do with corrections, healing centres, wilderness camps and that sort of thing, there are obviously going to be some incidental amendments to legislation on that score. That is one of the first areas we will be investigating.

With respect to other initiatives in Justice, we are going to be looking at some pilot projects in some communities with regard to what we are doing in circle courts and some other areas that may involve the gradual devolution of some of the responsibilities and person years to the communities, so they can truly have community-based justice. I am not sure whether or not there will be incidental amendments pertaining to those initiatives. We are looking at setting up a couple of pilot projects over two or three years, and this will only come out of fairly extensive consultation with the players in the system and with the communities involved.

There is a very great interest in the Northern Tutchone area, at Carmacks and Pelly in particular, in enhancing the circle court and their local resources used in the corrections end of things. There is a whole issue now about trying to decentralize the probation worker function, because it does not make sense that they, for the most part, be based in Whitehorse, and drive to a place like Carmacks and write a report. It would be much better if we could have trained people, even on a part-time basis, in those communities, performing some of those functions.

The kind of statutory changes and amendments would be incidental to that thrust.

Mr. Cable: One matter that has been raised with me and has been raised with the Minister by a member of the bar relates to a number of people in the community who have been molested in their childhood and this proposed amendment to the Limitation of Actions Act permitting those people who have been molested sexually as minors to bring civil actions outside the conventional limitation period. I have a copy of the Minister’s letter, which indicates that he was going to consider this matter, and I was wondering whether he had given any further consideration to it.

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I do not have a response to that specific letter at this time. No. It is still under consideration.

On Operation & Maintenance Expenditures

On Administration

On Deputy Minister

Deputy Minister in the amount of $227,000 agreed to

On Finance and Administration

Finance and Administration in the amount of $592,000 agreed to

On Judicial Recruitment

Amendment proposed

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I move

THAT the estimates pertaining to Bill No. 6, entitled First Appropriation Act, 1993-94, be amended in vote 08, Justice, by reducing the line item Judicial Recruitment on page 182 in the operation and maintenance estimates by $30,000; and

THAT the clauses and schedules of the bill be amended accordingly.

Amendment agreed to

Judicial Recruitment in the amount of nil agreed to as amended

On Training and Development

Training and Development in the amount of $74,000 agreed to

Administration in the amount of $893,000 agreed to as amended

On Court Services

Ms. Joe: I have one question and it is in regard to information I have already received. We note under statistics and court services that the forecast for 1992-93 for adult charges laid was 18,000 and we are estimating 2,000 more. May I ask why?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I have no specific reason. I think that it is probably just based on the growth over the last number of years.

On Program Director

Program Director in the amount of $463,000 agreed to

On Supreme Court

Supreme Court in the amount of $411,000 agreed to

On Territorial Court

Territorial Court in the amount of $1,630,000 agreed to

On Sheriff

Sheriff in the amount of $320,000 agreed to

On Maintenance Enforcement

Ms. Joe: I understood that there were going to be some improvements in the maintenance enforcement program. I notice here that we have an increase of 57 percent. I would just like to know what that is.

Hon. Mr. Phelps: It has to do with the transfer of a person year. The activity now includes the manager, a courts administration position, which was transferred from the territorial court activity. This transfer reflects the government’s commitment to ensuring that maintenance orders are complied with.

Ms. Joe: I understood that there was a commitment from the federal government for money for the maintenance enforcement program. Where does that show up in this, if indeed it has happened?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: It is not built into the base; it will show up in the first supplementary.

Mr. Cable: I wonder if I could take a minute here to see where the Minister’s head is at on the enforcement of maintenance orders, which are, to some extent, private matters. What is the Minister’s theory on why the government should be involved in enforcing maintenance orders?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: There are several reasons. Obviously, there are tremendous social costs involved when parents under a court order do not pay maintenance. The government is then faced with the welfare costs and everything else that is associated with this. The state pays in lieu of the spouse - normally the husband.

The other issue of course has to do with court orders. It seems to me that we have a duty to try to ensure that court judgments are complied with.

I think there are many compelling social reasons for the government to be involved in trying to ensure that people keep up their payments for their kids.

Mr. Cable: I have been approached by a person who has had problems enforcing visitation rights under orders of the court. My experience has been that these are perhaps as acromonious, or more acromonious, if possible, than the financial considerations of orders in matrimonial situations. Is the Minister of the view that visitation rights and custody orders should also be enforced by the government?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I see a fairly significant difference in kind. In the one case, the responsibility of a parent, a partner in a marriage, is neglected and the net result normally is that the taxpayer pays in the place of the spouse or ex-spouse.

In the other case, we are looking at a situation where visitation rights and those kinds of things are very acromonious at times. It is very unfortunate. I know that when I practised law I hated being involved in the middle of those kinds of disputes, but I really think that the state has a special interest where it is being asked to pick up the expenses of a spouse or ex-spouse who refuses to obey a court order to pay the upkeep for his or her child.

Mr. Cable: As I understand it, I think it is a matter of philosophy that using the government to enforce maintenance orders is much more efficient and cheaper than exposing people to the use of the private justice system. I think the same rationale applies to enforcing visitation rights, which in my experience have really created considerable acrimony and, in the long run, do cost the state money in terms of broken marriages and difficulties with kids, and that sort of thing. Is it not fair to say that at least in part the rationale that the Minister espoused initially for the use of the state in enforcing maintenance orders also applies to visitation orders?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: There seems to be a bit of a gap. I appreciate what the Member is saying but in the one case there is a direct cost, almost always, to the state, and there is a strong commitment, by all governments, to take steps to try to ensure that maintenance orders are enforced. The visitation rights argument gets a bit circuitous, on the monetary angle, by saying that in some cases the lack thereof could have a detrimental impact on the psychology of the kid, who then may cost the state some money. It is a more tenuous linkage, in my view.

Ms. Moorcroft: The Minister was just talking about detrimental impacts on children and families in the case of maintenance enforcement orders not being paid. This is certainly true. The main detrimental impact is poverty for women and children. The other detrimental impact is rising social assistance costs. Other jurisdictions in Canada have been doing a tremendous amount of work to improve the collection and enforcements of maintenance orders.

Something that has been done elsewhere is to transfer the administration of a maintenance order to the government to collect payments and give them to the custodial parent and children. Would the Minister be willing to examine some of the other initiatives that have been used in other jurisdictions that can have a very positive financial impact both for the families and for the government?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: We certainly do intend to review the steps taken in other jurisdictions. My understanding, in discussing the situation in the Yukon, is that we were relatively successful among the provinces. They utilize garnishee orders within the territory. The biggest problem we have is when people leave the jurisdiction. The ones that cross my desk, as Minister, are almost always situations where the husband, or person responsible, has left. There is an inter-jurisdictional problem in getting full cooperation from the other provinces. I have had about three cross my desk since I have been Minister, that we have tried to get moving again. We have had some success, simply by raising hell at a higher level in the government.

Ms. Moorcroft: It is my understanding that, under the previous administration, there were cross-jurisdictional agreements. I am sure that the critic can address that.

The Minister referred to a garnishee order. One of the weaknesses of a garnishee order is that it has a finite time period, to a maximum of five years. One of the initiatives that has been put forward in the Province of Ontario, for one - there may be others - has been that maintenance enforcement becomes a family support plan, where the order is issued by the court until the child or children reaches the age of majority. That is another measure I would like to make the representation to the Minister to consider when he is looking to improve maintenance enforcement.

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I thank the Member for that representation. It will be considered.

Maintenance Enforcement in the amount of $190,000 agreed to

On Victim/Witness Administration

Victim/Witness Administration in the amount of $138,000 agreed to

On Compensation for Victims of Crime

Amendment proposed

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I move

THAT the estimates pertaining to Bill No. 6, entitled First Appropriation Act, 1993-94, be amended in Vote 08, Justice, by reducing the line item Compensation for Victims of Crime on page 184 in the operation and maintenance estimates by $110,000; and

THAT the clauses and schedules of the bill be amended accordingly.

Amendment agreed to

Compensation for Victims of Crime in the amount of $210,000 agreed to as amended

Court Services in the amount of $3,362,000 agreed to as amended

On Attorney General

On Program Director

Program Director in the amount of $251,000 agreed to

On Solicitors Branch

Solicitors Branch in the amount of $762,000 agreed to

On Legislative Counsel

Legislative Counsel in the amount of $1,044,000 agreed to

On Legal Aid

Ms. Joe: I notice that there is no increase at all in this line. I was just wondering whether or not the Minister can tell me what the final tally of legal aid was for the last fiscal year.

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I am advised it was $990,000 at year-end, in the supplementaries.

The concern we have here is, of course, twofold: one, there is some pressure from the society to expand the coverage of the kinds of things that legal aid would cover and one gets into other cases of family court cases and such; the other issue is just the impact that circle sentencing and the new aboriginal justice initiatives have on legal aid. What we want to do is get a handle on what the ongoing costs are before we do very much new in the program. Our hope is that, once circle sentencing gets going, there will not be the need for legal aid lawyers to be there. A paralegal might do or we could look possibly at some staff members in that society who would do nothing but that. Certainly, I think the argument could be made that circle sentencing is not really an adversarial kind of process.

Legal Aid in the amount of $990,000 agreed to

On Litigation Costs/Judgments

Litigation Costs/Judgments in the amount of $60,000 agreed to

On Outside Counsel

Outside Counsel in the amount of $600,000 agreed to

Attorney General in the amount of $3,707,000 agreed to

On Justice Services

On Program Director

Program Director in the amount of $181,000 agreed to

On Consumer Services

Consumer Services in the amount of $702,000 agreed to

On Corporate Affairs

Corporate Affairs in the amount of $288,000 agreed to

On Labour Services

Labour Services in the amount of $419,000 agreed to

On Occupational Health and Safety

Occupational Health and Safety in the amount of $522,000 agreed to

On Public Administrator

Ms. Joe: I have a question in regard to the public administrator’s position. I would like to know who is in the acting position?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: Judy Suley is in that position. There is no acting position. Perhaps the Member is thinking of the chief coroner.

Ms. Joe: Yes.

Public Administration in the amount of $151,000 agreed to

On Land Titles

Ms. Joe: I am wondering if the Minister can tell me what he has been hearing about the transfer of land titles to the territory.

I understand that the Council for Yukon Indians and other parts of the north are objecting to this transfer, and I am wondering if the Minister feels there could be a problem with the Council for Yukon Indians on any kind of land, if the devolution went ahead.

Hon. Mr. Phelps: In essence, I support the devolution going ahead, and I have made representation to that end to people in Parliament.

I am not exactly sure where it is right now. It was in Committee. I do not know whether we can anticipate the transfer coming through before there is an election. It is the same last minute thing that we are all concerned about.

In my view, I would like to see the devolution take place. There are many things that we can do in the office, once it is transferred to the Yukon.

The concern that I have with the position being taken by CYI, but more particularly by people in the Northwest Territories, is that I really do not think that the transfer would in any way be detrimental to land claims.

I really feel that it would give us the opportunity to prepare and examine some of the issues that might facilitate the transfer of Indian lands.

There are some new processes being discussed that might take the place of traditional land surveying. It seems to me that, thus far, I have not really heard any arguments, in the Yukon at least, against the transfer that convinced me that the transfer should be delayed.

Ms. Joe: We have actually heard some concerns from the First Nations in the Yukon about the possible transfer and I know that, at least when we were in government, we felt that everything that should have been done was done and that the Council for Yukon Indians did have a copy of the act before it was passed in this House. I am just wondering whether or not the Minister can tell me if he has contacted CYI to talk about the devolution of land titles.

Ho