Whitehorse, Yukon
Monday, November 15, 1993 - 1:30 p.m.
Speaker: I will now call the House to order. We will begin with Prayers.
Prayers
DAILY ROUTINE
Speaker: We will proceed at this time with the Order Paper.
Introduction of Visitors.
Tabling of Returns and Documents.
TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS
Hon. Mr. Devries: I have a legislative return and the Business Development Advisory Board’s annual report for tabling.
Hon. Mr. Phelps: I have for tabling several legislative returns and, as well, the annual report of the Yukon Energy Corporation for the year ended December 31, 1992, and the annual report of the Yukon Development Corporation for the year ended March 31, 1993.
Speaker: Are there any Reports of Committees?
Petitions?
PETITIONS
Petition No. 4
Clerk: I have had the honour to review a petition, being Petition No. 4 of the first session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislative Assembly as presented by the Honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, on November 10, 1993.
This Petition meets the requirements as to form of the Standing Orders of the Yukon Legislative Assembly.
Speaker: Petition No. 4, accordingly, is deemed to be read and received.
Speaker: Introduction of Bills.
Are there any Notices of Motion for the Production of Papers?
Are there any Notices of Motion?
NOTICE OF MOTION
Mr. Penikett: I would like to give notice
THAT it is the opinion of this House that the profit guaranteed by the Public Utilities Board and Cabinet for both the Yukon Electrical Company and the Yukon Energy Corporation should be set at no more than five percent for the duration of the current recession so as to reduce the burden of rising electrical costs for both businesses and the residential consumers.
Speaker: Are there any Statements by Ministers?
This then brings us to Question Period.
QUESTION PERIOD
Question re: Legislative agenda
Mr. Penikett: I have a question for the Government Leader. His party has been in power for a year now and apart from a perfunctory four-page statement last December, we have not yet had a throne speech from this government, outlining its Legislature plans and agenda for the next period. Can the Government Leader tell us why not?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek: We are still reviewing some legislation that we would like to bring forward. I believe that the throne speech we gave last year, the budget speech that was given last spring and the capital budget speech given last Wednesday set the direction of this government. We will be coming in with a new throne speech, probably in the spring or the fall session next year.
Mr. Penikett: If the Government Leader proceeds with the throne speech next fall, that will be two years after his election. Would he not agree that parliamentary tradition requires that a new government, especially a minority government, present to the House a throne speech outlining its program and its legislative agenda as soon as possible following its election? Would he not agree that that is what parliamentary tradition requires?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek: As I said in our two budget speeches, the capital budget last spring - which was one hour in length - basically set the direction this government is going, as did the capital budget speech I gave the other day.
Mr. Penikett: The Government Leader does not understand the point.
The most ancient of parliamentary traditions is that before the Crown may ask for money from the elected Members of the people, it has to present a request to parliament, outline an agenda in the form of a throne speech and allow for a wide-ranging debate. The government is required to hear petitions from every Member on behalf of their constituents before proceeding with a budget. This is a minority government. Why have we not had a real throne speech yet outlining a legislative agenda?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek: As I said, we are still looking at some legislation that we want to bring forward. We will probably have a throne speech in the spring.
Question re: Unemployment statistics
Mr. Penikett: There are, we now know, over 3,100 people collecting unemployment insurance. There are hundreds more on social assistance.
May I ask the Government Leader this: does he still insist that the unemployment rate in the Yukon Territory is only 11 percent? Or, is he now prepared to admit that the situation is now much worse and the actual situation is that one-quarter of the actual workforce is now without a job?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek: The numbers the Leader of the Official Opposition is putting forward to this House are just simply not true. I said last Wednesday in Question Period that you cannot compare apples and oranges. They are talking about claimants; we are talking about the employment surveys that go out on a monthly basis. I have drawn the figures out for the number of people drawing unemployment insurance benefits, and they take into consideration a vast array of people - such as people who are sick, people on maternity leave, adoptive parental leave, work-sharing, job creation, job training - these are all considered in those figures.
Mr. Penikett: We are not talking about numbers. We are not talking about apples, oranges, or fruit. We are talking about people - 3,100 of whom are collecting unemployment insurance, and that is not counting the hundreds who are collecting social assistance. Does the Government Leader deny that the number of people collecting unemployment insurance this year is double that of last year?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek: Based on the latest figures we have, and I am sure these are the same figures the Leader of the Official Opposition has, there are not 3,100 people drawing unemployment insurance.
Mr. Penikett: The Government Leader continues to want to hide behind a statistical cloud, in which our population is growing, our labour force is growing, and that unemployment is only a small problem. Will he accept the evidence of his eyes, that the vacancy rate has gone up, retail sales are down, spending on unemployment insurance has doubled and a whole town - the Town of Faro - has been largely emptied of its citizens? May I ask him when he is going to face this reality and start to do something about it?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I do not know where the Leader of the Official Opposition lives. He says he lives in the real world; I am not sure of that. We put forward a capital budget last year that created a tremendous amount of jobs - around 700 jobs. It took the unemployment rate from 17 percent down to 10 percent. We put forward a job creation program that is going to create 3,700 person-weeks of work this winter, in the next couple of months. As well, it will help people over the short term until the building season starts again. Unbelievable.
Question re: Electrical rates
Mr. Cable: I have a question for the Minister responsible for the Yukon Energy Corporation on electrical rates. The Minister was quoted on the CBC last December when he spoke on power rates, and I quote the Minister: it says, “Phelps believes cheap and abundant power is the key to economic development in the Yukon.” The Minister has now been in the energy saddle for about a year. Can he indicate to this House what he means by “cheap electrical power”? Is it the five cents a kilowatt hour that Curragh was asking for, or the rates we are paying now, or the two or three cents a kilowatt hour that Quebec Hydro charges its smelters?
Hon. Mr. Phelps: I would hope that what is meant is cheaper power rates than what we are faced with now - the current power rates being largely a function of the efforts by the previous administration and, of course, the previous boards and previous presidents of the board. We hope, in the future and in the fullness of time, to be able to bring rates back down.
Mr. Cable: That sufficiently obfuscates the issue, but let me ask this question. I know the Minister has been pumping the coal-fire generating station near Carmacks and he issued the directive that we talked about last Wednesday to the Yukon Development Corporation on examining coal-fire generating power in the Yukon. I assume he has had some response to that directive.
What is the cost of power from a coal-fire generating plant of the size that is likely to be built?
Hon. Mr. Phelps: We do not have any such estimates at this time. We have some very rough figures from various sources, and they vary a great deal. We will be interested, at the appropriate time, in how much it would cost to produce a reasonable amount of power by coal as compared to the other options before us, but at this point in time we have no fixed figures at all. Those figures range all the way from five and one-half cents up to in excess of eight cents per kilowatt hour, given that the minimum size of the plant would be in the order of 20 megawatts.
Mr. Cable: The appropriate time is now, because both the Government Leader and the Minister of Economic Development and the Minister himself have been talking about energy as being the cornerstone of economic development, and assumedly we would have the price of energy firmly fixed in our minds if that was the case.
Let me ask this question: the Minister has, I am sure, had conversations with the people who have been advising him on new facilities and on the cost of power. Is it fair to say there is no new generating facility that the utilities are likely to build in the near future that could produce power at a cost below the price now being charged to Yukon consumers?
Hon. Mr. Phelps: I do not think that is a fair statement at all. Perhaps, we have gone further afield and broadened our outlook and sharpened our vision since those days when the person who asked the question was the president and the side opposite was in charge of the corporation. We certainly are looking at options that will provide cheaper power than those options that were being applied during the time when the good Member who asked the question was in charge of Yukon Energy Corporation.
Question re: Yukon economy
Mr. McDonald: I have a question for the Government Leader.
For a number of years, the Yukon Party claimed in the Legislature that the Yukon was suffering the ravages of a false economy. The years of economic growth during the mid-1980s and early 1990s were perceived as an illusion and if they had the chance, the Yukon Party would preside over a true economic base.
Can the Government Leader tell us, now that they have presented two budgets, whether or not we are now living in the true economy that the Yukon Party forecasted?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek: Certainly, we are not there yet. We have been in office for one year and we took over a broke government, during a time when the economic health of the territory was in a downturn, but the road we are on is for a more self-sufficient Yukon.
Mr. McDonald: While we were turning downward, the Government Leader was at the driver’s wheel.
In the spring, the government indicated that they had presented their economic plan to the federal government - I believe on two occasions: once in December and once again in April.
Can the Minister or the Government Leader indicate whether the government will be delivering the Yukon Party’s four-year plan and the document entitled Toward Self-Sufficiency by the 21st Century, to the new Prime Minister and the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs when he travels to Ottawa in the next month or so?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I certainly will be discussing our document, Toward Self-Sufficiency by the 21st Century, with the Prime Minister. That document is based on infrastructure development that the Liberal government elected in Ottawa has said they are going to do in the near future. They are going to be contributing $2 billion to infrastructure development in Canada. I will see what share of that we can get for the Yukon.
Mr. McDonald: I have some mixed feelings about the Minister’s answer. I would like to ask one other question here. The government has consulted on a number of issues during the last 12 months, including such things as gambling, health, housing and education issues, and has yet to initiate any serious dialogue with the public about the economy - especially during the one-day tourism summit.
Can the Minister indicate why the government refused to speak to Yukoners or organized public groups about economic matters?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek: It is not a question of our refusing to discuss economic matters with Yukoners. The Member opposite knows very well that I made a statement in late August or early September stating that once the Council on the Economy and the Environment was reappointed it would be one of their first tasks to hold an economic summit on the medium- and long-term employment opportunities for Yukoners.
Question re: Essential government services during strike
Ms. Moorcroft: I have a question for the Government Leader.
The Yukon government and the Yukon employees union are in the midst of contract negotiations, using the conciliation route. Like most prudent employers, the Yukon government has been making preparations for a lockout or strike, as this is one possible outcome of the conciliation process, and to this end drew up an essential services agreement in early September that covers the Departments of Education, Justice, Health and Social Services, Renewable Resources, Community and Transportation Services, Government Services and the Workers’ Compensation Health and Safety Board.
Can the Government Leader tell this House which designated services will be offered by the Yukon government in the event of a lockout or strike?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I can bring the Member a full report on that.
As she said, there was a planning session. It is only prudent for our government, if there is a possibility of a strike, to make contingency plans for that unfortunate and unlikely event.
Ms. Moorcroft: The Public Service Commission is coordinating the activities of a so-called strike committee, with preparations including the training of managers and union members excluded from the labour action to cover off what are called skill shortfalls in the event of a labour dispute - work normally done by bargaining unit members. Can the Government Leader tell this House what skill shortfalls have been identified and what kind of training is taking place or will take place?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek: As I said, I will bring the Member a fully detailed report on that.
Ms. Moorcroft: This government is training managers and excluded workers to do work not deemed essential, as outlined by the essential services agreement and thus is acting contrary to the spirit, if not the intent, of the conciliation process. I certainly look forward to seeing a report that the Government Leader is going to bring forward. I would like to ask him now, why is the Yukon Party government deliberately jeopardizing the conciliation process, if it is not with the goal of provoking a lockout or strike, to the detriment of individual workers, as well as the Yukon’s economy?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I am not aware of our training workers for jobs that are not required. The Member opposite is suggesting that the government is entertaining a lockout. The Member opposite should be aware that the government does not have the right to lock out.
Question re: Strike preparations
Ms. Moorcroft: While the government continues its preparations for a labour dispute, I should like to point out that the union’s position, a reasonable position, I might add, as it seeks no increase in wages for its members, shows its willingness to reach a new agreement quickly and painlessly, and is a position that other governments in Canada would be more than happy with. Would the Government Leader please tell this House just how big a wage rollback he has instructed his negotiators to obtain and the rational for this action?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek: Surely, the Member opposite knows that this matter is in conciliation at this point and I cannot comment on it in the House.
Ms. Moorcroft: It seems to me that by pushing for even greater concessions in a time of recession, in a time when many public servants fear for their job no matter how important their work or how good their performance, that this government is putting its Neanderthal attitudes toward working people into practice and deliberately jeopardizing the conciliation process. Is it this government’s intention to provoke a labour dispute?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek: As I previously stated, the contract negotiations are now in conciliation and I cannot comment further on them in the House.
Ms. Moorcroft: If it were true that the Yukon Party government does not want a lockout or a strike, then it seems to me that the actions of the strike committee and the PSC are inappropriate. Can the Government Leader tell this House what kind of deal his negotiators have been told to make, given his decision to not accept a zero percent wage increase?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek: Again, I cannot comment on that in the House at this time.
Question re: Social assistance
Ms. Commodore: My question is for the Minister responsible for Social Services and it is in regard to social assistance. In the O&M budget for last year, we saw an actual number of 1,229 households that were assisted by social assistance, with a forecast for 1992-93 of 1,860. The estimate for this fiscal year was 2,450. I just want to know if the Minister can tell me if that figure is on target. If we are looking at a total number of households - which could include both spouses who are unemployed at this time - are they on target with the number of 2,450 households?
Hon. Mr. Phelps: What I can tell the Member is that we are currently below the estimates for the current year. The social assistance payments are lower than we had anticipated to this point in time and we are hoping that there will be some savings in the budget in that line item. With respect to the actual numbers, I do not have the exact current numbers. There has been an increase over last year, but it is rather modest; certainly, the rate of increase that has been experienced, year by year, for the past four years is down dramatically at this point in time. Given the fact that we are not through the winter yet, it is premature for me to give a completely accurate forecast, but we are quite pleased with the results so far.
Ms. Commodore: I am not entirely sure whether or not I got the answer I was looking for. He talked about the expenses for social assistance going down because of fraud and a number of other reasons, and about a marked flattening of the growth curve that was experienced over the last four years. What I am trying to determine is, although the expenses for the budget might have gone down, are we still looking at the same number of people on social assistance as we were at this time last year? Has the number gone up? Has it gone down? I do not think I got that answer from the Minister.
Hon. Mr. Phelps: The actual numbers are up slightly from last year. However, they are down from the forecasted amount for this time this year that was done when we did the budget last spring. There are some reasons for that. She has mentioned one - the fact that some of the abuse has been reduced, fairly dramatically in cases. She is aware of some of the reform that we implemented last spring that is now in place, including getting money back that was lent to people who were waiting for their UIC cheques. That mechanism is in place - the cost each year of lending money that is never paid back on advances to UIC. By way of example, last year it was about $600,000.
We have the social assistance recipients agreement in place with the federal government. That will alleviate the situation somewhat. We intend to implement a number of measures once the current consultations are completed and we have had a chance to digest what people have been saying and put them into practice.
We see that the curve has been flattening thus far. We plan to continue, but we would be the first to admit that any real downturn in the economy would, of course, have an effect on us.
Ms. Commodore: It is a known fact that there are a number of people who are collecting unemployment insurance right now and are going to run out. I imagine there will be an increase.
There was also a projection of 5.1 percent of the population of the Yukon estimated to be collecting social assistance by the end of the year, according to the O&M budget last year. I am trying to determine how many people in the Yukon are not working, including both people on unemployment insurance and people on social assistance. I am wondering if the Minister can tell this House whether or not he has been able to acquire the information I asked for last week on the number of aboriginal people collecting social assistance from Indian Affairs. I know he tabled some items in the House today, but I do not know if that was included. I am looking for a total of those people in the Yukon collecting social assistance.
Speaker: I wonder if the Minister of Health and Social Services could be as brief as possible.
Hon. Mr. Phelps: I answered that question on the last sitting day by saying that we were told that $8 million has been spent on social assistance for status Indians in the territory. As for how much of that was for administration and how much was to the actual recipients, we did not have a breakdown. I will ask my department for some better numbers. Thus far, those are the best numbers they have been able to obtain.
Question re: Old Crow skating rink
Mrs. Firth: I have a question for the Government Leader.
In a time of fiscal restraint, the Government Leader and his Ministers talk about having to make tough decisions and set priorities such as cancelling the construction of new schools in Whitehorse and the communities and raising our taxes, yet this government is spending millions of dollars on computers, office furniture and special facilities. Now we find out that the Yukon taxpayer is going to be asked to pay over $500,000 for a sprung fabric cover for the Old Crow skating rink. I would like to ask the Government Leader if he really thinks a $516,300 sprung fabric cover for the Old Crow skating rink is a wise and fair use of taxpayers’ money.
Speaker: Before the Honourable Government Leader answers that question I should remind Members that they should not be asking questions about matters that are scheduled for debate today. I hope that Members will avoid questions about the capital budget, which is scheduled for debate this afternoon.
If the Government Leader wishes to answer that question he can go ahead.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I have no problem answering the question. Yes, I certainly do feel that the government is justified in spending that amount for a skating rink cover for the Old Crow skating rink. Once the cover is in place, the residents of Old Crow will be able to use that facility a lot more than they can with the open air rink that is there now. I believe that is a very small investment for recreation in the community of Old Crow, in comparison to what has been done in other jurisdictions in the Yukon.
Mrs. Firth: Yes, I read the press release about the cover enabling the use of natural light, which will make the arena cheaper to operate. I believe Old Crow must have about four hours of daylight during the winter. Perhaps, they are going to use the arena in the summer to grow cucumbers, I do not know.
Old Crow was supposed to get a portable sawmill. I phoned quite a few people in Old Crow today, many of whom knew nothing about the portable sawmill. The portable sawmill has not arrived in Old Crow yet.
I would like to ask the Government Leader if they examined options of using a portable sawmill and building this structure out of wood so that the local people could learn some skills and use wood as a construction material instead?
Hon. Mr. Devries: The Old Crow sawmill should be arriving there within the next month or two and, meanwhile, they will be logging this winter, so they will be ready to go into production next spring.
On the issue of the sprung cover for the arena, there were several different scenarios presented to us. The final decision was that that was the best and the most efficient, and also would allow for the most diversified use of the facility once it was completed.
Mrs. Firth: I am trying to be constructive here. May I ask the government to wait and do some cost-comparison analyses. Aside from what the Government Leader says, a lot of people would not agree that we should be spending over half a million dollars on this project.
I would like to see analysis done based on the people of Old Crow using the portable sawmill, putting people to work, taking some real ownership in this project and building the roof on the arena themselves. I think it could be done just as efficiently, if not more efficiently.
Hon. Mr. Devries: As far as the sawmill goes, this analysis was done and there is a private entrepreneur involved in getting the sawmill up and running.
The decision to go with the sprung cover for the greenhouse was made by the Old Crow people. That was the one they preferred of the three options presented to them.
Question re: Dawson City sewer services, First Nations
Mr. Penikett: Can the Minister of Community and Transportation Services confirm that the request for a public inquiry from the Dawson City Town Council concerns the actions of their mayor in arbitrarily disconnecting First Nation properties from the new sewer system only days after they had been hooked up by the contractor?
Hon. Mr. Fisher: Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Penikett: Can the Minister also confirm that, as a result of this cavalier action, the system that YTG is subsidizing to the tune of several million dollars, suffered some damage - at least two manholes - the cost of which may be borne by the taxpayers?
Hon. Mr. Fisher: I am certainly not aware of any damage that was caused by the disconnection of those buildings. If there has been damage, the cost would be borne by the City of Dawson in its O&M budget.
Mr. Penikett: I would like to ask the Minister how it could be borne by the City of Dawson when, as I understand it, this was not a decision of the City of Dawson but of the mayor acting without the knowledge or compliance of council. I would like, therefore, to ask the Minister if he is going to agree to the request for a public inquiry into the mayor’s actions?
Hon. Mr. Fisher: The Municipal Act is fairly clear on exactly what action can be taken by the Minister or by the department. My understanding is that the Deputy Minister of Community and Transportation Services will be travelling to Dawson City this week and meeting with council and, after having met with them to discuss the situation, we will make a decision on what action, if any, should be taken.
Question re: Dawson City sewer services, First Nations
Mr. Penikett: On the same subject, the Minister was extremely cautious on the point of whether he is going to agree to the request of a majority of the councillors for a public inquiry, and I would like to ask him if, as yet, either he or his deputy minister have ascertained whether or not the actions taken by the mayor were, in the opinion of the department, consistent with the requirements of municipal law in this territory or not.
Hon. Mr. Fisher: No, we have not ascertained whether the actions taken by the mayor were covered legally or not, and that is the reason the deputy minister will be having the meeting with mayor and council.
Mr. Penikett: Could I ask the Minister if he or his deputy know of any good reason why - after the contractor, according to the specifications of the contract, had hooked up the First Nation properties to the Dawson sewer system - the mayor would instruct the contractor to disconnect them?
Hon. Mr. Fisher: My understanding is that the units in question had not paid for a previous connection to the sewer system and that it was not the intention to have these connected to the new system, but apparently they were connected and then the mayor subsequently asked for those services to be disconnected.
Mr. Penikett: It is my information that the mayor did not ask - he in fact ordered the contractor to disconnect them, over the contractor’s objections because the contractor felt he was obliged to fulfill the requirements of the specifications for the job. Can I ask if the Minister, as a matter of policy and of law, believes that the contractor in this case should have obeyed the instructions of the mayor or the requirements of the contract he had entered into?
Hon. Mr. Fisher: I do not believe that I am in a position to respond to that question, because I do not know the full story behind it. That is the reason for the deputy minister travelling to Dawson this week to discuss this matter with the mayor and council.
Question re: Child Development Centre, rent
Mr. Cable: I have a question for the Minister of Government Services regarding the Child Development Centre.
The 1991-92 Auditor General’s report contained a comment that the Child Development Centre was receiving what was termed by the Auditor General as an “unauthorized subsidy”. The Auditor General went on to say that the subsidy provided through the provision of space without charge should be disclosed in the estimates. I gather since that time the Minister has had negotiations with the Child Development Centre with a view to charging rent as opposed to having had these undisclosed subsidies provided to the Child Development Centre.
My question for the Minister is this: why did the Minister use the Auditor General’s comments, which obviously relate to bookkeeping practices, as a lever for charging rent to the Child Development Centre?
Hon. Mr. Phelps: It is really my department, and not Government Services that has taken the lead role with respect to the issue that the Member has raised.
My department provides a substantial operating grant each year to the Child Development Centre.
There are ongoing discussions taking place; there are issues surrounding whether or not the facilities could be used more effectively and efficiently. Various options are being examined by the parties.
It seems to me that when the Auditor General does make a comment as serious as the one that the Member on the side opposite alludes to, that it is incumbent upon this government to take steps to correct the situation.
Mr. Cable: The situation is not the payment of rent; the situation is the methodology used in reporting the undisclosed subsidy. That is clearly the comment of the Auditor General. The Auditor General was not suggesting that the Child Development Centre be beat on to pay further rent.
Can the Minister indicate the amount of rent the government is proposing to charge the Child Development Centre?
Hon. Mr. Phelps: No one is beating on anyone - specifically no one from the Department of Health and Social Services or Justice. I feel if there is any beating being done, it is by the Member across the way on this particular issue.
The element of the O&M costs of the facility has to be looked at very carefully by the department in terms of the overall cost to government for the operation of CDC. I am rather surprised at the cavalier attitude taken by the Member opposite, because it seems to me that he, of all people, would be interested in the prudent expenditure of government money and, of all people, he would agree that if we can use that money more effectively and for the betterment of more people, that is the direction we should take.
Mr. Cable: Speaking of prudence, the Auditor General also stated that the issue of unauthorized, subsidized space was large and complex and that, and I quote, “An analysis and recommendation is being prepared for Cabinet consideration some time in 1993.” Has that document been received by Cabinet and will it be tabled in the House?
Hon. Mr. Phelps: I have seen a draft copy of that document. To the best of my knowledge, it has not been presented to Cabinet yet, but it will be very shortly.
Question re: Curragh employees, wages owing
Mr. Harding: I have a question for the Minister responsible for Yukon Party government excuses. That would be the Minister of Justice.
Former Curragh employees are out over $2 million in wages. This money would be a welcome stimulus to the Yukon economy because of the consumer spending it would create, as well as its reduction of former employees on UI and social assistance. However, on Friday, in a Toronto court, the receiver appealed this figure.
I would like to ask the Yukon government if, in their opinion, the receiver is now the employer during receivership and, if not, under what auspices did they file the appeal?
Speaker: I am sure the Minister of Justice is not being asked to offer a legal opinion.
Hon. Mr. Phelps: It is a very complex issue. I would be happy to bring back a legislative return that might cast some light on these matters for the Member opposite.
Mr. Harding: It is discouraging that the Minister of Justice is not more familiar with the Employment Standards Act, after a whole year in his portfolio.
I would like to ask a less specific question. In the Employment Standards Act, wages is defined as money required to be paid for an employee’s benefit under a contract of employment. Will the Yukon government be taking the position, on behalf of former Curragh employees, that wages includes severance pay and pay in lieu of notice, when arguing for this money in the courts, as it is in accordance with the definition of wages in the act?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek: The government did work to get the employees’ claims recognized by the court. The problem we are faced with now is that they feel that, if they go ahead with this and try to attach the directors’ monies that are sitting there, they will open a floodgate of claims against the directors’ contingency fund that was set up.
At this point, all the documents have been filed by the Director of Employment Standards - certificates of wages against employers, which can later be filed with the court, if necessary. There are six certificates against Curragh, in the total of $2,467,347.10 in wages owed of approximately 363 employees.
Mr. Harding: My question was more specifically regarding the issue of whether or not severance and pay in lieu of notice would be fought for under the auspices of being wages, as defined in the Employment Standards Act. Would the Minister responsible, or the Government Leader - and it is not an excuse that I am asking for - if they are going to be arguing for severance pay, as well as pay in lieu of notice?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek: My understanding is that severance pay does not come under the Employment Standards Act. It is a separate issue that would have to be dealt with by the courts.
Question re: Curragh employees, wages owing
Mr. Harding: I would like to remind the Minister that after so many months - almost a year - that this money means a lot to my constituents and the rest of the Yukon. The definition of wages includes money required to be paid for an employee’s benefit under a contract of employment - that is in the Employment Standards Act. Why is this government so unfamiliar with the provisions of the Employment Standards Act? It has been around for awhile.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek: It is not that we are unfamiliar with it. We have done everything we possibly can under the Employment Standards Act to secure that money for the Curragh employees. We understand what it means to them and we would love to see them get it as soon as possible. We have taken whatever actions we possibly could under the legislation of the Employment Standards Act.
Mr. Harding: I would like to ask the Minister this simple question. Why has the government not filed for severance and in pay of lieu of notice if they are now claiming that they have done everything in their power under the Employment Standards Act, when it is in black and white in the document we are referring to.
Hon. Mr. Ostashek: There seems to be a difference of opinion, and the Minister said he would bring a paper back for the Member opposite. My understanding is that the severance packages could not be filed for in this document.
Mr. Harding: Let me bring something to the Government Leader’s attention. Section 781 of the Employment Standards Act says that the directors of a corporation are jointly and severely liable to an employee of the corporation for all debts, not exceeding two months, wages due for services preformed for the corporation. Would the Government Leader not agree that severance pay and pay in lieu of notice is related to services preformed by employees for the corporation?
Hon. Mr. Ostashek: That is exactly what we have filed for. The directors can be held liable for two months’ wages and 12 months’ vacation pay earned by each employee. But it says nothing about the severance packages in the paper I have with me.
Speaker: The time for Question Period has now lapsed.
Withdrawal of motions from the Order Paper
Hon. Mr. Phillips: After consultation with Members of the Assembly who have motions on the Order Paper and on their behalf, I would request the unanimous consent of the House to drop the following Motions and Motions for the Production of Papers:
Standing in the name of the Government, Motion No. 26 and 28;
Standing in the name of the Official Opposition, Motion for the Production of Papers No. 2 and 3, and Motion No. 17, 32, 38, 13, 16, 20, 37, 41, 42 and 43;
Standing in the name of the Member for Riverside, Motion No. 36 and 22; and
Standing in the name of the Member for Riverdale South, Motion for the Production of Papers No. 1 and Motion No. 44.
Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
All Hon. Members: Agreed.
Speaker: Unanimous consent has been granted and the Chair would order the Clerk to drop the Motions and the Motions for the Production of Papers that have been specified by the Government House Leader.
Speaker: We will now proceed to Orders of the Day.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
GOVERNMENT BILLS
Bill No. 12: Second Reading
Clerk: Second reading, Bill No. 12, standing in the name of the Hon. Mr. Ostashek; adjourned debate, Mr. McDonald.
Mr. McDonald: I rise today at a very important moment in Yukon’s economic history in response to probably the single most important statement the government has made on the economy in 12 months.
This budget, along with the operations budget that will be tabled, presumably early in the spring, will largely account for the actions of the single largest participant in the Yukon economy in the foreseeable future. In the event that some Members have not noticed, the economic situation in the territory has dramatically changed in the last 12 months. The unemployment picture is bleaker than it was this time last year. The number of claimants who have taken the trouble to visit the unemployment insurance offices in downtown Whitehorse has climbed to a staggering 3,114 persons, and these claimants have been approved for unemployment insurance benefits, even considering the tougher rules that were instituted for unemployment insurance by the federal government last year.
The spending in unemployment insurance has increased dramatically from last year. Social assistance costs, by the government’s own admissions, have risen almost beyond expectation, and certainly have risen dramatically as well.
There have been some notable business closures in the territory, besides that of Curragh, which obviously has had the largest single impact in the private sector on the economic prospects for the territory. The consumer price index is up. There are for sale signs springing up in virtually every neighbourhood of Whitehorse. There are families leaving the territory in despair - many of whom I know - and even if one was not practiced in the art of reading statistics or prepared to joust with the government’s side over what the statistics mean, there is plenty of evidence available to suggest that the economic prospects for the territory are not as positive as one would have hoped.
The capital budget speech and the capital estimates, the operation and maintenance budgets from last spring and the operation and maintenance estimates are essentially the government’s response to the economic situation in the territory today. For the life of me, I cannot figure out the government’s direction.
Last December we spent one week talking about the fiscal crisis that the government faced, and consequently the fiscal crisis that was facing the territory. Six months later we receive the all clear signal from the government, and despite the fact that the message in December was one that consequently eroded the public’s confidence in the economy, we were told after the all clear signal, six months later, that we did not have to worry, we just had to be happy, be more positive and not so pessimistic - we should not continue to repeat the doom-and-gloom message that the government had initiated when it took office at the end of the last calendar year.
At that time in December we were told that the government had no money, nobody should expect anything from the government and that all they could do was simply try to get their finances under control.
Six months later, we discover that not only were the government’s efforts not as aggressive as they had made out in the Legislature to get spending under control - witness the wholesale computer purchases by one department alone at the end of the fiscal year - but we were also treated to a record budget and record spending on the part of the government in the amount of over $480 million. A government that had no money was proposing to spend an amount of money clearly more significant than that that the NDP government had ever spent, or shared in spending with the Yukon Party government.
We were told in October and November of last year that tax increases would have been obscene, only to be treated to the news in the spring that we had to face the reality that taxes were absolutely necessary in order to balance the budget.
We were told that we needed to raise personal income taxes, business taxes, and cigarette taxes, in order to balance what was ostensibly a very tight budget, even though it did show spending that clearly outstripped previous years.
We were told that, over the course of the last few years, the Yukon Energy Corporation, as a publicly owned body, should not be receiving profits on the backs of the electrical consumer, and that it was really inappropriate for us to be taking money through a guaranteed profit rate from the public over the last four or five years.
Now, we hear from the government that it is only prudent and right that a guaranteed profit level, virtually unknown by any other businesses in this territory, should be exacted at a time when customers and citizens can least afford it.
We were told that, last spring, the government was well aware of the economic circumstances of this territory, and had gone so far as to introduce what they considered to be the ultimate in jobs budgets to carry the territory over this rough period of time of the current fiscal year.
We were then told, in September, that there had to be a blue-ribbon committee struck to review the jobs budget and make it into a true jobs budget, because they had neglected to consider the winter months that might be covered by the government’s budget. I guess they had forgotten about the Yukon winter.
We were told that, over the course of the last six or seven years, public expenditures had created a false economy, that anything the government spent money on was not a real expenditure; it was raising false hopes; it was an economic illusion, and we should not count on public expenditures to drive the engine of the economy.
Then, when the blue-ribbon committee was struck, and it was decided they could find $7 million worth of savings from the operations and capital budget, after only six months of operation, we were told that public expenditures were absolutely essential to create jobs, we should not rescind the tax increase, even though it is clearly unnecessary financially, because it was government expenditures alone that could create work, and not the private sector.
We have heard that the government plans to undertake consultations on a whole series of fronts, as I was mentioning in Question Period, but they steadfastly refuse to undertake any sort of broad consultation or sector-specific consultation - apart from tourism - that has anything to do with the economy even though it is the economy and jobs that are on virtually every person’s mind in this territory today. Jobs, the economy and economic prospects have been the talk of virtually every workplace in this territory, not only by workers but also by business owners. Everyone is expressing anxiety. Everyone but those in the Cabinet office are expressing some concern. The one area one would expect the government to consult on, or at least engage in public discussion on, would be the economy.
The Government Leader has indicated that they have not had time and that they will get around to it once the Council on the Economy and the Environment takes up the gauntlet. We are not worried about the Council on the Economy and the Environment. I am certain that once they seize the matter, they will do something. We are worried about what the government is doing.
Why does the government insist on undertaking consultations on health policy, education - when they could get it off the ground - housing and even gambling, but when it comes to a subject everyone is talking about, they do not want to talk about it at all publicly. The only message is “do not worry, be happy, be optimistic, things are not as bad as people make out.” This is in the face of all those indices that are showing that there is some cause for concern.
We have been treated to the message that the government has no money. We were told the government had no money last year. They had no money in the spring. Every time anyone asks for anything or makes any suggestion on public expenditures, we are reminded of fiscal restraint. This is at a time when the government is spending absolutely record amounts of money - millions, tens of millions and hundreds of millions of dollars. By the time the 1994-95 capital year comes to completion, the government will have spent almost $1.5 billion. They will be only one and one-half years away from the absolute end of their mandate.
People whom they do not want to see receive any funds, or projects that they do not want to see funded, will have been told, all along, that we are suffering fiscal restraint and that there is no money to be had by anyone.
I have been in the Legislature for a number of years, and I have been listening to the governing party now - the Yukon Party - and the Independent Member, who is, for all intents and purposes, essentially a Yukon Party Member who has not gotten around to signing the card yet. We have heard over and over again that the one thing government should do, above all else, in order to be fiscally responsible, is to reduce the Yukon’s dependency on the federal government. We have heard that, in order to really be masters of our own house, and in order to truly decide our own fate, we must reduce our dependency on the federal Canadian taxpayer.
What have we seen in the period since the government has taken office? We have seen that ratio of dependency absolutely skyrocket - right through the roof and right into the stratosphere.
What has the government done whenever there is a call for action on one front or another? What do they do? How do they respond to a particular need for this or that, or determine priorities? Some Hon. Member: (inaudible)
Mr. McDonald: You will get your chance. They ask the federal government for some support. Whether it is for infrastructure, or for a project of any particular kind, they are seeking federal support.
We suffered through this extremely mundane soap opera, throughout the spring, about how the government was spending a lot of their political capital trying to seek $10 million from the federal government to support infrastructure development in the Yukon. Day after day, week after week, we heard that the money was to arrive in the Yukon at any time. If we were ever concerned about being able to deliver the infrastructure project, we had only to look to this $10 million, which was going to solve all our problems. They mentioned the Top of the World Highway, mining roads, the Campbell Highway, the Alaska Highway and the Klondike Highway. They mentioned infrastructure projects and energy projects, all of which were going to be resolved through this $10 million from the federal government.
Meanwhile, of course, the government is spending $400 million doing other things. However, we were still in the frame of mind that we had to depend on this $10 million to make things right.
We now understand that this $10 million is going to be provided to the territory in $2 million bundles over five years, and I am certain that we will all be truly self-sufficient by the end of this expenditure.
This does lead one to believe that the government, despite their rhetoric about federal dependency and wanting to reduce that dependency, looks continuously to the federal government for salvation on virtually every front.
We even understand that nowadays they are designing wage subsidy programs that would serve to maximize the use of unemployment insurance benefits so that the government does not have to worry about the kind of income support that they anticipate would be necessary through social assistance.
To criticize at this point the Independent Alliance, for example, for having had no philosophy, is at best a cruel joke, because what we have been able to understand from the Yukon Party government is that they have embraced virtually every philosophy and no philosophy. We cannot anticipate a single action that they are going to take. Even when they specifically say that they are not going to do something, they end up doing it.
What one has to do is pick up the capital estimates and try to figure out from the actual spending patterns where these folks stand.
The latest line, which I guess has been constructed by the spin doctors upstairs, is that we should be simply and blindly optimistic about things and that that will allow the territory to recover from the gloom-and-doom message that the government so effectively spread around the territory only a year ago.
The government has also indicated to all of us that we should take this as a short-term cycle, because the Yukon has suffered a few downturns in the past and will suffer downturns in the future, but without realizing that without some leadership this short-term downturn in the so-called economic cycle is going to be long-term downturn in the economic cycle.
In coming to the budget itself, what one finds disturbing is that this capital estimates budget does not match the rhetoric in the Yukon Party’s four-year plan, nor does it match the statements in the government’s own document that they embarrassingly have a habit of giving to federal Ministers, entitled A Yukon Resource Infrastructure Initiative: Becoming Self-Sufficient Through Infrastructure Driven Investment in the Yukon.
These capital estimates do not in any way support the economic projects that the government says are going to resurrect the Yukon economy and be responsible for the economic recovery of the territory.
We have record spending in this budget, but we do not have a sense that this budget matches their philosophical goals. Hence, the questions about where is your throne speech, what is your plan, what are you going to do next, is there any thematic consistency to what you are doing? There has not been up to now, but what are you going to do?
The government, whenever they speak to the mining industry or whenever they speak to the federal authorities or whenever they are making statements at economic gatherings they are attending as invitees, cite the number of mining projects as being the saviour of the territorial economy. But what have they done to promote mining? What specifically have they done - not what they have inherited in terms of programming from the NDP government, but what have they done specifically, through their spending proposals, to support those mining projects?
The only thing they have done besides maintaining some programs - the EDA and the YMIP program that was developed for them and which they have kept virtually constant - is that they have cut the roads program primarily for the mining community. That is the only action they have taken through their budget process that has had any impact on the mining industry. The financial support for the Freegold Road, we understand, is to upgrade the existing road but not extend the road into a particular mining property. There are millions of dollars being spent on upgrading roads but do those roads have any impact on the economic viability of the projects they have cited as being the engines that are going to get the private sector economy rolling in this territory?
I will get to some of the positive things in the budget because I think it is important to mention those to give the government enough encouragement so that they might continue doing some of those things, but the problem I have with these capital estimates is that, apart from the overall bottom line, which is $126 million, they do not respond in any way to the economic circumstances we are facing today.
Economic development spending in this budget is down. In the past, whether one considers the argument fair or not, the Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes has taken a considerable period of time analyzing how the budget is divided in terms of economic spending versus social spending versus government infrastructure spending.
He had lambasted the government, even when the economy was booming, for not spending more in the economic portfolio. Here, we have a situation where the economic circumstances have changed, the economy is suffering, and spending in the economic portfolio is down. How can that be? What is the rationale for that? Can it be found in the opening remarks from the Government Leader, in presenting this budget? No, we cannot find it there.
Why is tourism marketing down? When I was at the tourism summit, I did not hear any mention that perhaps spending in this particular area was down. All I ever heard from various people was that more money should be spent on tourism marketing and less on administration.
The question is, why is the building construction industry down? Why is construction, in such things as Education, continuing to receive such a low priority in these budget estimates?
Even the one project the government touted as being the saviour of the construction industry in this territory, the hospital, is being built through a process the Yukon building construction industry is unfamiliar with. It does not have the skills. There will be some Yukon jobs, but we have obviously not taken the trouble to maximize those jobs through this particular construction project.
The Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes says, son of a gun, the government was voted out of office and, while we were pulling our papers together and getting ready to move into the offices upstairs, some committee decided they were going to make it out of steel, and we could not change it at that point, even though, as soon as they got into the offices upstairs, they were reversing one initiative taken by the previous government after another.
They have spent days criticizing the previous government for a small building construction project in Ross River - the arena - having been built out of steel.
Now, the Member for Lake Laberge would know a lot about that project, because he was the project officer in charge of that particular initiative.
What was important was that the government indicated that this particular project was a mistake at its conception, because it should never have been built with a process using steel construction. It should have been built as a stick-built project to maximize labour. The Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes was the person leading the charge in that criticism. That same person now insists that construction for the one project that the construction industry was looking at to help it through some very tough years ahead should be done using steel.
This is not a situation where there are other things going on, as was the case with the Ross River arena, when the construction industry continued building the college or schools, and so on. This Whitehorse hospital project represents the lion’s share of capital construction spending by this government over the next three or four years.
Then, the Minister of Health and Social Services has the gall to say that the decision to build with steel is the only way to keep the construction expenditures on the Whitehorse hospital down, that this is the only way to ensure that this project comes in on budget and allows for expansion in the future. This is the same Minister who, last December, said that he would delay the hospital project construction because he felt that, through his wise management, they would never allow the project to come in over budget - he would never do what the NDP government, and the PC government before that, had done, which was to allow projects to come in over budget. Yet, in this particular capital budget, we understand that the project costs for the Whitehorse hospital have already increased by $3 million and they have not yet done a single thing. They have not dug one hole or raised one steel bar to support this construction project, yet they tabled estimates in the spring that reportedly had the hospital at $44 million, and after their careful review to keep costs down, they have tabled estimates now, with nothing yet done on the ground, that show the hospital project will come in at $47 million.
When the government had the chance to review this project and determine whether or not they were going to make this construction project a jobs project, they had the opportunity to exert their will, and they refused to take that opportunity.
The budget here before us today does not even send out some positive signals with respect to things like an alcohol detoxification centre, or even in terms of education projects, which historically have been receiving a much higher priority through decisions of this Legislature.
It was largely the result of the comments made in the Legislature by the Member for Riverdale South and the Member for Riverdale North that caused the government of the day to consider a particular education project - that being the Grey Mountain school.
We were told by those Members that the overcrowding in that school was intolerable, the fact that students had to undertake classes in the hallways was unforgivable and, if we had any heart at all, we would be spending money where it counts and supports facilities that house our children while we work every day.
What has happened in this particular budget is that it bears no reflection on the comments made by the Members while they were in Opposition.
This is a budget that shows record spending. In fact, there is $8 million more spending in the budget that we are debating right now than there is for the current year budget.
One has to wonder whether or not the government respects spending for such things as education, or respects such things as the economic power that a good education system can foster, or respects the expenditures that will lead to a trained workforce and an educated population.
One has to wonder whether or not they consider - as the Government Leader expressed last spring - whether education spending is simply debt creation, and that spending on roads, no matter where those roads are or where they are going, for whatever purpose, constitutes wealth creation, or a short-sighted, narrow-minded vision of the economy and of our society.
Anyone can create jobs, if they propose to spend $126 million. Anyone could do that. Even if we were to buy EH-101 helicopters, we would still be creating jobs in the Yukon. Somebody would have to carry those things on a flatbed truck into the territory. Somebody else would have to design the specifications for the contract. There would be some jobs somewhere.
The question is, is the budget, as it is proposed, balanced? Does it respect the fact that there are a number of sectors in our economy that are worth preserving and nurturing for the long-term economic health of the territory?
We must also ask, given that this budget shows some growth in net spending of $8 million, what effect this budget is going to have on the operations side of the government’s spending proposal. We are told that it is completely inappropriate for the government to table the operation and maintenance and capital budgets together because, after all, the planning for the operation side does not require a lot of time, and you can target your expenditures much more carefully if you present your budget effectively well into the operating year the budget is being proposed for.
One of the problems we have with that budgeting pattern is that we do not know what impact an extra $8 million in capital spending is going to have on operations. We do not know who is going to be paying for a reduction in operations spending. We do not know whether or not the government is going to have to increase new taxes. We cannot take them at their word, because they said before that they would not increase taxes, and they did increase taxes. We do not know whether or not they are going to be cutting back on social assistance rates. We do not know if single moms are going to have to pay for these capital projects. We do not know if foster parents are going to have to pay for these projects. We have absolutely no idea whether or not there will be fewer teachers in the classroom, or whether or not there will be less time spent grading the roads. We do not know because the government has not even put out a call letter for the operations budget for next year.
The problem is that, when it comes to expressing support for some of the good things in this budget, we do not ultimately know how the money is going to be raised, and we do not know what the expenditure side is in terms of services to the public we are going to have to face in the future. We do not even know whether the government has considered that question themselves yet.
It is time I said a few positive things about the budget, because there are some things that deserve some praise and are worthy of some words in our budget responses. I speak primarily and specifically, to begin with, of the Whitehorse water and sewer project. This project has been some time in the planning and the public has indicated, both in Whitehorse and downstream of Whitehorse, that the top priority for government expenditures ought to be in the treatment of Whitehorse sewage. The fact that the government has put $7 million toward this project is, in my opinion, a very good start. One can hope that the government will encourage the Liberals in Ottawa, who have promised to put money into such things as old and decrepit infrastructure, to invest a little bit of those program funds on this particular project. Nevertheless, the fact that the government has initiated some activity here is worth praising.
While I have said that the government’s priority in education spending is poor in my opinion - I do not agree with it, not one bit - there are some education projects to which we should provide some support. The Golden Horn gym is one such project and the fact that the Minister has responded to this project is a good sign. The needs have been clearly expressed and it is important that the Legislature provide some support for that particular project. There are a number of other smaller projects, I know, that some people have been waiting for and see some response through this expenditure proposal. We should ensure during Committee stage that we indicate to the government our support for those projects and we should wish the government well in delivering on their financial promises.
There are a number of other things that should be raised at this time in debate on the principles that should allow the Ministers opposite to understand some of our more specific concerns with the budget, and I will catalogue a few of those now so that they will not be surprised when we engage in debates about particulars.
The government has tabled the budget, which it has indicated is a jobs budget which will create, in their view, 700 jobs in the economy. I would remind the Ministers that in the last budget we asked for a breakdown of the jobs and discovered, after some prodding, that the claim of 700 jobs for the current year was bogus. That may suggest that we may be a little more skeptical about the government’s claims, and we will be insisting on some specific information to justify the claim that there are a particular number of jobs resulting from the expenditures being proposed.
When the economy is reeling, or in tough shape, one expects a jobs budget. One does not expect a blue-ribbon committee next summer that will make the jobs budget into a jobs budget, or that there will be another blue-ribbon committee next fall that will make the jobs budget into a jobs budget. What we do expect is something that does take into consideration the number of jobs that it will create in the Yukon.
I say “jobs in the Yukon”, because it brings to mind the expenditures in a few areas, particularly furniture, computers and new cars, which suggest there may be new jobs created as a result of these expenditures but that they may not be in the Yukon. The fact that we do not have car assembly plants in the Yukon, that we do not put computers together, and apparently, according to the government, do not really care about buying local furniture, leads one to question whether or not these expenditures are justifiable at this time.
Five million dollars in this particular area is a lot of money. It is not federal recoverable money. It is not recoverable from the U.S. Department of Transportation or money that will be ultimately recovered through property sales. It is net capital money, rare and hard to come by, right out of the Canadian and Yukon taxpayers’ pockets - money that could be spent in other ways.
Clearly, there is some need to provide some expenditures in computers. There is need to provide expenditures for some cars and furniture. There is even a need for road transportation construction. The question is: is this budget balanced? Is this $5 million on computers, furniture and new cars justifiable? Is $41 million on roads justifiable, given the impact these expenditures in these areas are having on other sectors of the economy?
We have, looming ahead of us, expenditures in land development that are astronomical. We have expenditures in building our land inventory that far outstrip anything in the past. Are we responding to a needs survey that suggests that there is going to be this enormous economic growth over the next two or three years? I do not think so. We have not seen the market study the government has promised they will deliver to us that would justify the expenditure level for this year, or even for the next. What we do know is that if the lot sales in this territory do not improve - out of the 90 Arkell subdivision lots, I think at least two were sold. At least we did not get shut out. In the Logan subdivision, I think that about 10 percent of the lots developed this year were sold. We did not get shut out there either. It suggests that, in the land inventory that we are developing now, we have not experienced record sales and we are not anticipating them to justify the record developments that are taking place. There is nothing particularly on the horizon to support them.
If we were simply putting money into land development and it bore no cost to the Yukon government or taxpayers, then one could ask what is the harm in having such a large inventory of land that will not be sold in the foreseeable future? What is the harm? Considering that scenario, there is no harm.
The fact that we propose to tie up $20 million, $25 million or $30 million in cash, in land development and given the fact that we have announced, in this operating budget, that we are proposing to spend $400,000 to pay for rural banking services and $200,000 for overdraft charges - money that could have been deducted from the interest income that we would have received from a large amount of money in the bank, there is a very real cost to us in this territory. Six hundred thousand dollars is a lot of money and can do a great deal to build economic and social infrastructure and respond to the needs of the people in this territory. That is a $600,000 cost, and if we do not sell the land in the next few years, that cost could be borne every single year. One has to question the wisdom of the approach that the government is taking in that particular area.
We learned while we were in government that the Opposition at the time thought that the government should be putting its money where its mouth is when it comes to things like the abattoir and special waste facilities. In this budget we do not see, even after a year’s worth of experience, spending plans to the end of the calendar year, 1995 - spending plans that would result in an abattoir or a detoxification centre being built or even anything more than a fence around a special waste site being built.
We do see $16 million being proposed for a new jail. I hope it is not a jail made of steel. One has to question whether or not the Justice department and the government have a long-term strategy that justifies that kind of expenditure in that kind of facility and whether or not they have assessed the alternatives to incarceration that have been suggested by judge after judge in Territorial Court.
One has to wonder whether or not the government is simply responding to the need to replace old concrete with new concrete, or whether or not they have a plan of action, which would help to justify a $16 million expenditure in that particular area. If their action, their plan, their program and their vision does not include a correctional facility of that size and expense, then we would like to see that plan.
Why is the government intending to spend $41 million on highway construction work? I have been a rural representative for a long time and I believe that road construction work is important, but I would never have agreed to 100 percent of the budget being dedicated to rural construction work, or 50 percent of the budget, or in this case 30 or 40 percent of the budget being dedicated to rural construction work, because I always understood that there were other priorities in other industries, and other needs to be addressed.
Certainly, the Alaska Highway has to be a significant priority. Even if one were to spend $26 million on the Alaska Highway, that would clearly designate it as a high priority of the government, but why $41 million overall?
There are a number of other questions that we have about the budget that we will have to pursue a little more carefully. Some Members on this side of the House have recognized that there appears to be a very heavy emphasis on projects that happen to be - this may be pure circumstance - located in government-held ridings in rural Yukon.
Certainly the Member for Faro may have something to suggest about this, but one has to wonder whether or not this is a return of the pork barrel, because patronage appears to be returning in force.
The question that we have to ask is: where is the balance? I am sure that is the question that will ultimately be the subject of a lot of discussion in Committee of the Whole, when we get down to debating the particulars.
We have to try to determine where the focus of the expenditures is. One can imagine how difficult it would be even for a Yukon Party supporter to understand why expenditures are being made in every area other than the economic projects that they indicate are going to be the salvation of the private sector economy.
In the last few years, maybe six or seven years - I think even the first year; I went back and checked Hansard for 1986 - the Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes, the Member then of Hootalinqua, stood up and asked the question, “What have you diversified? Where has the economy been diversified in the last year? What have you done in Mayo? What have you done in Ross River to diversify the economy and to make that regional economy more economically self-sufficient? What in your spending plans are you proposing to do to diversify the regional rural economies?”
From the speech that the Government Leader has given and from the budget itself, one would have to answer that question at this point in a way that would express some ignorance as to whether or not these spending proposals could indeed diversify those regional economies.
But when we get to Economic Development, Community and Transportation Services and a number of other budgets in the capital estimates before us, we will be asking the question as to what the government has done to diversify the economy. Not what the government plans to do, not what its rhetoric is about wanting the economy diversified, but what in its spending proposals is it suggesting it will do to diversify the economy. Not whether it will build a road in the hopes that somebody will come along and use it for economic purposes, not whether or not it builds a particular facility or develops some land on the chance that somebody will come along and buy it, but what specifically is it proposing will happen as a result of their expenditures that will cause a more diversified economy, generally and regionally.
I mention once again that when these spending estimates are complete, this government will have one and one-half years maximum left in their term to prove themselves.
Many questions, including questions from the last sitting of the Legislature, need to be answered. One of the problems we have is that we indicated to Members opposite that if we were to receive information from them over the course of the summer time in answer to our questions, we would permit the budget to pass unhindered.
Apart from a few examples, we have largely received no information on many, many issues from the Members opposite. This suggests that we will be insisting on the answers being given immediately and not allow the estimate to pass until such a time as the information is presented.
I regret, in some ways, that our reaction to this budget could not be more Ipositive. On the face of it, this amount of spending in any economy would, for a period of time at least, be perceived to be a considerable boost to the economic fortunes of a jurisdiction.
I cannot say that I regard this budget as being balanced, fair or right in many particulars. There has been a lot of discussion around the territory. We have kept our own council about the budget estimates, and we think that there are some significant winners and losers in this budget. There are obviously some powerful persons in Cabinet who have been able to essentially set the agenda for the government. There are others who clearly do not carry much clout, and consequently their areas have not received the kind of attention that a proper budget would have provided. We are upset about that and will be providing more detail when we get into Committee.
In conclusion, we must indicate that, while the government has indeed put on the table a request for $126 million, we do not feel that the budget is balanced properly. There are some items in the budget that we can support, but there are a lot of expenditures on which we think too much emphasis has been placed, and there are some areas in the budget that have received very little attention. We do not understand why that is so. We do not understand, after listening to the government’s own rhetoric and positioning on government expenditures and their priorities, why they have presented this particular budget.
Consequently, having said that, it would only suggest that the questioning in the weeks to come will focus on many of the items that I have suggested should be reviewed more carefully, and we will be insisting on some answers being provided a little more quickly than they have been in the past.
There are some elements of this budget that I feel should be supported. We will be indicating our support in due course, when the time arises.
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Before I begin, I want to make a couple of comments on the previous speaker’s speech.
The Member talked about diversifying the economy and I found that rather interesting, because for seven years when the Official Opposition was in government, they spent millions, and in fact billions, of dollars in the Yukon. They had surplus budgets for almost every one of those years and yet we have not seen that much diversification. Now, after about 11 months of the Yukon Party being in power, inheriting a $13 million debt and a $64 million deficit, the Member opposite is expecting us to have immediate results.
I wish I would have been in his position seven years ago. We would have had an opportunity to make some changes, but they did not do that.
I am pleased to support the budget that is before us today. These are tough economic times for all governments and I am very pleased, despite these tough economic times, that we have been able to present such a large capital budget. In comparison to other jurisdictions in this country, I believe that we have the highest per capita spending in our capital budget. There are over 700 jobs that will be created through this budget and that will be good for Yukoners.
Last summer we saw the unemployment rate in the Yukon decrease to almost the same level that it was a year ago, and that is when Curragh and Sa Dena Hes were actually operating. We saw the Yukon workforce increase to last year’s rate, even with the two major mines shut down, and I think that was significant as well. Unfortunately, this is something that does not get a lot of ink in the local media, but it is extremely significant.
I am hearing mixed signals from people in the business community and the private sector. Some people have told me that things are tougher and some people are definitely out of work, but on the other hand, some people in the business community have told me that the last two or three years have been some of the best years that they have ever had, and that, particularly, this past summer has been the best they have had.
In the tourism industry, some sectors are down and that is not related to anything that the Government of the Yukon did. It is related to low interest rates and seniors not travelling by buses and staying in as many hotels. In fact, tourism numbers are down in many other jurisdictions throughout Canada.
The tourism industry in the Yukon is only down about two to four percent from last year’s figures, and I think that alone is significant, since last year’s figures for the tourism industry were the highest ever recorded in the Yukon Territory.
The budget that we are debating today will help us sustain growth in the future. I think it is important to note that there are many positive initiatives on the horizon.
First of all, there are new mines that are interested in proceeding to the operating phase, and just the exploration and development of these mines will create hundreds of jobs and pump millions of dollars into the Yukon economy in the next couple of years.
We are entering a decade of anniversaries, with the RCMP in 1995, and the gold rush in 1996 and 1998, and we will never have a better opportunity to put the Yukon on the map and on the must-visit list in the 1990s. There is a lot of room for optimism.
I was reading some comments that Members of the Opposition have made in the media concerning this budget, and have been listening to a few of the comments made by the Finance critic here today. I would like to speak briefly about that.
The Member for McIntyre-Takhini is concerned because he believes we have a preoccupation with roads, and I find that criticism a bit puzzling coming from that Member. He was in government. It was, in fact, his government that was in power for seven years and he was a member of that government when the Alaska Highway upgrading and reconstruction agreement was negotiated. Is the Member now suggesting to this House that we should contact the federal government and the American government and tell them that the Opposition parties in the Yukon feel we are spending far too much money fixing up our roads and creating jobs in that sector? Is he suggesting that we ask the American government and the federal government to take back the $29 million they are going to give us this year to fix the roads? Is that what the Members opposite are suggesting? I do not think that is what the Member wants us to do.
These Alaska Highway reconstruction agreements will carry on for several years, and each year we will see a significant part of the budget spent on highways because of these agreements. If the side opposite still formed the government, the millions of dollars now being allocated to the Alaska Highway would be allocated in the same way, because that is part of the agreements.
At the same time, there are many Yukoners who depend on highways for work and we should not neglect them as well.
These investments create jobs for Yukoners, and it is my understanding that almost every single contract on the highways last year went to Yukon companies.
The Member for Faro is making comments that some of the Alaska Highway money is discretionary. I would suggest to the Member that there is no point in sitting down with the federal government to negotiate a deal to obtain money to do a specific project, and then apply it to something else. Pretty soon, the federal government would be coming to us saying they are not going to be interested in giving us any more money for that, because we do not use it for that purpose. It might affect us in negotiations in the future. The Member for Faro should realize that, when you negotiate money for the Alaska Highway, you should try to spend as much of it as you can on the highway.
Investing in good quality highways will bring major long-term benefits to Yukoners in tourism and the mining sector, despite what the Opposition Finance critic believes. I will be interested in the Opposition’s views on what projects, or highways, we should cancel. If we wanted to cancel a project on the Campbell Highway, I would be interested in hearing from the Member for Faro. That road is not used all that much, so that may be an area where we can cancel a project. The Member may have some suggestions on that.
The Finance critic is also concerned about the community development fund. The Member for Riverdale South had some concerns about the use of this fund in the past several years, and I share the concerns of that Member. I feel it would be more fair for all Members if future projects had to face the same scrutiny that other budget items do in this House, and appear as items in the annual budget.
The Member for McIntyre-Takhini is concerned that we are ignoring the need to improve our schools. In fact, that is exactly where we have concentrated our money this year. We were left with quite a mess. In the last three or four years, the previous government spent many millions of dollars building new schools. Several of these are already over-crowded. Golden Horn is a good example. Dawson has also outgrown its new school.
We had a limited budget, and we had to make tough decisions. The Member for McIntyre-Takhini talks about tough decisions. My job would be a lot easier today if he had made some tough decisions during the last seven years he was a Minister.
It could have been really easy to ignore the crowded schools and gone ahead with Grey Mountain Primary, next to my riding. We cannot do that any more. That is what happened in the past, and it has cost us dearly.
We built a new high school in an NDP riding in Watson Lake a few years ago, that no one asked for. We all know about the overbuilt palace in the former Premier’s riding. We needed a new school there, but we did not need a monument to the former Premier. That cost us over $10 million. It would be interesting to see the Member for McIntyre-Takhini rise in his place and actually defend the building of that monstrous school.
No, the Member for Watson Lake at the time was the Hon. Dave Porter, and when he built the school in that particular riding Mr. Porter told us we needed a school and everybody in the community was scratching their heads. Today we have very few dollars and we could have built many more schools for half the price of the $10 million schools that the former Minister built.
We had a long look at Grey Mountain Primary and several things changed in the past year that led us to the decision to postpone the new school. They are important points and they are points that the previous Minister of Education would have considered as well. Grey Mountain Primary currently goes from K to three and the new school will go from K to six. It will then, along with Selkirk Street School, serve the needs of the elementary school children in Riverdale. This year, the K to six population of students in Riverdale dropped dramatically. In Grey Mountain itself, the population dropped by 22 percent. Selkirk saw a decline of 7.9 percent and there was an overall drop in Riverdale of 14 percent. Predictions we have now show that we expect more of a decline in the next two or three years in Riverdale elementary school students. Currently, as well, we are in the midst of a grade reorganization consultation process and the results of this process could have a major impact on the future of Grey Mountain Primary. It is an old school, but it is not overcrowded as others are in the Yukon. With limited funds, we have to get the kids out of the hallways and into decent classrooms.
I would be subject to severe criticism from the Member for Mount Lorne, the Member for McIntyre-Takhini and the Member for Riverdale South if I had cancelled the school in Mount Lorne and built a Grey Mountain Primary in light of all the facts that I have just given, and rightly so. When I went out to that school - it is only two years old - and saw kids taking classes in cramped hallways, I knew that we had to do something very soon for those kids and that is what we have done. The population at Grey Mountain had dropped dramatically so that gave us some room to move there. The Grey Mountain Primary School is still in the capital plan, and in the next few weeks we will be surveying all households in the Riverdale and Grey Mountain/Selkirk School districts to get a more accurate account of pre-school children who will attend these schools in the future. This, along with the recommendation of grade restructuring consultation, will allow us to plan more efficiently for the future.
Planning will also take place this year for a new high school in Whitehorse, a new French-first-only school, a replacement of the Mayo school, and we will provide for two modules to be put in Dawson City on a temporary basis to accommodate the overcrowding and allow us some time to reassess Dawson’s needs with the recent Loki announcement. That is another area where I was very pleased to receive the cooperation of the school council in Dawson and I thank them very much for their patience when I was in Dawson a week ago and discussed the concerns about the growth of Dawson City and whether or not an addition to their school would accommodate their needs at this time. They agreed to my suggestion of putting in a couple of modulars for a year and to reassess the situation next year.
We have to plan for the future when we are building our schools and that is what we are doing. Several schools in the Yukon will see some air quality work carried out and some schools will see an increase in the area of capital maintenance repairs.
On the tourism side, we see an overall increase of 21 percent over last year’s budget. The Member from McIntyre said in the media the other day, and as well today, that he is surprised that we have seen a decrease in the marketing budget of Tourism. In fact, he said that I should have told the delegates at the recent summit that there will be an 18-percent decrease.
I did not mention that at the summit because it is not true. I want to be very polite in how I handle this. The opposition Finance critic is reading the budget incorrectly and should know better. I am surprised that he does not realize that. For example, our marketing is not done in the capital budget. It is in the O&M budget and we are not even debating that today. Sure, the capital marketing budget went down, but the former Minister knows that capital does go up and down. If I wanted to use the analogy that the Member has used publicly, one could say that the Tourism capital budget, in the marketing area, has gone down 300 percent or 500 percent from what it was a few years ago.
Two years ago, we built the new visitor reception centre to the tune of $2 million to $3 million. Thank goodness we are not going to build too many of those monsters in the future. When we get into the budget I will explain to the Member how the Tourism budget has actually increased in this capital budget.
The largest decrease in this budget was the visitor reception centre. It went down in that area because the job is almost complete; there is only $20,000 of work left to do there.
In the area of audio visuals, it decreased by 25 percent from last year. The 25 percent was a project to promote the Northwest Mounted Police anniversary and the project is complete - you do not have to do the same project twice. That is why that line item went down. I can go through the budget if the Member wants, when we get into the Tourism budget, and explain it line by line. I would be more than happy to do that.
Let us look at the positive stuff in the Tourism budget, such as the long-awaited visitor’s exit survey. The last visitor exit survey was done in 1987; it is out of date. This will help us immensely in marketing. It is the other side of the equation; we can go out and market all we want, but one must check with the visitors who come here to determine whether or not they received our message and if that is the reason they are here.
The survey will be done this summer and will create over 20 jobs for Yukoners.
There are also increased funds in this budget allocated to areas surrounding the gold rush trail and the upcoming anniversaries. I am quite confident that as we go through the line items of the Tourism budget, all Members will see that it is a positive signal for the tourism industry.
I am especially pleased to see the commitment of this government in the budget toward sewage treatment. That is a very positive step. It is something we talked about in the election campaign. It was an issue many people raised as we campaigned door to door. It is a positive move that is beginning to happen. I applaud the Government of Yukon for taking the initiative, and the cooperation from the First Nations and the City of Whitehorse to make this project a possibility in the near future.
I am not going to go on much longer. I think this is a very good budget for Yukoners. It is a very positive budget. It will create a lot of jobs in the Yukon. Considering the Government of Yukon inherited a very poor financial situation, I think we have made the best of it. Yukoners will be provided with a lot of jobs this summer. I am pleased to support the budget that has been put forward by the government here today.
Ms. Moorcroft: I welcome the opportunity to participate in the 1994-95 capital budget debate.
I would like to begin my comments by looking at the impact a few of the small projects will have in the Mount Lorne riding. The Golden Horn School expansion has been on the books since the initial construction. The expansion includes a gymnasium, classrooms and an activity room. The building advisory committee of the school council has been working with the Department of Education. The draft school construction plans were presented to the annual general meeting of the school council on September 28. I, too, will be keeping an eye on how this project proceeds, and will ask the Minister to meet his time frame of completion by December 1995.
One example of the strong community spirit in my riding is the enormous amount of volunteer time that parents contribute to Golden Horn School. The school is now four years old and is at full enrollment with 186 children between Kindergarten and Grade 6. There are 30 Kindergarten children in this school, and I hope that Department of Community and Transportation Services and the Department of Education have been planning together so that the school will be big enough for future expansion as the neighbourhood grows as a result of new lots being planned in that area, as well. We want to be sure that the school is large enough to meet future needs.
The $1,600,000 this year for Golden Horn School and $1,700,000 next year is a small project, but it is, indeed, well-spent money.
Many of my constituents who were very unhappy about the inferior conditions at the Ecole Emilie Tremblay have worked hard toward the new French first-language school. There is $250,000 in the budget toward this project, which is fully recoverable from the federal government. I hope this government will work with the Franco Yukonnaise community in order to proceed quickly with this project for the benefit of the Ecole Emilie Tremblay student body.
Other territorial ridings are not as well served for their educational needs. The Grey Mountain Elementary School that was promised by the Minister of Education is not in this budget, nor is any money set aside to build a school in Mayo, a school that is also needed. There is only $50,000 set aside for planning an urban secondary school.
The Minister of Education has been talking about how other schools are overcrowded moreso than the Grey Mountain Elementary School. Why is the Minister not rebuilding any schools? Why not build Golden Horn and Grey Mountain and rebuild schools that are deficient. Why is the spending so low in the Department of Education? Overall, this budget does not meet people’s needs and priorities in education.
Also of interest to Mount Lorne constituents will be the money set aside for development of local area development regulations. The $35,000 for these regulations will see the completion of a land use planning exercise, which the Hamlet of Mount Lorne and the community have been working on for many months.
Many diverse views are reflected on the planning committee, as in the community at large. It is positive to see a consensus developing by people working together. These regulations must reflect the community consensus.
There is also $50,000 for a Golden Horn community plan. Many of my constituents have written or spoken to me about developing a community plan. The existing Golden Horn area development regulations were the result of committee work and community meetings, which the Member for Hootalinqua at the time and now the Minister of Justice frequently attended.
Many residents see a need to extend the area covered by the Golden Horn regulations and to take a look at the demands for agricultural, commercial, recreational and industrial land in this area. These are competing interests that must be considered.
I have asked the Minister of Community and Transportation Services for the mandate of this plan, and I have also asked if he is willing to attend a public meeting with me during this process to hear what Golden Horn area residents have to say.
That is our primary responsibility: to listen to and work with the people that we represent in this House.
I see there is also $50,000 for the Whitehorse periphery and I will be interested to follow that community plan as well.
For many Yukoners, these are hard times. The Yukon economy today is in trouble. There are over 3,000 unemployment insurance claims at the federal UI office. The social assistance rolls are up, as people have exhausted their unemployment claims, and have no jobs and nowhere else to turn, in order to feed themselves and their families. The consumer price index tells us the cost of food, shelter, energy, and other necessities, is rising. The cost of living in the Yukon is high. Bankruptcies are up.
In these hard times, the government has brought forth a budget that increases net spending by $8 million. In such a bountiful budget, surely there will be some help for Yukoners; surely there will be some light at the end of this tunnel of hard times, made all the darker by a year of Tory inaction and ineptitude.
Sadly, unless 3,000 Yukoners are prepared to move to Japan, they will find little help in this budget. There would appear to be more money for computers than for creating jobs for Yukoners. There is $5 million being spent on computers, cars and office furniture in this budget.
In his budget address, the Government Leader predicted that this budget would create over 700 jobs. He declared himself proud of this achievement. Others may be forgiven if we refrain from congratulating the hunter while his game still runs free. Let him bring home the trophy before he pats himself on the back.
Where are these 700 jobs? They are not building Ecole Emilie Tremblay; they are not building much of anything. Many of my constituents are unemployed carpenters and construction workers. They want the Government Leader to know that building the new hospital with a steel frame will cost desperately needed jobs. They want the Minister of Health and Social Services to stand by his beliefs, so often expressed in the past, that steel buildings are not the way to build in the Yukon.
The Minister of Health and Social Services said in this House last year that he could not start hospital construction then because the project planning had to be complete. Now, he is saying it was the bad previous government that made all the decisions about hospital construction. He cannot have it both ways. The Minister had to make sure there were no cost overruns. Now, before anything has happened, the construction cost has increased from $44 million, estimated in last year’s budget, to $47 million in this budget. With steel construction, fewer Yukoners will be getting jobs on this major construction project.
One of the shortfalls in the Yukon’s economy is our heavy reliance on a single resource-based industry. We are at the mercy of the world’s metal prices and only economic diversification can save us. So where does the Yukon Party government put its money? Road maintenance and at the same time they talk about roads to mines. No doubt mining will continue to be a powerful force in the economic life of the territory, but surely this government can do more than pay lip service to diversification. Where are the commitments to agriculture, for instance? The Yukon needs an abattoir, marketing boards, meat inspectors, infrastructure. Infrastructure is more than highways full of empty refrigerator vans heading south. Shipping things out of the Yukon can be remarkably cheap. There is no reason our agricultural produce cannot be shipped south. The success of Polar Seas is based on their backhaul freight rates for Arctic char. Yukon lettuce and spinach is prime when it is too hot to grow in BC and California. Meat and hardy vegetables can be grown in the Yukon at reasonable cost if the infrastructure is there.
What is the government’s commitment to agricultural infrastructure in this budget? Fifty thousand dollars for an abattoir. Is this for further study, or are they putting it in a wall tent?
Infrastructure is also more than highways hauling southern-made building materials north and hauling raw logs south. The government is championing the transfer of forestry responsibilities to the Yukon. All anybody can think of to do with the high quality logs we grow here is to ship them to Japan. What, in the budget, encourages the idea of getting people to use local materials to build with? Where are the moves to bring in lumber stamping? Where are the plans for sustainable development, for developing alternatives to clear-cutting? Is there a reforestation plan being developed?
What is the commitment of government to training in this budget? At a time of recession and rising unemployment, it makes economic sense to invest in education and our human resources. In the first Yukon Party budget, Yukon College, our only post-secondary educational institution, took a $100,000 cut in its capital grant. The reduction to $300,000 is being held for the 1994-95 capital grant to Yukon College. I suppose they should be grateful that there is not a further reduction in this capital grant.
As the critic for Community and Transportation Services, I have a lot of concern about the focus of this new capital budget. Over $65 million is being spent in Community and Transportation Services. I will have a lot of questions about priorities here. The transportation division will be spending the bulk of this money - almost $42 million. How much of this money is being spent on infrastructure roads to potential mineral development? What guarantees are there that mining jobs will result in the future? How many jobs are there, and how long will they last? Is the government speculating in infrastructure, or investing in infrastructure? Are we assured of production at mines in the future, or are we paving our way to poverty?
The Yukon Party government plan calls for infrastructure development to increase resource sector investment in the economy. They are excited about Casino, Williams Creek, Drury Creek and Loki Gold. However, when I look at what roads are being built in the huge Community and Transportation Services budget, they are not extending roads to these potential minesites, they are rebuilding existing roads.
Of course we need our roads to be safe. I have already talked to the Minister of Community and Transportation Services about the need for a South Access Road upgrade, which is not presently in the budget. However, I have to ask if we are fixing up the Alaska Highway in order to make sure that people busing out of the territory have a smooth ride? People do not want to be handed a bus ticket to leave the Yukon when they see someone for social assistance. People want to be able to find a job.
There are some good things about this budget. I want to acknowledge that. Yukoners believe the environment is vitally important. Even this government, which supports the questionable practice of mining in parks, has earmarked $7 million for the treatment of Whitehorse sewage. Some of my constituents feel guilty about coming to Whitehorse and flushing the toilet. As one of my constituents said to me at her door - and I will not use unparliamentary language, so I cannot quote her exactly - we have to clean up our own waste. So, the $7 million earmarked for treatment of Whitehorse sewage is well spent.
In Dawson City, $1,800,000 will be spent to replace pipe sewer mains. We all want to ensure there is an effective improvement in public health by adequate sewage treatment in these and other Yukon communities, and First Nations must be equal partners in selecting the land and treatment systems needed for these projects.
I am concerned at the reduction in spending for hazardous waste storage. Let me assure the Minister of Community and Transportation Services that the hazardous waste in the Yukon has not been cleaned up and more is being generated. We cannot ignore that hazardous waste either, just as we have to respond to the fact that raw sewage goes down the Yukon River.
I would like to talk about municipal and community services. Each of us represents First Nations constituents, and we have a responsibility to give meaningful support to the resolution of land claims. This means that we cannot proceed with wholesale land development before the First Nations have completed their land selections, particularly in the Whitehorse area. There is widespread support for the resolution of land claims. Indeed, with the unanimous passage of Yukon land claims and self-government legislation in this House, I trust that support for First Nations people crosses the political spectrum in this Legislature.
The Government Leader says that every community in the Yukon stands to benefit. “Land claims implementation for training, surveying and other jobs will inject millions of dollars into the Yukon economy.” I would like to ask the Government Leader if the money being spent on surveying in the Carcross area in this budget will be done by First Nations.
The Government Leader has also said, “Our government has made the land claims settlement a top priority.” Support for land claims cannot occur in a vacuum. I have a lot of concern about the millions of dollars being spent on land development, firstly because I believe that negotiations with the Kwanlin Dun and Ta’an Kwach’an must be completed before further disposal and development of land in the greater Whitehorse area occurs.
I see $250,000 for Whitehorse resident rural homestead land development alone. Where is this land? Will the First Nations be able to negotiate land selections for an economic base for their people before or after land development? The Government of Yukon should live up to its legal responsibility under the land claims legislation to negotiate a fair and just settlement with First Nations people. If the Yukon Party proceeds with government land development first, will only swamps and mountain tops be left for the First Nations?
Secondly, this government has done a lot of talking, campaigning and promising about the need to reduce our dependency on the federal government. However, it seems to be grabbing every penny it can before the pot runs dry. A party that claimed it wanted less dependency on the federal government is claiming a land development cost recovery of $12,480,000 from the federal government.
This money is to be used to finance industrial, commercial, recreational, agricultural and residential land development in many Yukon communities. This is a huge concern to Yukoners. Can we afford this $12.5 million worth of land development and do we need it? There are “for sale” signs all over this territory. There is private land for sale, because people do not have jobs and are leaving the Yukon. There is already a huge land inventory held by the Yukon government. There are industrial and commercial properties available for sale right now, today, from the Yukon government. This land has already been developed and has not sold. The Yukon has over $17 million of land inventory today, and this government wants to increase that amount.
Two out of 92 lots in the Arkell subdivision sold this year. Only 15 lots were sold in the Logan subdivision, where there are approximately 130 lots. Why does the Yukon Party want to develop more land? If they put money in the bank instead of into land development, the money would earn interest to cover bank charges. The Yukon Party advocated putting money in the bank to earn interest. I do not understand why they want to develop all of this land - simply to get the money from the federal government? To shut out the 10 First Nations who have not negotiated their land selections?
I must also comment on the impact that this budget will not have on women. Women are still not fully integrated into a range of occupations in the paid labour force and that is because of hundreds of years of job segregation, sexism and lack of access to education and job training.
I feel that I am standing here today repeating the same thing as I said a week ago, a month ago and a year ago. Perhaps that is why I hear snoring from the opposite benches; they are not paying attention.
We need an employment equity program that has targets, timetables and an effective mechanism for implementation. We need an employment equity program that is consistently applied and meets the goals of equitable and fair representation.
A prime example of why we need an employment equity policy leaps out when we look at this budget. The jobs in this budget are road jobs. These jobs are traditionally held by men. I challenge the government to find ways of ensuring that half of these 700 jobs - if there are 700 jobs - be jobs for women.
This government thinks that employment equity policies are just words on a piece of paper, and that if they tell me they agree with those words that I will believe them and quit talking about it.
Perhaps by now they have figured out that women demand equal access to training, jobs and fair wages.
I will not quit talking about equality for women, who comprise 52 percent of the population, until women have achieved equality. This is an issue that is important to all of us, and this government has released a survey of Yukon women.
This is a very powerful document, because it contains the voices of many Yukon women. These women say what I have been hearing women say for many years and what I hear women say today, because I listen to women. Working women want child care, education, training, access to better-paid jobs, equal to their male counterparts, and safer communities. All women want safe housing, but this budget makes cuts to the safe houses program and to non-profit housing.
We know only too well that there are women who are not safe in every community in the Yukon. There are not shelters in every community. This budget spends million of dollars on roads and land development, which the federal government repays, but we cannot spend money on programs for women.
Last year, a $75,000 transfer payment for the money spent on the safe places program. This year, the safe places program has been slashed to $20,000 - not even enough money for one new facility.
Many single women and single parents cannot afford adequate housing. There is money in this budget for owner-build programs, for rental suites and home repair - all of which are programs that require some working capital to start with - but the non-profit housing budget has been cut by 90 percent. Fewer women will get a chance at a place of their own. Fewer women will have access to a safe environment.
At a time of rising unemployment, education and training becomes most important. Education and training is an investment of the highest order: an investment in human infrastructure. Women surveyed want training opportunities. They are very limited now, especially for poor women who want to get off social assistance or women re-entering the workforce after many years at home raising families.
This budget does not meet people’s priorities in education. To diversify the economy and the labour market, investment in education and training, the arts, social services and child care is essential. It was music to my ears to hear the Minister of Government Services acknowledge the importance of child care when he cut the ribbon for the Playcare Society’s new facility on 4th Avenue recently. He seems to have learned, by having a single mother in his own family, that grandparents are not always available or interested in meeting a family’s child care needs.
I will be interested to learn where and how $80,000 for child care services development will be spent. I hope Ministers of this government will have other occasions to open child care facilities during their term in office, but I doubt it with a mere $80,000.
This budget perpetuates an imbalance that disadvantages women. It does not meet the needs of Yukon women.
These are tough economic times. This budget does not respond to our present economic circumstances. Perhaps that is in part because the government has ignored all calls to consult with the public about the economy. The government fired the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment instead of asking this working group to help find solutions to the economic crisis we are in. The Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment reflects a balance of interests; perhaps that is why the government got rid of it, so that they could get rid of some of the voices they did not want to listen to or maybe that they were just afraid to listen to. One of the seats they cut was a representative of the Yukon Status of Women Council.
We would like a breakdown of the 700 Yukon jobs this budget will supposedly create. I find the 700-jobs claim unbelievable.
In closing, I would like to refer to the Government Leader’s budget address. He tells us that this budget, like their previous budget, is a step in the right direction, a step toward realizing a brighter future. If this budget is a step in the same direction as the previous budget has taken us, it is a step into darkness for many Yukoners; it is a step in the direction of higher unemployment, higher social service costs, of economic monoculture. I urge the government to step back to reconsider this budget in light of the many constructive criticisms that I and my colleagues will be bringing forward during the coming debate.
Mr. Millar: I would like to speak to the 1994-95 capital budget that was brought down by the Yukon Party government last Wednesday. There are a couple of things in it that I would like to talk about.
In the past year, as I have been sitting in this Legislature, I have been amazed when a couple of Members on the side opposite have talked about not being consulted. It is a funny thing because I can really relate to where they are coming from. As a government back bencher, I was thinking that they were not coming to me, and they were not asking me. As time progressed, I learned through talking to my constituents, and talking to the Members, that it is not really their job to come running to me and ask my opinion. It is my job to find out what my constituents want and what can best be done, and to go to them with these concerns. I have found that they are very reasonable, although I do not always get what I want. I think I have been reasonably successful and I would like to say to those Members that communication is a two-way street. I think they would find that the Ministers and the Government Leader are fairly open, if you come at them without making demands and telling them what you want. Just sit down and try to point out to them how your plan is better than theirs, and that sort of thing. I thought I would just throw that out, as I strongly believe it.
The capital budget is $126 million; it is a fairly large capital budget. Four million seven hundred thousand dollars of that goes to Dawson City. That is the second largest allocation to any of the municipalities in the territory. It works out to about 3.8 percent.
It has already been expressed by people in here today that maybe Dawson is getting a little bit too much. Sometimes I believe that the Ministers think that as well, and I have had to fight very hard for what is there.
I would like to talk a little bit about where some of that money is going, and why it is going there.
The $1.8 million is going into the Dawson City water and sewer. This is a project that has been going on for a long, long time. The Member for Faro says it has been since Danny Lang. By my math, that means that there were some seven years in between, when they were in power, that they could have fixed the problem, which they chose not to. They chose not to deal with the problem; therefore, it has now fallen back into our hands. That project is now creating a lot of jobs in Dawson. There is a lot of work there. It is something that definitely needed to be done. I would like to say that it could have been dealt with in the past if the government of the time had been so inclined.
There is $280,000 going to land development. I was interested to hear the comments from the Members opposite on this particular subject here today. When I drive around in the Klondike riding, I look around and see that there is an awful lot of land around. I cannot understand why a guy cannot buy a lot either to build his house on or to use for industrial purposes. Believe me, in the Dawson area, it is very difficult to do that. There are a number of controversies going on in the area right now, simply because there is no land available for purchase. I found their comments quite interesting.
Somebody on the other side is asking who I am blaming that on. I am not blaming it on anyone. I am just saying that it is something that needs to be dealt with. I, for one, think that the $280,000 going to land development in the Dawson area is quite beneficial and is something that we need.
There is about $250,000 being spent on the Dempster Highway for erosion protection. I am sure everyone remembers the last flood season we had, in which the Dempster Highway was almost completely wiped out. I do not think there is much doubt that the money is needed. We do not want to go through that scenario again.
There is almost $1.7 million being spent on the Top of the World Highway. Half of that money is recoverable, but the other half is not. I think that this money is something that is desperately needed and is being spent on, I believe, kilometres 60 to 105.
This construction is going to do a lot for the whole Yukon economy, not just for Dawson City. I think that when people are planning their trips and vacations down south, looking at their maps and see a solid red line, instead of that dotted line, they are going to realize there is a loop road up here. They can come up one way and go home another way. I honestly believe that is going to bring a lot more people into the territory.
The construction on the Top of the World Highway brings me to another point. I am sure that everyone has heard it mentioned in the last year - I can tell you I sure have - and that is a bridge across the Yukon River. I think this is a project that we are going to have to look at very closely and it is something that we are going to desperately need.
I looked at the figures and I see that between $600,000 and $700,000 annually goes into the maintenance of the ferry that is currently servicing Dawson City.
The ferry is much too small. During peak tourist season there is up to a six-hour wait for tourists. This is something that we have to deal with and it cannot continue to go on. I really think it is a wise expenditure of money to look at putting a bridge across that river.
The costs for a bridge range from $8 million to $30 million. I really do not know where it would be. I suspect it would be in the $20 million range. I think that is a very good infrastructure project for a government to take on, and I think that that is something that we are going to have to look at. This is particularly important with the approaching celebration of the decade of centennials. We have all heard about these celebrations and they are going to attract tourists to the territory. If tourists run into a five- to six-hour ferry line in Dawson City it is going to hurt the tourism industry. Word of mouth is the fastest source of information and if that gets up and down the highway it will hurt our tourism industry.
A bridge is something that is very desperately needed.
Three hundred and ninety thousand dollars has been set aside for the Dawson City school expansion. We heard the Minister of Tourism mention this briefly already. There is absolutely no doubt that the school is far too small for Dawson City’s needs. It has grown in population in the last three to four years, from about 245 students to over 295 or 300 - it has been over 300 at times. There are only nine classrooms in that school.
There are a number of problems with this. The current school, which is probably one of the most expensive schools in the territory, was to be built so that it could be easily expanded, so that one could put the classrooms above the shops, et cetera. During construction, for some reason or another, it was decided that this would not happen, so now we are left with a real problem in Dawson. To expand that school is quite costly.
The Hon. Minister of Tourism has mentioned that he sat down and talked with the school council and they were supportive of him, and this is true, but they do have concerns and they know that the current situation is not good enough. Modulars are not what we want in Dawson City - nor does anyone. However, it is a sacrifice we have had to make for the time being and we are going to have to live with it. However, by the same count, perhaps some good can come out of this. In the meantime, we can take a look to see what we really do need in Dawson City. Is an expansion adding just three more classrooms going to be enough? Some of the things that are coming through the pipeline now, for example, are the Loki operation, there is some talk of the border being moved closer to Dawson City, there was some mention that the forestry transfer could go ahead and if it does there is a possibility that Dawson could get some jobs out of it. So there are a number of things that have to be looked at here and we have to use our money wisely. We do not have a lot of it.
One of the things at the start of my speech that I forgot to mention when I was saying that it is $126 million capital budget is that only $51 million of that is discretionary funds. Only $51 million of it is money we can direct. We have to be very careful about what we do with that money.
One of the other factors regarding the school is the college in Dawson City. The facilities it is currently in are soon to be condemned, if they are not already. They are very poor facilities. There is not even a classroom there. One of the items that should be looked at is the possibility of building a new elementary or primary school in Dawson City and moving the younger grades out so that they are not in with the high school students. That would definitely open up some room in the current facility. Perhaps the college could then move into part of it. That is likely a better expenditure of money than simply to throw up three rooms without any planning.
There is approximately $180,000 going into the museum in Dawson City. Of that, about $35,000 is for an exhibit that will travel all over Canada and likely to Europe, as well. That exhibit is primarily to promote the decade of centennials. Some of the bigger ones are the discovery of gold in 1996 and the gold rush itself in 1998. While the money is definitely of benefit to the Yukon, one can see that a lot of it is of benefit to the whole territory, as well.
The rest of the $185,000 is being spent on a very much needed sprinkler syste