Whitehorse, Yukon

Monday, December 6, 1993 - 1:30 p.m.

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

Prayers

DAILY ROUTINE

Speaker: We will proceed with the Order Paper.

National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence against Women

Hon. Mr. Phillips: I rise today to recognize December 6 as the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence against Women. Today, we must remember the 14 women massacred in Montreal in 1989 and remember the victims of violence against women in the past.

At the federal-provincial-territorial level, we have recognized that violence against women is the biggest obstacle to women’s equality in today’s society. Study after study points out the seriousness of the problem. The most recent royal commission report from the Canadian Panel on Violence against Women, the Violence against Women Survey and our own Yukon survey on women’s concerns and priorities show us how prevalent this issue is in our society and how very concerned women are about it.

Though government and non-government organizations and individuals have worked on eliminating violence against women, the task seems never ending. Every day we are shown that more work needs to be done. Last week, we heard about a woman in Edmonton, Alberta, who was beaten and set on fire by a man.

We all need to be concerned and, what is more important, we need to take action. I urge the Members of this Legislative Assembly to declare their support in working toward eliminating violence against women, not only today but every day.

A reflection of how advanced our society is is how it treats its members. It would appear that since one-half of all Canadian women have experienced at least one incidence of violence since the age of 16, we have a very poor record and a lot of work to do.

But we, as Members of the Legislature, pledge to work with individuals, families and community members to stop violence against women. It is only when we take responsibility for this issue that we have a chance to change what statistics currently reflect.

Ms. Moorcroft: I would like to tell Members a brief story about an experience that I had when I worked for the Women’s Directorate, which was hosting an open house on the occasion of the passage of the aborted advisory council on women’s issues act.

This true story is about a woman who came up to me at the open house and was asking questions about the Criminal Code amendments, known as the recent gun control legislation. I explained to her that the new law means that men who are convicted of violent crimes now receive an automatic sentence of a 10-year suspension of gun ownership.

This woman had been viciously assaulted and raped. When her convicted assailant got out of jail, he came to her house and threatened her with a gun. She moved. When she drove the Alaska Highway between her work and her new home, she would meet her attacker on the road and he would point a gun at her through the dash of his truck.

I will never forget what that woman said to me as I was giving her information about the lobby for the no-means-no rape shield law and other feminist political activities. She said to me, “I want you to promise me that if I end up dead that you will not stop working for change.” I do not know if that woman moved out of the Yukon or if she is dead, because I have not seen her since, but I can tell the House that in commemoration of the 14 women killed in Montreal, on December 6, 1989, and all of the women who have died by violence, I am working for change.

For women, economic, social and political equality would be a nice change. I hope that all Members will join in working for that change.

Recognition of the death of Tuktoyaktuk plane crash victims

Mr. Abel: I rise today to extend my condolences to the families of the people killed in the recent plane crash just outside of Tuktoyaktuk.

Recognition of the death of Orval Couch

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I rise today to take this opportunity, on behalf of the Members of my government, to extend condolences to the family of the late Orval Couch, who passed away on Friday at the age of 82 years.

Orval first came north in 1942 as an employee of the U.S. army, assisting in the construction of the Alaska Highway. In 1946, he transferred to the Canadian army, for which he worked as a heavy duty mechanic until 1964 and had the responsibility of the maintenance of the highway. He was transferred to the Department of Public Works, where he remained until 1976.

In his many years working along the highway, Orval became intimately acquainted with lots of people in the communities throughout the Yukon. For eight years, he and his family lived in Swift River. In later years, his responsibilities took him to places such as Carmacks and Drury Creek.

Few could have shared his understanding of the highway or its sense of a place in Yukon society and history. His wife Helen and his children Marjorie, Caroll, Les and David have our deepest sympathy.

Recognition of the death of Phil Storer

Mr. Penikett: I join the Government Leader to mourn the passing of the honourable gentleman he just mentioned, and I would also like to note the passing of Mr. Phil Storer, who will be much missed by his wife Vi and his family and friends in the Yukon.

Speaker: Introduction of Visitors.

Are there any Returns or Documents for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I have some legislative returns and documents for tabling.

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

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

Ms. Moorcroft: Today would have been a good day for the Minister responsible for the Women’s Directorate to have tabled this government’s policy on stopping violence against women, if it has such a policy.

Since the rules do not permit me to respond when no ministerial statement was made, I would like to table the statement that I have prepared for Canada’s National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women.

Speaker: Are there any Petitions?

Introduction of Bills?

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

Bill No. 77: Introduction and First Reading

Hon. Mr. Brewster: I move that Bill No. 77, entitled An Act to Amend the Liquor Act, be now introduced and read a first time.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister responsible for the Liquor Corporation that Bill No. 77, entitled An Act to Amend the Liquor Act, be now introduced and read a first time.

Motion for introduction and first reading of Bill No. 77 agreed to

Bill No. 40: Introduction and First Reading

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I move that Bill No. 40, entitled Subdivision Act, be now introduced and read a first time.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister of Community and Transportation Services that Bill No. 40, entitled Subdivision Act, be now introduced and read a first time.

Motion for introduction and first reading of Bill No. 40 agreed to.

Bill No. 65: Introduction and First Reading

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I move that Bill No. 65, entitled An Act to Amend the Hospital Act and the Evidence Act, be now introduced and read a first time.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister of Health and Social Services that Bill No. 65, entitled An Act to Amend the Hospital Act and the Evidence Act, be now introduced and read a first time.

Motion for introduction and first reading of Bill No. 65 agreed to

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

Are there any Notices of Motion?

NOTICES OF MOTION

Mr. Millar: I would like to give notice of the following motion:

THAT it is the opinion of this House that mining has been a cornerstone of the Yukon and Canadian economies; and

THAT mining investment and development is in decline in most parts of Canada and the Government of Yukon should support the Mining Association of Canada’s “Keep Mining in Canada” initiative.

Speaker: Are there any Statements by Ministers?

This then brings us to the Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Question re: Forestry transfer, stand of federal Minister

Mr. Penikett: From CBC radio we learned that it was love at first sight in the meeting between the Government Leader and Mr. Irwin, the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, at which they discussed devolution, among other questions. Since the Government Leader has been lobbying for a speedy transfer of the forestry program, while CYI has asked the same federal Minister to delay the transfer until land claims are legislated, whose side did Mr. Irwin take in this dispute between YTG and CYI?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: In response to the Member’s preamble, I hope that the love at first sight continues for many years to come, as he is the person we are going to be dealing with over all the issues that are facing the Yukon. The Minister was noncommittal. I laid my concerns on the table and advised him that the forestry transfer would mean jobs for Yukoners this winter. I asked him to review the forestry transfer agreement and to expedite it, or if he could not, to let me know why he could not.

Mr. Penikett: It sounds very Liberal of the Minister to be noncommittal. I want to know, since YTG has asked the DIAND Minister for an memorandum of understanding on devolution framework, does the memorandum of understanding under discussion between the Government Leader and the federal Minister contemplate full participation for First Nations in a process that makes devolution a subordinate activity to land claims and self-government negotiations?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I believe we have answered the question of devolution in the House before, be it the memorandum of understanding on land and resources or be it the forestry devolution. Certainly, we want full First Nations participation in it and, for the memorandum of understanding, we did invite their participation and were refused. We are going to continue to keep the door open to try to resolve our differences. It is only in the best interests of all Yukoners that we work together on these issues.

Mr. Penikett: We thoroughly agree with that, though the Government Leader did not answer the question about the precedence of land claims versus devolution and I hope he will comment on that.

I want to ask him a specific question with respect to the proposed arrangements for YTG management of the forestry program, which some believe compromised the future potential of our timber resources, employee job security, community safety and, perhaps, violates the UFA. Did the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development express any concern about any of these issues, to the Government Leader?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: As a comment on the first preamble, I have stated quite emphatically in this House, time and time again, that the forestry agreement or the memorandum of understanding, or any other such agreements, do not take precedence over land claims. The land claim is the overriding document that we all have to deal with in the Yukon and it has precedence over any devolution that comes from the federal government.

On the specific issues of the transfers, we did not have enough time to get into detail on them and he did not raise any concerns with me. I do not know exactly how familiar he was with the issue at the time but I raised it and asked for his response in the very near future.

Question re: Government Leader meeting with Prime Minister

Mr. Penikett: I want to ask the Government Leader about the timing of this meeting.

For the record, as a matter of fact, when the Government Leader requested a pair from the Official Opposition in order to go to Ottawa at the end of the month, did the Government Leader actually have a confirmed appointment with either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Indian Affairs at that point?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: I think I should answer that question. When the issue was brought up, the new government had just taken office. We had a fairly certain confirmation of the meeting with the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs and we were attempting to get a meeting with the Prime Minister. In fact, we did receive a brief meeting with the Prime Minister when the Government Leader was there, as well as confirmation that all first Ministers will be meeting some time in late December. We took the opportunity to arrange to meet with the Prime Minister to urge him to proceed on the land claims legislation as soon as possible.

Mr. Penikett: I want to press the Government Leader on this point. My information from Ottawa is that the Government Leader wrote and requested a meeting with the Minister, indicating that he was going to be in Ottawa on the 29th and 30th, and did not have a confirmed meeting at that point. My question, therefore, is: what business was it that was taking the Government Leader to Ottawa on October 29 and 30, since he did not, at that point, have a scheduled meeting with either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I thought this issue was addressed fully at the House Leaders’ meeting. I was on my way to Halifax to a meeting of the Finance and Economic Development Ministers that was already scheduled for December 1. Without the meeting in Ottawa, I could perhaps have returned here for one day, and maybe not; I may have had to leave again Monday to go back again, so that was discussed in detail by the House Leaders when we requested the pairing.

Mr. Penikett: The Government House Leader is inviting us to say no to pairing arrangements, as his side did when we were in government - with the exception of the Government Leader - but we do not intend to stoop to that low standard.

We understood, as a condition of the pairing arrangement, that the Government Leader had undertaken on behalf of this government to make or to table statements in this House concerning the substantial contribution of the Ministers at these meetings while they were away. There have been a number of Ministers who have paired and who have been absent, and we have not yet had a single statement or a full report from any Minister on their contribution to any of the meetings when they have been absent from the House. Can we expect them soon?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I certainly have no difficulty in tabling a statement. I do not recall that that was the protocol in the past, nor do I recall the Leader of the Official Opposition, in his capacity as Premier of the Yukon, filing statements in the House, apart from answering questions about his meetings. However, if the Minister wants a report we will get one ready and table it.

Question re: Wolf control program

Mr. Cable: I have some questions for the Minister of Renewable Resources on the wolf management plan.

It is my understanding that the Department of Renewable Resources prepared a draft Cabinet submission, which was taken to Cabinet in September, and I quote, “that Cabinet approve the Yukon wolf conservation and management plan as Yukon government policy.” Will the Minister confirm that this submission was in fact made to Cabinet in September?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: It certainly never was approved by Cabinet at any time.

Mr. Cable: That was not the question I asked. My question was: did the Minister and his department in fact take that submission to Cabinet?

I have in my possession what appears to be a draft Cabinet submission, presumably prepared by the Department of Renewable Resources, that recommends the adoption of the wolf conservation and management plan.

Obviously, opposition to the plan is not coming from the Minister’s department, and if I have been hearing the news reports properly, there is no opposition from the Council for Yukon Indians and Champagne/Aishihik First Nation.

Can the Minister identify where the opposition for the adoption of the plan is coming from?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: I have never seen the document. I would be very interested in having a look at it and I hope that the Member will table it.

Mr. Cable: I certainly will table the document.

In the spring, the Minister advised that he would adopt the plan, once CYI’s concerns were addressed. I understand that those concerns have been addressed. Furthermore, the Minister now claims that a lack of consultation is the primary reason for not adopting the plan. There is a summary that is being prepared here - two pages of public consultations, which I will also table.

In view of these facts, will the Minister once again ask his colleagues to adopt the entire plan?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: I like the way the speaker shakes his head and uses his hand. That is what I do when I want my dog to fetch anything or speak. He seems to know how to do that very well.

I will not, at the present time, consider even taking the full thing into the Cabinet until we have had several working papers made out.

Question re: Faro and Sa Dena Hes, sale of mines

Mr. Harding: I think the Member for Riverside got a scoop on that last question, but I would like to ask the Government Leader a question regarding the Faro and Sa Dena Hes mine properties.

In light of a recent meeting with the Minister of Northern Affairs, I would think that that meeting would have been a prime opportunity to discuss the sale of the Faro and Sa Dena Hes properties. I would like to ask the Government Leader if they discussed a sales strategy, what was the status of the properties and what was the result of those conversations?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: We certainly did discuss the situation at the Sa Dena Hes and Faro mines. We talked about our concerns and said we wanted to see the sale expedited as quickly as possible so that the operations could resume when base metal prices recover. We hope they will recover shortly.

As to the strategy, that is being addressed by Peat Marwick, who is working for the federal government. It will be tabled in the courts on December 17, as I understand it.

Mr. Harding: While the Government Leader was away, last Wednesday in debate, the Minister of Justice spoke about Cominco being very interested in the property. I wonder if any of the potential buyers have raised concerns regarding the environmental liabilities of the Grum stripping? I would also like a comment on the statement by the Government Leader that they wanted to see the properties sold and the sale expedited. What exactly is the territorial government going to do to accomplish that? Is the government going to sit back and let the receivers do everything?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: This is a matter that is in front of the courts. We have had our input into it with the federal government, and they have instructed the firm of Peat Marwick to come up with a sales plan for this. We could have very easily sat back and let the unsecured noteholders take hold of the property and tie it up for the next two or three years, to get as many dollars out of it as they could. That is not in the best interests of the people of Faro or the people of the Yukon. We worked very diligently to see if we could expedite the sale of it in some other manner, so as not to have it tied up by people who wanted to get the best dollar out of it.

Mr. Harding: Whenever we press the government, they say the matter is before the courts. As a creditor, and as someone who could have a significant impact on the sale equation, and on this situation, we would expect them to take a pro-active role, because it is such an important asset for the Yukon.

Cominco has stated an interest in the property. Have there been any other formal purchase offers for the property?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I do not believe there have been any formal offers made on the property to this point, because there is no sales plan in place yet. The federal government, in its undertaking to fund the receivership through Peat Marwick, has been talking to interested parties, and there are several of them. Cominco is not the only one; there are others on the horizon as well. To the best of my knowledge, there has not been any formal offer made on the Faro property at this point.

Question re: Infrastructure funding from federal government

Mr. McDonald: I have a question for the Government Leader. The government has expressed pride in the fact that, whatever one might think of the merits of their infrastructure plan, it was very good at milking money from the federal government.

Did the Minister take the opportunity to turn the federal Minister upside-down and shake a few loose coins from his pocket to support the Yukon Party’s infrastructure plan?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: When you get to Ottawa, you certainly take every opportunity you have to convince the federal government that there are things  required in the Yukon. While I did not get into a detailed discussion of the infrastructure plan, I did leave it there for his perusal.

Mr. McDonald: Did the Minister tell the federal Minister that extra federal funding was essential, or necessary, to carry out the provisions of the Yukon Party’s infrastructure plan?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: No, I did not. Our conversation was not directed specifically to any one topic; I only had about an hour with him before I had to catch a plane to Halifax, and we had a broad range of issues to cover.

We talked about the infrastructure plan that the Liberal government was bringing out, and the inequities in it that the north will face - we brought that to his attention. I was more interested in talking to him about monies that are legitimately owed to the Yukon - monies that, if collected, would go a long way toward helping us resolve our financial difficulties.

Mr. McDonald: The government appears reluctant to invest any of its own money in the infrastructure plan and if the federal government does not invest in the infrastructure plan either, then clearly no one is going to be investing in it.

Can the Minister tell us what the priorities of the government are for federal spending? Is it land claims negotiation implementation funding? Is it roads to resources? Is it power projects? Is it the NCPC debt write-off that they are looking for? Is it environmental clean-up, such as the Whitehorse tar pit? Is it Whitehorse water and sewer? What sense of priority did the Government Leader give to the federal Minister in terms of the provision of some additional financial assistance?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I thought the Member opposite would be fully aware of the priorities they have been discussing in great detail in this House. They were part of a national campaign - it was jobs, jobs, jobs - and the priority of this government right now is to create jobs in the Yukon.

Question re: Official Opposition requests for information

Mr. Penikett: A couple of weeks ago, the Government Leader admitted that Cabinet had made an explicit decision to deny the Opposition health critic a briefing, which in any democracy ought to be available to any MLA who has questions to ask on behalf of his party or his constituency. I would like to ask the Government Leader since, in parliamentary procedure, the role of the Opposition is to question government policy, but recently members of the Opposition staff have been refused routine requests for information - information that the general public would be entitled to receive if they requested the same information - will the Government Leader table the policy that directs his departments to censure even the most routine enquiries of the Official Opposition and instruct them to refer all questions, even those of fact, to deputy ministers or Ministers’ offices?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I would deny that totally; I would deny it totally. The only problem is that the Leader of the Official Opposition still thinks he is the government. That is the only problem. We have given them all the information they have asked for. We have certainly not given any instructions to withhold information from the Official Opposition - in fact, the more information they get, the more likely we would not spend as many days in this House.

Mr. Penikett: The Government Leader whines about spending days in this House to answer questions on the floor of the House. Could the Government Leader tell us how it helps to expedite government business having any one of us here tie up Ministers for two or three weeks trying to get answers from them that they do not know, when the same information could be provided with an hour or two of briefing from senior officials? How does that help to expedite government business?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I believe the only request that was made of the Leader of the Official Opposition was to take it up with the Minister, prior to going to the deputy minister; not to go directly to the deputy minister.

Mr. Penikett: Every day, staff in our offices make phone calls to departmental offices asking questions of fact that ought to be available to any citizen, upon request. We - elected Members of this Legislature - are told that to get those questions answered we have to get permission from the appointed political staff of the Minister’s opposite.

I want to ask the Government Leader this: is that his government’s policy? I ask him that in the context of the fact that during the campaign the Yukon Party promised to provide “real freedom of information”. Is this what he calls real freedom of information, that we have to get permission from a political staffer to get factual information that should be available to any citizen?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: Certainly not. Factual information and information that is that available to any citizen should be available to the Members opposite. I will take it under advisement and see what the problem is.

Question re: Tombstone Mountain

Mr. Penikett: I will change the subject and ask the Government Leader about another matter, since he has taken that question under advisement. I want to ask him a question about the issue of Tombstone Mountain land selection. The Government Leader will recall that the Dawson First Nation had selected that land and were persuaded by the government to withdraw the selection in favour of a park being established there that would be co-managed with the territorial government. The territorial government has subsequently decided that there should be mining in that park - or a multi-use park. Was that decision made with any consultation with the Dawson First Nation?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I am sure that the Dawson First Nation was made aware of our position and we said, at the time, that before any parks were established there would be a mineral assessment done of the areas. That has been undertaken and it is my understanding that if it is not completed it should be shortly, and a decision will be forthcoming.

Mr. Penikett: One Minister in the government opposite made a statement to the effect that on the question of mining in parks and with respect to mining in this proposed park in particular, the public were consulted on October 19 - election day. Is it the official position of the government that the election day is sufficient consultation for the government to break a promise to the Dawson First Nation and to do something other than what had been agreed to by the previous government and that First Nation?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I do not believe there have been any promises broken at this point. The position of the Dawson First Nation is that either we incorporate it into a territorial park or they will applying for it as part of their land selection. It is at the negotiating table right now and it is an issue that is being dealt with at this time.

Mr. Penikett: The Government Leader has given a fairly accurate description of the Dawson First Nation’s position, but I am asking questions about this government’s position.

Is it this government’s position that the proposed Tombstone Park would be a multi-use park; in other words, a park where there should be mining permitted. Since the government has already stated that position publicly, will that be the position that this government is taking to the table?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: The position that we are taking on multi-use parks is the same position that we took during the election campaign. We do not believe that if we are going to attract mining to the Yukon that we can tie up vast areas of the Yukon containing valuable mineral potential.

That is the reason we had the mineral assessment review done of Tombstone Park. As the Member opposite is fully aware, there are some claims right on Tombstone. That is another issue that has to be dealt with, prior to the creation of any park.

Question re: Sexual harassment policy for public schools

Ms. Moorcroft: All too painfully, it has been brought to my attention that young women in junior high schools are being sexually harassed by fellow students. That our society has come to this point is another matter, but I would like to ask the Minister of Education if he will, without waiting another single day, commit to putting into place a sexual harassment policy for the public schools?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: I believe that work on that has already begun, and I hope that we will have a policy developed in the very near future.

The Women’s Directorate is working with the Department of Education in developing such a policy.

Ms. Moorcroft: Such a policy and the strict enforcement of this policy is very important, not only for the protection of young women, but to act as a proper deterrent so that this kind of thing will simply not happen again. There must be no further delay.

The Minister has said that the Women’s Directorate would be involved in developing this policy, and I would like to ask the Minister to what extent will students, school councils, parents, psychologists and the Department of Education and the Women’s Directorate be involved?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: All of the parties that the Member mentioned will be consulted and involved in developing the policy. That is something that has to be done when a policy such as this is developed.

Ms. Moorcroft:   Until such a policy is in place, what steps is the Minister going to take to ensure that students who are accused of harassing behaviour are properly dealt with, not only to the satisfaction of the school administration, but to the satisfaction of the victims?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: In this particular case that the Member mentioned, I have been led to believe that all of the people involved are satisfied with the action that has been taken. In fact, one of the recommendations by one of the individuals who spoke to the Member opposite was that the matter not become political, because they felt that things had been taken care of.

Counselling is going on; other people in the school are being involved in the situation and my understanding is that the parents of the individuals involved are satisfied with the measures that have been taken by the Women’s Directorate and the Department of Education.

Question re: Security check policy

Mrs. Firth: I have a policy question I would like to address to the Government Leader about this government’s security policy. This was authorized by Cabinet in October, 1993, and allows deputy ministers to designate any position in government they choose to require a police records check, including fingerprints and any additional information that is required by the RCMP to complete the check. All persons applying for these jobs have to agree to this security check. Once it is done, the information is put into an envelope and locked away in a secret cabinet in the Public Service Commission. There they will be kept for six months, for the unsuccessful applicants, and forever for the successful ones.

What situation caused this drastic policy to be developed by this government?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I will have to get back to the Member with all the details on why the policy was developed, but I recall that there were some major concerns raised when the policy came to Cabinet for expansion. There are people in key positions in government, and I believe this policy was in consultation with the Department of Justice, and perhaps even the police.

I am sorry that I do not have the information at my fingertips. I will bring a full report back to the Member on that.

Mrs. Firth: I am asking this question of the Government Leader. He is the Chair of Cabinet. Cabinet made this policy up by itself, not through the Management Board. The policy says that the department heads can designate any position where a degree of trust exists in the delivery of client services, which is virtually any position.

Which jobs in government are going to require this security check?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: The Member sits over there and alludes that we just make these policies up. We have a lot of documentation and background research that goes into these before the policy is developed. It is not quite like she says.

I can bring back a list of the potential positions where this check would be required.

Mrs. Firth: This Minister - this Government Leader - should know what he is doing and should remember a policy like this. In this policy, it also says that further information means “any additional information that is required by the RCMP, which will enable them to complete the check”. What does that mean, besides the fingerprints that are cited in this policy? What other information - who your mother is, who your father is, what employment?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: As I said, I do not have that information at my fingertips. Maybe the Member opposite thinks I should have it all in my head, but I do not. I deal with many issues every day, but I will bring her documentation of the rationale for the policy.

Question re: Security check policy

Mrs. Firth: It is like the computers. The Government Leader has a selective memory, or he does not know what policies he is making. I can say, if I had made this policy, I would sure remember what it said.

Also in this policy, the director of labour relations in the Public Service Commission is going to be responsible for this secret cabinet that they are going to have, with these envelopes with all this sensitive material in them. I checked the job qualifications for the director of labour relations; I checked the job description for just a labour relations officer who may be taking over that position in a temporary capacity, and neither one of them requires a security check. Why is that? Why is it that the person handling all this sensitive information does not require a security check, yet any other job in the government could require one?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: If what the Member says is true, it would be a valid concern. I cannot say that it is true. She is saying it is, but I cannot. I said I will bring a full report back to her so that she can have it for her perusal.

Mrs. Firth: With all due respect, the Government Leader has admitted today that he does not know anything about his own policy - and he is challenging my information. I have the job descriptions right here. Good grief.

The Government Leader says that they might be 20 years old - they are not. This one was filled September 21, and this one was filled November 15, so they are not 20 years old.

I want to ask the Government Leader some more questions about the policy that he does not seem to know anything about. When this information that is going to be put in the secret filing cabinet is passed on to the deputy head, which it shall be, according to this policy, is it to be passed on by telephone, or in person, or are they going to write a memo and pass it around through the channels here?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: The Member answered her own question. She said that she was talking about a sealed document that is going to be put away in a secure place. I would imagine that, when it is turned over to the deputy minister, it will be turned over in the same manner - it would be a sealed document.

Question re: Gambling

Mr. Cable: I have some questions on gambling for the Minister responsible for Health and Social Services. On Thursday, in this House, the Minister indicated that there had been a good deal of interdepartmental research done on the subject. Will the Minister table the reports that have been done to date, so that we can all be brought up to date on where the government is going?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I will have to check into that. I am not sure whether they are Cabinet documents, or exactly what their status is.

Mr. Cable: I would like to ask this question then: the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment is being charged with analyzing this topic. Will the government be making the research reports that are being done available to the council?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: We, on this side of the House, have said time and again that there would be full public consultation before any decision was made to either go with gambling, or to go without it. All of the information that has been gathered over the last year will be made available to the council. I believe I have also made that statement in this House before. They will have all of that information at their disposal.

Mr. Cable: I am pleased to hear that. Perhaps after the council gets it, the House can get it, in order that we may draw our own opinions. Is the Government Leader prepared to table the instructions that are given to the Council on the Economy and the Environment with respect to the examination of this issue?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I do not have much problem with that. Basically, what I have done is delegated the task to the Council on the Economy and the Environment, telling them what we wanted, and asking them to come back with a plan as to how they would accomplish it, for Cabinet to approve before they go to public consultation.

Question re: Employment Standards Act amendment

Ms. Commodore: The Minister of Justice said that he would be introducing amendments to the Employment Standards Act some time this spring. It is well known that he has shown much contempt for workers of the Yukon, so they have reason to be concerned.

Section 50 allows the employer to deduct one week’s wages from an employee if the required notice of termination is not given. Does the Minister intend to repeal that section?

Speaker: I would ask the Minister of Justice to be brief in his response to the preamble.

Hon. Mr. Phelps: It is a little difficult to be brief to an inflammatory preamble such as that. I would like to know what she means when she says I have expressed contempt for workers in the Yukon.

With respect to what is being repealed, the Member has seen the bill. It will repeal all amendments to the act that are presently sitting over at the Commissioner’s office.

As to what we are going to reintroduce, that is a decision Cabinet will make in due course.

Ms. Commodore: I am talking about a section that is in the existing act, not one of the amendments.

There are situations where women have been forced to terminate a position without notice because of allegations of sexual harassment. Does the Minister agree that section 50 of the Employment Standards Act should apply in those cases?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: Through the act that is before the House right now, we will be repealing all the amendments that were made by the previous government. Cabinet will then, through its deliberations, decide exactly what amendments will come forward in an act in the spring.

Ms. Commodore: The Minister has stated previously in this House that he intends to review the act very carefully before introducing new amendments. Who does he intend to have participating in that review, aside from himself?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I am sure the Member opposite is getting the hang of the process by now. Through the bill that is before the House now, we hope to repeal the amendments to the act that were proposed by the side opposite. Upon deliberation, Cabinet will be coming forward with appropriate amendments in the spring.

Question re: Employment Standards Act

Ms. Commodore: There is not much protection in the existing Employment Standards Act for those workers who are the lowest paid and least organized. I know for a fact that many workers have problems collecting wages owed.

Will the Minister table, in this House, the total amount collected on behalf of those workers and the amount still owing for the last fiscal year, 1992-93, and to date in this current fiscal year?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: Yes.

Ms. Commodore: I hope that information will be tabled before we deal with the Minister’s bill.

The amendments to the Employment Standards Act, introduced by the NDP government, were designed to promote a minimum standard of fairness, protection and dignity to workers in the Yukon. Since the Minister and his happy coalition disagree with that concept and refuse to proclaim the act, complaints continue to come in about unfairness in the workplace. Can the Minister table in this House or tell us how many complaints were made under the Employment Standards Act to the department in the last 12 months?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: The Member has it all wrong. Our position is that we understand what the Employment Standards Act is there for and we intend to take appropriate steps to amend the act in order to raise the safety net under those workers that are covered by that act. We have no quarrel with that concept and we intend to take steps so that a bill will be tabled in the spring and dealt with then.

Ms. Commodore: Will the Minister table the number of complaints that he has received in the last 12 months under the Employment Standards Act, and provide a breakdown of those complaints, section by section?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I am more than delighted to bring forward information to the Member opposite, because it allows her a certain creativity in designing her questions for me in ensuing days.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

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

Motion agreed to

Speaker leaves the chair

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Chair: I will now call Committee of the Whole to order. Is is the wish of the Members to take a brief recess at this time?

Some Hon. Member: Agreed.

Chair: We will take a brief recess.

Recess

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

Bill No. 11- Second Appropriation Act, 1993-94 - continued

Department of Economic Development - continued

Chair: Is there any further general debate?

Mr. McDonald: I was hoping the Minister would pop up and answer some questions he took notice of, but if he is going to force me to put the questions and to do the work then I will put him to work.

First of all, the jobs list - the 3,700 person weeks the government said they were promoting through their $7 million special jobs fund that was a recraft of the main capital estimates for this year - I would like to have a copy of that now that the Minister has had a chance to put the list together. I would also like to talk to him about how the new job numbers were determined. Could he please provide us with the information now?

Hon. Mr. Devries: What was unclear to the department when the Member asked the question was whether he was referring to the jobs list for 1993-94 or 1994-95. Is he talking about this winter works program, or which jobs was he referring to in the capital budget?

Mr. McDonald: The Minister may remember that while we were in general debate on the supplementary estimates, when the Government Leader was last present in the House, and we talked about the list that was tabled by the government - yes, tabled by the government - that identified 3,700 person weeks worth of work, the Minister will remember that, when we went through the list and did some analyses of the number of person weeks that were slated for projects such as the Shakwak project, highways projects and various building projects, the figure of 3,700 person weeks was simply not defensible. The Minister, at the time, took notice of the question and said they would come back, after giving the Department of Economic Development the responsibility to put forward a new list, with a recraft of the estimate of job weeks they were going to create and they were going to let us know how many jobs were going to be created, both direct and indirect.

There is no question in my mind of whether or not this means the supplementary budget and the $7 million jobs program that we were discussing, because that is what it says. When we first gave the Ministers notice and we spent about an hour and a half on this question, while the Government Leader was last here - two weeks ago - we talked about the job numbers and the Minister has admitted that this is something that had be reviewed. We left the subject, for the entire period that we discussed Community and Transportation Services, to give Economic Development the time to recraft the numbers and do their analysis.

At the time that we discussed this, we were given to believe that the government would be coming back in a few days with new lists. We waited and waited and the lists were not provided. We got to Economic Development on Thursday and asked where the list for the 3,700 person weeks was. Now, it is Monday and we are still asking, “Where is the list?” That is the question I would like to ask the Minister: where is the list?

Hon. Mr. Devries: We have been working on a revised list from the capital budget of 1993-94. I thought the Department of Finance had previously tabled something that clarified this other document. I am not sure.

Mr. McDonald: I can honestly say that I have not received any such list from the Department of Finance. It is very difficult for us to deal with the budget and the government’s claims if the government does not give us the information. We are talking about the $7 million jobs fund. We are talking about the fund that was identified by the blue-ribbon committee of four private sector and four public sector people and chaired by Mr. Sewell, who was going to recraft expenditures in the government and come forward with a listing of projects that the government was going to fund that would promote even more jobs.

In the context of that discussion, it became patently obvious that the claim of 3,700 person weeks was not defensible, based upon the information the government provided. That was obvious. The Minister has admitted that he cannot come up with 3,700 person weeks based on their information, because they had a situation where building construction jobs cost significantly less than jobs that were associated with highway clearing, which is probably one of the most labour intensive activities the government undertakes.

We had housing and building construction jobs in the $111,000 range, other building construction in the $222,000 per job range and building construction in the $160,000 per job range. Clearly, the figures were all over the map.

The defence a couple of weeks ago from the government side was that the problem with these figures was that each department was responsible for generating them, each department had its own methodology, and some departments may not have been as careful as others in putting together the figures. The understanding was clear that one department should come forward with a set of figures or be using the same methodology for coming forward with its set of figures, so that we could analyze where the person weeks were going to be generated. In so doing, we could recraft this list to determine whether or not the government’s claim of generating 3,700 person weeks was, in fact, believable.

We had some experience in the last session where the government claimed to have generated 700 jobs in the main estimates. During a period of cross-examination, so to speak, in question and answer in the House, it became obvious that the 700 jobs, which included $11 million worth of work in land development and $12 million worth of construction work for the hospital, were not going to proceed. Clearly, to claim 700 jobs, including those jobs, was not believable.

Later, the government did table some information stating that there were still 700 jobs, because they recrafted the numbers and changed the methodology. They were still generating figures, showing 700 jobs, from the same but reduced capital budget. From our perspective, we had to wonder what was happening. We had to wonder if the methodology they were using was not one of convenient argument. They wanted job figures of 700 and were going to achieve it any way they could.

Because people still think there are 700 jobs associated with the capital budget for this year, we have to dig into the information about the methodology and assess the validity of the work that is being done and the claims that are being made about the number of jobs. However, we cannot even get past where we are without the information coming from Economic Development. I would have thought that two weeks’ notice was more than sufficient. If somebody had given me the methodology that they used, I could have crafted the numbers myself in half an hour.

This is an important issue for us and for the territory. I would really like to know what the Minister is going to do about giving us the numbers. We have to discuss the numbers when the Minister is sitting in the chair defending his estimates. This is the time. The supplementary estimates are now. The Minister’s department is responsible.

Hon. Mr. Devries: Very shortly, I will be distributing something, although I am not sure it is exactly what the Members are looking for. In the revised figures, we have included the person weeks, but they have been changed into full-time equivalents, and we have added them all together. In this document, I have the various departments and what their new projected person years would be, based on the adjustments that have taken place in the capital budget - for instance, the deferment of the Community and Transportation Services land development project and the hospital.

These are revised figures and are up to date, but they are not broken down into how many people are going to be working on clearing the gravel pit at Sanpete Creek, or anything like that. It is the total person years for the various departments lumped together into revised figures. The total comes to 638.2 jobs. This is done by the $130,000/$160,000 formula, I believe - I understood that the Members wanted a consistent formula used to arrive at the numbers.

Taking into consideration the amount of money that was deferred by Community and Transportation Services, as I mentioned earlier, and the amount of money that was deferred by Health and Social Services for the hospital, and using that formula, as I mentioned last week - I do not recall saying there were 700 jobs - I thought I made it very clear that we were on target, taking into consideration the lapses.

Mr. McDonald: I think we definitely have a confusing problem facing us. The legislative return that we received so far, about the number of jobs that are available, began by saying that there were approximately 700 jobs. The Minister has now indicated that there are probably 638 jobs. We still have to determine what the situation is with respect to the 3,700 person weeks.

Is the Minister going to be providing us with information regarding the 3,700 person weeks, and this jobs list recrafted to show the changed methodology for determining jobs? Is that going to happen?

Hon. Mr. Devries: If the Members insist on it, that is what I will have to do. This revised estimate is based on that formula. I personally feel that what the departments used was much more accurate. They used past experience, et cetera, in trying to arrive at the figures. If you want to use a model, or if you want the figures done according to a model, we could probably have someone do that very quickly.

I have these documents for tabling - they are still warm.

If that is what the Member really wants, I am not certain how quickly that could be done, but I imagine it could be done. If the Member wants it done by person weeks, that might be a little easier, but if the Member wants it done on a person years or full-time equivalent basis, there will be decimal points at times.

Mr. McDonald: Frankly, what I want is clear, clean, understandable information. We have been toyed with through press releases that come out announcing 700 jobs, or 3,700 person weeks, and that is currency out there on the street. People believe that statement and one has to ask the question: why do they believe it? They believe it because the government tells them that, and that is why I am asking the questions.

I am not going to let this go, and the reason that I am going to wait until the bitter end is because, despite the fact that we have challenged the numbers and shown the methodology to be wrong, the government still sticks to the original number of jobs that they stated in the first place. The moment that we leave this Legislature they are out on the street, or in the Legislature talking about 3,700 person weeks.

I will bet any money that the next time some Minister answers a question about capital budgets for this year, he will not say 638 jobs, he will say 700, because he has been programmed to say 700. That is a difference of 70 jobs; that is a lot of jobs and a lot of work.

If the government is going to put together press releases, they are going to have to understand - and this may not be the Minister’s fault at all - that we are going to analyze those press releases to determine their true validity, and we are going to put the Ministers through the wringer if the press releases do not stand up.

The government cannot get away with saying just anything. I do want this capital works projects and jobs list from the employment task force recrafted, if the Minister does not mind, in the same format that the government tabled it in the first place, but with numbers that make some sense.

The point that I made at the beginning is that we have been waiting a few weeks for this information.

The Minister said that he thought the information that came from the departments would be more accurate. That cannot be the case, because we have demonstrated through our own analysis - as imperfect a process as that necessarily is - that you cannot spend $2 million in very labour intensive work and create 470 person weeks, and then spend $2 million in housing construction, of which half the cost goes into materials, and get double the number of high paying jobs.

That just does not compute, using anybody’s calculator. The people who work in housing construction are usually trades people and they are usually at the upper end of the wage scale. The people who work in right-of-way clearing are usually not trades people and they are getting the lower end of the wage scale. One cannot get double the number of jobs with the same money from housing construction as one can get for right-of-way clearing. It is so patently ridiculous that we just let the whole thing sit for awhile so that the government could come back with information.

It is an important fact. Of all the things we do in this Legislature, of all the issues we debate, of all the ideology we debate and all the issues we clash over in this Legislature, people are going to remember the size of the capital budget and the number of jobs that it created. The vast majority are going to remember only that and the government spin doctors know it. They know it.

What I am saying to the government, through the Minister here, is that they had better justify these figures because we are not going to let it go until we see the justification.

If the Minister would not mind, as soon as he possibly can, before we leave his estimates, will he come back with the recrafted information? It is not that difficult; he can use the same methodology, if he wants, that they used for the employment estimates for the capital budget for 1994-95.

They had some information here; I will put the Minister on notice that this is inadequate, to say the least, but at least it is a start - it is a legislative return entitled Employment Estimates, Capital Budget, 1994-95. Could he please provide us with the information, recrafting the $7 million jobs program, and tell us what they think the number of person weeks is. If he can do that, I would appreciate it very much.

Hon. Mr. Devries: I am sure we will do the best we can. I am a very practical person. When I look at this, it speaks for itself. It talks about developing a gravel pit at Sanpete Creek and then it talks about producing aggregate. We know that, nowadays, rock crushers are very efficient. If $1 million goes toward crushing rock, there will be a very low FTE requirement compared to the total cost of the project.

Again, in any of these projects - as the Member probably knows, I have worked on them myself - the contract will depend upon to whom the contract is awarded. This would be a best guess, but if the contract is awarded to a company that has lots of equipment, it will turn out quite differently than if it is awarded to a small contractor who will use hand-brushing methods. We hope that is the route it is going to go. Again, we do not necessarily have a lot of control over that, but, by the same token, since they are mostly small projects with lower dollar values, normally the smaller contractors pick them up. They are the ones that employ the most people.

We felt that the figures of 3,700 weeks being used were fairly accurate in that they were looking at stats from fairly similar projects done in the last few years, rather than this sophisticated formula established by Statistics Canada - the $130,000/$160,000 formula, which is used across Canada. I believe they have made some adjustments to accommodate northern conditions, but that approach, to me, is much looser than simply using past experiences in the Yukon.

However, they are all lumped together in the $470,000/$185,000 formula. I know the Member would like to hear that for assigned culvert repairs in Stewart and Mayo in the amount of $20,000, how many people we predict would actually be employed. Is that what he wants? I want to be clear. I would not want us to go and do something only to find it is not what the Member wants. Does he want to know exactly how many people we anticipate would be employed in the Watson Lake hand slashing project for $30,000?

Mr. McDonald: I can honestly say that the last thing I thought was that the government was going to come back, after two weeks of looking to recraft the jobs list, and put up a defence of the jobs list. If we want to go over this again, I do not mind doing that.

There is $2 million worth of Yukon Housing Corporation work building 19 social housing units. There is $2 million worth of housing work being done in their modest housing program, yet there is 500 person weeks difference between the two housing programs. What is the explanation for that?

Hon. Mr. Devries: I think perhaps, if the Members want, when we get to the particular departments it might be easier to have them explain the methodology they used. If you would like me to do it this way, that is fine - we will do that, but I think it would be easier to let the Minister explain, when we get to Yukon Housing, how they arrived at that total.

Mr. McDonald: Sorry, we cannot do that. We just let the Minister of Community and Transportation Services off the hook, and the Government Leader off the hook in general debate, on the grounds that the Minister of Economic Development would be coming back with those numbers. There is no possible way that we are going to do that. We have got the Yukon Housing Corporation showing huge numbers of indirect person weeks, and yet the people who do the highway brush clearing get no indirect benefit whatsoever from their efforts. They do not have any impact on their local economy when they get a paycheque. What is the reason for that?

Hon. Mr. Devries: In the revised figures that were just tabled, we have not included the indirect benefits; this is strictly direct. That seemed to be the area where the Members were having some problems, so we decided to make sure it was concise. In the covering letter, it very clearly indicates that it is direct employment. I am talking about the one that I just tabled a few minutes ago.

Mr. McDonald: I will have to read it when I have a moment. The 3,700 person weeks does make reference to 936 indirect jobs, otherwise it would be 2,800 person weeks. Why is the Minister not including indirect person weeks, as it seems to be a large percentage of the claim that there is going to be 3,700 person weeks.

Hon. Mr. Devries: It is because the request was to use the model, and the model does not compensate for indirect employment. It only compensates for Idirect employment. That was what the request was. My understanding is that the request was to come up with something more accurate. For instance, in Yukon Housing, the original PY estimate was 103.8; it is now 120.9.

Mr. McDonald:   I do not particularly give two hoots about which model the government uses. They could use the statistics bureau from Zimbabwe, if they wanted to. I am asking for consistent and understandable methodology, using Yukon conditions and a justification for the number of weeks they have generated through their press releases. They have told people they are going to create 3,700 person weeks. People believe them. It is up to us to do a reality check. If the government is telling the truth, then it will be verified. If they are not, that will be determined.

We are trying to go through the projects list. This is government information; it is not information I generated. This sheet of paper did not come from me; nor did it come from the Liberals or the Independents. This came from the government side. The government generated these numbers.

The last thing I can do is allow for some complicated and conflicting analysis about the number of jobs that are being created, and how it is being done. I just want an understandable explanation that I can take to anyone on the street, and say, yes, the government came forward with a jobs program and, yes, it created 3,700 person weeks; I wish we had thought of it.

However, at this point, I cannot do that because, first of all, most of the money that was dedicated to the jobs program was money they already had and, secondly, I cannot believe the numbers of jobs the government is claiming to create.

In the document the government tabled with us to justify the press release and statements they made publicly, they are saying that they are going to create 3,757 person weeks. They did not say FTEs. We are using their terminology - person weeks. They calculated the number of direct and indirect employment. This totalled 3,757 person weeks. This is their figure, not ours.

Some of the construction cost $222,000 per job; some of it costs $111,000 per job. Some of the work here costs $160,000 per job.

Given that the figures are not believable, I want to know the government’s justification for this. Why does the government calculate such large numbers of indirect employment from housing construction, and no numbers of indirect employment for highway slashing?

It all adds up to the total, and both the indirect and direct jobs have been calculated into the total 3,700 person weeks. What is the rationale for such widely varied estimates for building construction?

I could go through each one of these categories and, based on how the government presented the information, I could calculate out the cost per job. When one gets into it one realizes that if one set of figures is believable another set of figures cannot be. I ask the Minister if he is prepared to produce the information on a department-by-department basis that calculates the number of jobs for each department and give it to us before we end the discussion on the supplementary estimate for Economic Development?

Hon. Mr. Devries: It would depend upon if we were done in the next hour or whether it is going to be a week. We will do the best we can to come up with that. The economists are going to have to use the formula to figure out the cost and put it down in weeks, so that the Members opposite can see how that corresponds with the existing estimates that have been made by the various departments. We will do the best we can. I would assume they are probably starting to work on it right now.

Mr. McDonald: I can assure the Member we will not be finished in an hour, but I can tell the Minister that the reason we want it in weeks is because that was the way it was presented to us and to the public - in person weeks. Because that figure is now considered general currency - everybody says 700 jobs and 3,700 person weeks - and because the Ministers are all programmed to say the same thing, that is the reason why I want the information in that format. Can he get it to us for tomorrow?

Hon. Mr. Devries: I would expect that we can because the information he wants is already in this document except that it is all lumped together. It is just a matter of departments sitting down and running it through some formulas or equations; then they will have it.

Mr. McDonald: I do not precisely know what the Minister is talking about when he talks about the information already being in the document, but I will wait until round three or four, wherever we are on this question. Tomorrow, we can have a discussion. I would ask the Minister if he could table it on time so that we could actually read it before we discuss it. That always helps to facilitate the discussion.

I would like to follow up briefly on some items that were touched on last Thursday. The first one was the economic forecast. The Minister obviously will have had an opportunity to just check his figures, and the Minister will remember that we took a keen interest on the future projections for unemployment in the territory. Can the Minister give us a sense of what the unemployment rate will be over the course of the next few months - what they project it to be?

Hon. Mr. Devries: Basically, the projections are that we are not going to see the severe drop that was predicted. We are not going to see quite the sharp drop we saw in, I believe, March and April last year - down 18 percent. The indications are that, so far, as the Member has seen from the employment statistics that were released the other day, there has been a very gradual decline. The interesting thing would be what is going to happen in January and February, but the predictions are that it is not going to crash the way it did in 1993 - initially - because it seems like some adjustments have taken place to prevent that from happening.

As far as an upswing goes, this is just the winter forecast so, as to what happens next summer, I do not have those figures.

Mr. McDonald: What does the Minister mean by adjustments taking place? What kind of adjustments have taken place that would justify the slow increase in the unemployment rate?

Hon. Mr. Devries:   Adjustments have taken place, especially in the Faro situation; some of the people have moved out and others have moved on to other things. For instance, there seems to be an upsurge in home-based businesses, and there has been an increase in business licences issued. I recently spoke to someone who used to work at the Sa Dena Hes mine who has started up a little business, whereas initially they all ran out and got unemployment insurance. It is anticipated that the statistics are not going to be as severe this winter as they were at the latter part of last year.

Mr. McDonald: So, the fact that the number of employed people from October to November has dropped by 500 people would account for a portion of that so-called adjustment - is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Devries: The number of people employed remaining fairly consistent over the summer - and actually, even more people were employed over the summer than there were last year - indicates to the economists that the impact of the Curragh shutdowns are not as severe as they were between 1982 and 1984.

The predictions are that we are going to see employment levels remaining at the levels they were last winter.

Mr. McDonald: I am going to check the employment levels of last winter, but the last Yukon Bureau of Statistics employment survey showed that the number of employed was 13,000; the number of employed for November is shown as 12,500.

Obviously, that would account for a softening of the unemployment rate, when there are fewer unemployed people around to compare to number of unemployed. Is that not the case?

Hon. Mr. Devries: Yes. The fact that the unemployed number has stayed fairly constant during the last three months indicates that there possibly could be more people moving out or that we could be through the worst of the economic downturn.

Naturally, it is unrealistic to think that during January, February and March we are not going to see unemployment increase a certain degree, but the general feeling is that it is not going to go to the 18.8 percent figure.

Mr. McDonald: I am sure that the Minister will agree, and I hope that he agrees, that the unemployment rate by itself should not be the final and sole determining factor as to whether or not the economy is doing well or poorly. If one were to look at the Bureau of Statistics Yukon employment survey, it shows unemployment rates across the country. Saskatchewan is number one in the country with an unemployment rate of 7.5 percent - it is just that a lot fewer people live there now, because there is no work and no help.

Aspiring to Saskatchewan’s state is not something that we should be doing under the circumstances. The reduction in the numbers of employed is not necessarily a good sign for the economy. Does the Minister agree with that?

Hon. Mr. Devries: I would agree that we do not necessarily want to see people leaving the Yukon. However, it is something that naturally takes place in an employment downturn. It is certainly not our economic development goal. We want to see the Yukon grow. That is why we have come up with this winter works project. We want to encourage people to stay and hang in there, because we think things are going to be better down the road. That is why we have a substantial capital budget that we would like to get passed very quickly. That way, we can get on with awarding the contracts so these jobs can start up sooner than they did last year. We would like to get these contracts awarded so that people can go to work on April 1. That is the strategy behind the whole thing.

Our infrastructure plans down the road are geared toward encouraging mining companies to invest, make decisions and go ahead. We will certainly be gearing some of our budget to assist them in getting some of their infrastructure in place then. However, right now, we still do not have any companies giving the go-ahead signal. It is therefore very difficult to put something in the budget on a best-guess basis of when something is going to happen.

Mr. McDonald: I would like to get to the government’s infrastructure initiatives in due course, but I would first like to focus more thoroughly on the policy thinking behind the government’s budgeting and long-term strategic planning.

Can the Minister indicate whether or not it is the government’s policy to keep Yukoners in the Yukon working, or is it simply to allow things to proceed as they may and, if we get new economic development and a whole set of brand-new Yukoners, that is also okay? What is the general government thinking behind their financial and strategic planning?

Hon. Mr. Devries: I thank the Member for the question. Our thinking is that we want to encourage Yukoners to stay in the Yukon. I indicated in my previous answer that, by creating this winter works program, it will encourage some people to hang around. We definitely feel things are going to get moving very shortly. When we see the projections on gold prices, we can see that there could be increased activity in that sector.

As far as the people who remain behind are concerned, we are going to do everything we can to encourage them to seek training, so that when an economic upturn does take place, and as new workers are needed, Yukoners can fill those jobs first. If there is a need beyond that, that is when the outsiders would start coming in.

To a certain degree, this seems to be where we have failed in past years, especially in the small communities. Not too many of the people in the communities seem to have benefited from the fairly good economic conditions we have had for the last three or four years.

The idea is to ensure that Yukoners are given opportunities, and we are working with the First Nations to encourage them to get into joint ventures, and things like that.

Mr. McDonald: That also raises another line of questioning I would like to pursue, which is that of economic diversification in regional economies in the Yukon. I have yet to see much that the government is doing that is new to demonstrate that they are prepared to see those regional economies improve considerably more than they have in the past.

It is interesting that the Minister characterizes the last few years as being, in some respects, a failure, given that the last few years were, by the government’s own words, a period of unprecedented growth.

The Minister indicated that the policy for the government is to encourage Yukoners to stay, and cited first the $7 million jobs program as being an example of the government’s desire to encourage people to stay. I do not know if the Minister has noticed but, if he goes to the final sheet of the handout that was provided during general debate, it shows there was a redistribution of $5.9 million worth of work - meaning $5.9 million of the $7 million was work they were planning to do that is now no longer going to be done.

The interpretation that this is somehow all brand-new money is highly debatable, under the circumstances.

Is this policy to encourage people to stay in the Yukon a policy that is practised government wide?

Hon. Mr. Devries:    There were several questions and I would like to make very clear to the Member the figures that were in this handout that I issued a few moments ago. Those things are all taken into consideration in this handout. The original person-year estimate was from the capital budget that was passed last spring. This was revised on September 30 to allow for some of the projects that did not go ahead. This was revised to take into consideration the impact of the $7 million winter works program, and that is how this new figure has come about.

While there are fewer figures than there were in the original estimate, there are more than there were in the revised estimate of September 30. The 47 or so jobs in the revised estimates of September 30 to March 31 are the ones that would be a result of the winter works project. That way we do not have to do the deduction because the deduction had already been made.

About what the various departments are doing to encourage people to stay in the Yukon, I do not think it would be right of us to encourage someone to stay here when we are uncertain what their future could be beyond a year or so. I think it would be very wrong of us to try to do that.

What happens in the future, such as the restart of Faro or Sa Dena Hes, is contingent on the price of base metals, and such things. It would be very wrong of us to tell people that those types of jobs will be popping up in the next year. By the same token, we have to plan ahead. We cannot plan a doom-and-gloom future; we have to do everything we possibly can to get things up and moving, and that is our strategy at this point.

Mr. McDonald: One could argue that we got into the gloomy situation we are in right now without much planning. I would agree with the Minister on that point.

Can the Minister indicate to us what 47 jobs he is talking about? He gave us a legislative return, and I am looking in it for the 47 jobs but I cannot find them. Can the Minister show me what he is talking about?

Hon. Mr. Devries: I may have made a mistake in addition. If the Minister looks at the second page of the revised estimate to September 30, he will note that it says 295.6. The revised estimate from September 30 to March 31 says 342.6. I understand what the Member means.

This is basically how it works. The 295.6 - I guess I did use the incorrect number there - was what had occurred to date. If you add the 342.6 figure and the 295.6 figure together, you get the figure of 638.2.

Mr. McDonald: I understand that. I gleaned that from my quick reading of the document. I just do not understand what point the Minister is making with respect to the 3,700 person weeks, and whether or not the 3,700 person weeks - or most of the jobs - are simply a recraft of jobs that they were intending to go ahead with anyway but had to cut back for one reason or another - $5.9 million of the $7 million worth. I am not certain what the Minister is trying to get at there.

In any case, perhaps when the Minister recrafts the 3,700 person weeks jobs list, so that we can have consistent, understandable information, we can probably spend less time looking at each other and wondering what each other is talking about. I just do not have a clue what the Minister is talking about.

The most interesting policy question - and probably the one with the most impact on Yukoners - is the question about who decides who has an uncertain future in the territory, and should or should not be encouraged to stay. I represented in this Legislature, up until the last election, many people who were considered targets of employment generation in the past, and they are today. Those people have not had a job in the private sector for years, and probably will not for another few years, given the state of Mayo’s economy.

However, I will not argue that they have a fairly uncertain future. The people in Faro, for example, were working right up until the end of last year, making money, spending it in the territory, and paying taxes. However, they are not considered to be a target for job creation for the government, or not a serious one, because they appear to have an uncertain future, and the government thinks that is wrong. Can the Minister explain this seeming inconsistency?

Hon. Mr. Devries: I do not agree with the Member at all. Any capital works projects are available to the people of Faro. If the Member thinks we should be doing all kinds of make-work projects in Faro, please come out and say so.

Right now, as the Member knows, with respect to construction jobs and equipment operating jobs - and the majority of these people, to my understanding, are equipment operators - there are many opportunities in our capital works for equipment operator type jobs, and we are encouraging them as much as possible. If they choose to remain in Faro and have one person or the other go out of town to work on these jobs or if they decide to relocate to another community or to Whitehorse, that is a choice they make.

Mr. McDonald: There are clear efforts in the government’s program, including the $7 million program - the small one - to undertake works that are placed geographically throughout the territory.

If the Minister were to go back to Watson Lake and say, “Listen, we just decided to put all of the money for a particular program into Dawson, but do not worry, as a Yukoner, you will have a chance to work on those projects.” What do you suppose the people of Watson Lake would say to the Minister?

If all of the work that was to be done was on the Shakwak project, or all of the work was to be done in Haines Junction, what kind of selling job would the Minister responsible for Carcross have, if they were to say, “Do not worry, there are a lot of little projects there, but you are a Yukoner, too; you can bid on it or work on it, if you take the trouble to drive over there and find out what is going on.”

One of the reasons why governments typically try to spread the work around is so that they can capture the interests of many communities, and there are always useful things to be done in every community. In fact, there is no shortage of things that could be done.

I know that if I were still representing Mayo, I would not even try to make the argument that everything is happening in Carcross, Ross River or Watson Lake and then tell constituents not to worry, because all that they have to do is proclaim to the highways department or whatever department is involved, that they are Yukoners and they should get the jobs. I would be a one-termer; that means I would not be re-elected if I were to try to make that kind of argument.

Some of the people who live in Faro are equipment workers; that is true. Perhaps they would have a better opportunity to work on jobs that require equipment operators, but there are a lot of mill workers there, too - people who work on surface crews, drillers and people who work for the town. These people are Yukoners and they vote in Yukon elections; they pay taxes to the Yukon government and they take exception to the fact that the government and the Cabinet have decreed that they have an uncertain future, and yet, other regional economies and small communities, which admittedly have great trouble making a living, have been struggling for years. In these communities, there is no obvious, significant private sector activity that is going to pick up many of the unemployed in that community.

We do not, for one moment, suggest that those people have no right to public expenditures; however, there is no useful work for them to do in their communities. We have arbitrarily decreed that the industrial workers in one community, because they have been laid off, are candidates for dismissal from the territory, if one wants to say it in the crudest, most blunt terms. They are certainly not candidates that the government is encouraging to stay. I do not understand the reason for that. Some of those people have lived in the territory longer than those in other communities and are considered to be reasonable candidates for public projects - useful ones, not make-work, BS ones. I simply do not understand it. This community is classified as a town. It was one of the original reasons why the Municipal Act had that designation; they wanted a way to characterize Faro. Why is that community, in particular, the candidate for neglect? Why is there this rough justice for this community, when the same arguments are applied to no other place?

One could say that there is opportunity for people in Ross River to work on the Shakwak project, but there are also works being undertaken in Ross River.

I do not know if the Member for Faro wants to get into this, but I think there is a significant problem. It is reminiscent of the hands-off attitude people gave toward Elsa back in the days when it was facing a little difficulty. The attitude taken by the PC government of the time was absolutely disgusting. Whenever the Elsa community showed economic promise, the government took credit for it. They took pride in the fact that it was operating and making big money. Yet, the moment Elsa began to suffer a bit, they simply cast the fortunes of all those Yukoners to whatever employer they were working for - in this case United Keno Hill Mines - and told the company that those Yukoners were suddenly their responsibility, even though those people in Elsa had been working and actually pumping tax dollars into the government for better than 60 years.

There were people living in Elsa - and some are still there - who are third-generation Yukoners. Their grandfathers and grandmothers came to Elsa back in the 1930s. Their parents were born there. They live in Elsa and have children in the Elsa school. That makes four generations of Yukoners.

When the moment came that there was any kind of trouble or any sense that the tap would be turned off, or that somehow the government would not be getting the same bucks as they were used to, they got vindictive about it and suggested that maybe they were not true Yukoners in the classic sense because they were not working Yukoners. Suddenly, because the people did not have a job, were not beavering away paying their taxes, somehow they did not have a right to be here. Certainly, there was nothing the government would do to encourage them to stay. The argument they were giving at the time, strangely enough, was the same argument that the Minister is giving me now about Faro. In fact, over the course of the last few years, Elsa did collapse. A few people did leave but a lot of people tried to stay. There was no work.

The government, the Yukon Party, took great glee in the fact that the government had tried to do something for Elsa. My only complaint was that the government did not do something for Elsa 30 or 40 years earlier - give the taxpayers a little return on their investment.

There was a period there when the company in Elsa and the people of Elsa were actually maintaining the road from Elsa to Whitehorse. They actually maintained the infrastructure the government today is so proud of. There is a fellow in Elsa right now, today, still working there, still gainfully employed by United Keno Hill Mines, who used to maintain what is now the Dawson-Whitehorse Road. Is this guy not some kind of a Yukoner? Man, this guy was at one time a Conservative, who ripped up his card for ever, based on the kind of attitude the Minister is blithely stating today.

What I am having trouble doing right now is getting a sense of who the Yukoners are that the government is going to encourage to stay and who the Yukoners are that the government is going to discourage. Because, as he puts it, it would not be fair for them to encourage them to stay because after all they may not be gainfully employed in the coming years and, in our paternal way, we are telling them it would not be good for them. Are they saying that about the people in Ross River, Mayo, Carmacks, Pelly, Old Crow, Dawson, Watson Lake, Haines Junction, Teslin and Carcross because there is not significant private sector activity?

Is the Minister saying that because people in some of those communities have not been working very long that we should just do the right thing by them and cut them off so that they can go out and get a job and pick themselves up by the bootstraps? Is he carrying that message around the territory? Is that message beginning and ending in Faro?

Hon. Mr. Devries: I do not think it is fair to compare all these other communities to the Faro situation. We all know that Faro is dependent upon the mine. It has potential, on a much smaller scale down the road, for tourism if nothing happens with the mine. We are not in a position to do a bunch of infrastructure work in Faro, without knowing what the long-term implications are regarding the Curragh shutdown. I do not feel I would be doing those people in Faro any justice by encouraging them to remain in the community.

If they want to take the risk of the possibility of the mine reopening a year or two down the road, that is a choice that they have to make. I do not feel that it would be in their best interests to not encourage them to relocate within the Yukon and take advantage of other opportunities in the Yukon.

I do not know what the Member is trying to say. Is he saying that we should be stripping the Grum? I would appreciate it if he would provide suggestions of what we should be doing in Faro to resolve the situation that people are finding themselves in. As far as the other communities go, there are economic opportunities there. At some point, there will be some economic opportunities in Faro, but perhaps there will be more economic activities in places like Ross River. Faro is a one-industry town.

I was looking through the Economic Strategy and much of the focus, at the time when the Members were developing this Yukon Economic Strategy, was to try and diversify the economy, and Faro was one of the communities that they had targeted. Now, five or six years later, we see them in much the same situation as when the development of this strategy took place. I can appreciate the fact that there are people there who want to make Faro their community, but right now I feel the best thing we, as a government can do is encourage them to look at other opportunities because we do not know. If something develops here in the next few months and we have a buyer for Curragh, then government’s priorities could change. Right now, we feel that the best thing we can do for the people of Faro is to encourage them to seek employment elsewhere in the Yukon.

I do not see any other way at this point. I can see that some people from Faro really want to stay there. They have come up with ideas for diversification. There have been a few projects created. I am sure the people of Faro appreciated the Van Gorder Falls and the sheep enhancement projects. I know they would have liked to have seen more, but at this point we have to encourage them to look at other things, as much as I hate to say it.

Mr. McDonald: I hate the Minister to say it and I hate the Minister to think it, too. There is not a lot of employment elsewhere in the Yukon for the people in Faro. The government’s own figures show the number of employed dropping dramatically. It may sound like only 500 since the last employment statistics were out, but then we only have 12,500 working.

I made the point that I have no hidden agenda; I am not getting around to asking a big blockbuster question. I made the point that I disagree with the policy and I am asking for justification of the policy.

What is Ross River dependent upon? What is Mayo dependent upon? What are the people who are unemployed in Watson Lake - who are candidates for infrastructure development - dependent upon? What do they have to go back to in the spring? What are they looking forward to? Why are those people, as a matter of government policy, considered to be superior in comparison to the people in Faro?

The unemployed people in Mayo, many of whom I know very, very well and are my friends, are not looking forward to anything next summer or the summer after that, but they are considered eligible for government projects, and the government thinks they are eligible, too. The same is true in Ross River, and the same is true for the unemployed in Dawson and Watson Lake. Many people who are not working on these government projects are not working at all and they have not worked for some time on anything else.

Is the Minister saying, as a matter of policy, to all of those communities, that they should not be receiving support and that it is only good for them to go to look for work elsewhere - presumably, not in the territory, because there is not a lot of work to be had in the territory, but in terms of going to work somewhere. Is that what the Minister is saying to unemployed people in Watson Lake and Ross River?

Hon. Mr. Devries: I have lived in Watson Lake for many years and I have seen the ups and downs in the community. We see a lot of opportunity developing in that area right now - in forestry, and I hope that the mine will eventually reopen there to.

Right now, the hope seems to be in the forestry industry taking off, once forestry devolution is complete. There is also increased activity in the Cassiar and Dease Lake area and many people are realizing those benefits. We also have some people who are contemplating moving to Haines Junction, as they were employed on the Shakwak project this summer, and I understand that they may move to Haines Junction permanently. A community always hates to see someone leave, but these people are determined to seek out a new community so that they can take advantage of the government projects.

All of those communities are very traditional communities and we have to do everything we can to encourage some diversification there. They are always going to be there; nothing is going to change that. Perhaps the people in Faro feel the same way. By the same token, I feel that Faro will always be there. Until we can determine if it will continue to exist with a population of 100 people or a population of 1,000 people, I think it would be unwise to invest huge amounts of money in the infrastructure of the community at this time of uncertainty. Money is tight out there, and it is going to become tighter. I think that when we look at the problems all over Canada, it is these types of communities that rely heavily on government money that are going to come under discussion when we make decisions about priorities - in both the federal and territorial governments - at some point. We will do everything we can to encourage these communities to hang in there, because I think that there are better times around the corner. When we look at Carmacks or Haines Junction - there is tremendous potential there, as there is in all the small highway communities up toward Beaver Creek, as far as tourism and parks go. There are also rich resources in the area. We all know that Faro has rich resources there, but we cannot jump out there and create employment for a few hundred workers. We cannot afford it; the money is just not around any more.

As far as stripping the Grum deposit goes, if you compare it to a highway project, it is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $1 million per full-time employee. It does not make sense in that respect. And, we could not do it right now, even if we wanted to, because there is a lot of uncertainty surrounding it. If anyone did anything at this time, all they would be doing is putting money into the pocket of some company - or their receiver. That is just the reality of the matter. I am sure that once a purchaser comes along - and I think it will happen - we will have a better picture of what that purchaser plans. We do not know if the new company will operate it at full capacity or half capacity. We do not know if they will need 1,000 employees or 500 employees. All of these things make a difference to the type of projects that would be undertaken in the Faro area.

By the same token, fixing the Campbell Highway in the Watson Lake area is to Faro’s benefit. It would be cheaper to get the rods and the balls from Edmonton to Faro, so it is also a benefit to them. They have the opportunity to come down to work on those projects if they so choose.

No, we are not abandoning any other community, and we have no intention of abandoning any communities. They are very important to the Yukon. We are not abandoning Faro. They are still getting their $1 million plus in block funding, and they got $350,000, or $300,000, whatever the amount was, from the CDF, so we are not abandoning them.

We are encouraging them to diversify to a certain degree by encouraging those tourism projects they put forward. As to any major project within the community itself, at this time, our feeling is that it would be unwise. We have to do whatever we can to encourage the people in Faro to decide what the future holds for them. They cannot depend on government to decide that future for them.

Mr. McDonald: I cannot say what I think of the government’s policy, no matter how softly spoken it was stated. I cannot say how immoral I think it is. First of all, I have to indicate to the Minister that, until we have a useful discussion about the job projections, I cannot really pass judgment on his claim that stripping the Grum deposit would be $1 million per job. He will have to have some understanding that, based on the discussions we have had so far, we do not have a whole lot of faith in their job projections.

However, I am not talking about stripping the Grum. I am saying that the people there are crying out that they want to stay. For me to go to Faro and tell them it is tight all over, and to tighten their belts, I might be criticized on the grounds that it may be tight all over, but it ought to be fair all over, and one Yukoner should be perceived as another Yukoner is. The economic prospects in some communities are very dim, realistically, and it will take an enormous amount of effort and time to cause a turnaround. I include the communities I used to represent.

In fact, they are more dim than they are in Faro. For example, the prospects in the Mayo area are limited, to say the least. There are a few placer mines, very little tourism, and the contractors depend on government road work. There is nothing around the corner for them. They are a mining district. There are some mines that show interest now and again. They seldom employ many Mayo residents. When they do particularly aggressive exploration work in the area, they buy a few things from the store and buy their gas there, but hardly any Mayo people are employed. They do not empty the community of all the Mayo people when a mine comes in and does some exploration in the area.

So, there is not a lot those people have to look forward to - not even on the horizon. They are not looking at a great, big, huge, lead-zinc ore body just down the road with a great, big modern mill sitting beside it.

They do not have that to look forward to. If the Minister were to go to the people in Mayo and say that he had to be honest and fair, that the jobs were in Vancouver and they should go there; and to say that Mayo is a longstanding community and Faro is not is the weakest possible argument. Elsa is a longer standing community than some of the communities in the territory - the ones that are now considered to be solid communities. Keno City has been around for longer than Carmacks, but that is not the reason why we provide employment or direct public expenditures for job creation. It is not on the basis of their lineage, or how long they have been in the territory. Otherwise, I can tell you that Old Crow and Pelly Crossing would get a whole lot more attention than they are now, because they have been around for thousands of years, long before there was even an inkling that one white person existed on the face of the earth. No one would argue that these communities are getting preferred treatment simply because of that.

I cannot tell people money is tight. We are talking about a $460 million budget. I do not care how the government side wants to concoct its figures, this is a $460 million budget. It is $40 million more than we spent last year.

If the Minister is saying that there are always priorities, he is right. Right now, the government is responsible for spending lots of money. However, I am not talking about that; I am talking about priorities and fair treatment.

Some of the people who are working on the Shakwak project are friends of mine. I am happy they have work. They are not moving into Haines Junction and Destruction Bay, although they may if the mood strikes them, because they like the communities and love the people. However, they are not moving in because of the work; they are living in the highway camps. They are not moving their families there, because they see this as a finite job.

In closing, I would like to say that to separate Yukoners on the basis of whether or not the government thinks they are going to continue to pay bucks into the treasury, and whether or not they are gainfully employed - or to say that Yukoners are good candidates for government attention because they are going to be gainfully employed and others are not - is not, in my opinion, a morally sound argument. To say that some people who have no job prospects in the next year should be candidates for government expenditures, but others in the same position in another community should not, is not a sound argument.

The Minister admitted that he felt that Faro was going to be around for a long time, and I agree with him. It has been through some tough times, but it has hung in there. We are not talking about supporting some community that is never going to exist again. It is going to exist. Right now, it is the only community that has an ore body ready to go, with infrastructure in place. This is not Casino, where they have to build another 75 kilometres of high-standard road, so it is easy to maintain, or they have to put in several hundreds of kilometres worth of power lines, or they have to put in a camp. This is a place that is ready to go.

Casino is still short of the mark when it comes to an ore price that would permit it to operate. That is what the proponents said during the geoscience forum. They said that under the current circumstances and current prices they could not operate, but that they hoped that prices would increase. It sounds like a tune I have heard from the people who are promoting the Curragh mine in Faro.

Yet, all we have heard from the government is about Casino, and how we have to do the right thing by people in Faro and move them out or, through our efforts, encourage them to find work elsewhere. For the life of me, I do not understand that.

I have nothing against mines. I have nothing against the Casino mine, and I have nothing against Western Copper. I have nothing against Curragh or United Keno Hill. I am probably the one guy in this room, now that the permanent Sergeant-at-Arms is not present, who has spent the longest period working in mines.

I can tell you that it strikes me as being very strange that the government’s policies in respect to support for mining communities and interests seems to be so skewed and vindictive, from my perspective, against the people of Faro and that community. I do not understand it. Everything is in place there; the people are there and want to stay. The people’s economic prospects are better than those of many people in the communities I used to represent. Yet, there seems to be a real reluctance on the part of government to show them any respect. I do not understand it.

Hon. Mr. Devries: I do not know what the Member’s argument is, because he has said that Faro has the infrastructure and all of the cards. In a sense, we have to develop infrastructure for some of the communities and give them the same opportunities for when metal prices come up. I do not understand the Member’s argument; it almost seems like he is arguing with himself.

As far as Mayo goes, I cannot talk about some of the various projects that could be coming up, but I think that Mayo has opportunity. I certainly would not consider Mayo a town with no future, I think that it has tremendous potential, whether that potential is realized due to developments in Elsa, or whether it is exploration.

There is a tremendous wealth of mineralization in that area, as there is around Faro. However, with the uncertainty surrounding Faro, it is our feeling that it would not be in the people’s best interest to remain there if they can get a job and relocate elsewhere to obtain other employment. If they decide to stay in Faro, it is a gamble. Although the chances are pretty good that something will develop, government cannot control that.

Chair: Is it the wish of the Members to take a brief recess at this time?

Some Hon. Member: Agreed.

Chair: We will take a brief recess.

Recess

Chair: I will now call the Committee of the Whole to order. Is there further general debate on Economic Development?

Mr. McDonald: Before the recess, the Minister was mentioning that the reason he felt I was arguing - as he put it - against myself was that, ultimately, I did not understand that communities like Faro had all that they needed and consequently should not be prime candidates for government support, but there were other communities that did not have as much and consequently should be candidates for government support.

The argument is a strange one, when one looks at a community such as Mayo, which has lots of infrastructure. There is a paved road from Whitehorse to downtown Mayo. There is surplus hydroelectricity in the area. There are lines that go 40 or 50 kilometres from Mayo into the Keno City area. There are good quality exploration roads throughout the entire district - as far as 60 or 70 miles in each direction from Mayo.

Anyone who wants to explore or prospect in the area has all kinds of opportunity to do that. That community is not unlike a lot of communities in this territory, and that community is deserving of government interests and it should receive government support, but it does not explain why Faro is not receiving similar support.

The Minister’s newest argument that Faro has everything and does not need anything is not an argument that holds any water when compared to other communities. Faro has a lot that can make it a good economic prospect for the future, both in infrastructure and in talent. It is also the community that the government seems intent on emptying for their own good, they say. That is what is so strange about the argument. There are people in every community like the people in Faro, who are considered candidates for government support.

It is the community that has the greatest potential to provide the greatest significant boost to the territorial economy, but it seems to be singled out for this specially bad treatment. It does not make sense. It does not make sense to the people in Faro. It does not make sense to me. It does not make sense to my colleagues, and it does not make a lot of sense to a lot of other people in this territory. I am sure if one gave it any kind of ethical analysis, one would really wonder whether or not the government has thought this thing through clearly.

They were prepared to adopt their paternal approach in terms of providing government support to everyone in the territory - whether they would even dare do that in other communities; I do not think they would, frankly.

Mr. Harding: I want to follow up on some of the questioning of my colleague on this very same issue. I have been listening intently to the exchange back and forth and I have made much the same in the way of arguments as the Member for McIntyre-Takhini made, and I have heard government Cabinet Members, many times, make the arguments being made by the Minister responsible for Economic Development. Although it frustrates me, I have tried to raise the issue in Question Period, in Committee of the Whole debate and in special debates, emergency debates and every kind of debate we have in this Legislature, but we still do not seem to be able to reach the Members opposite with our perception of how this situation should be viewed.

So, we often try to raise it with a new twist, a new angle, to try and give it a new daily relevancy but, on a very, very consistent basis, we get the same types of responses back. I have just been through a similar discussion in general debate with the Minister of Community and Transportation Services regarding this issue. I got his views on it, and I made some submissions to him, asked him some questions, and I will do the same today with the Minister responsible for Economic Development because, as a legislator and as the elected representative for the community of Faro, I have a duty to do just that. I cannot give up on my community like the Members opposite. I know that no government could produce a 50-cent zinc price right now, and I know that no government can provide government work for everybody in the community of Faro or throughout the rest of the territory right now - not for every member of the community, but it is important that I continue to make these representations because I certainly do not want to see my community forgotten.

Over the summer, I got a call from a constituent of mine who had gotten work in Prince George. They had been in Faro for six years working for Cyprus Anvil. They called me and said they wanted me to come over to their house and visit them. I assumed that they had some sort of casework item or item for discussion that they wanted to bring up. I went over to their house and it was discovered, when I walked in the door and they handed me a gift, that they had brought me over to actually give something to me rather than to bring up a casework item. What they gave me was a hand crafted, sterling silver ring with “Faro” written on it. They made it themselves and they said they wanted the MLA to wear it in the Legislature because they wanted a reminder of a community that used to be important to a lot of people but is not important any more.

When I talked to them about it, I told them that, as long as I am wearing this ring as their MLA, I will not let people forget about the community. That is why I am asking these questions, and why I will continue to ask them in the forums available to me as an elected representative.

There were some things said by the Minister that, as the Member for Faro, I considered to be quite inflammatory. I believe that their position on this issue is immoral. It is very disturbing. They find all kinds of reasons to marginalize the people of Faro as Yukoners and remove them from the list of people who are entitled to some of the hundreds, thousands and millions of dollars of government expenditure for infrastructure development.

A lot of the expenditures being made have no certain, concrete paybacks attached to them. We are spending about $6 million in the next capital budget, and we spent quite a bit in the last one, in discretionary capital on the Shakwak project, while we still have a tremendous amount of funding coming from the federal government. However, I do not know what the actual economic impact of that in hard currency will be for the territory. Perhaps tourists will be able to drive faster through Beaver Creek, and so on. Perhaps more tourists will say that people should come to the Yukon and drive the Alaska Highway, because the roads are in good condition. It is hard to quantify the returns, but my point is that there is no certainty.

A realistic and rational look at things has to be taken. I have listened to the arguments of the Minister, and they have not taken a realistic or rational approach to this. They think they are doing the right thing. To say that it is a paternalistic viewpoint would be a good way to describe it when it comes to Faro.

The Minister said that, if we want the government to build a bunch of make-work projects, we should tell them. We did two projects in Faro last year: a sheep enhancement project and a Van Gorder trails project. They employed about 13 or 15 people from Faro, and about 13 people from Ross River. They were good projects. Due to the fact that we bought a lot of the materials ourselves for the project, such as power saws, and did not use surplus items from the government, they were fairly costly. They were not as costly as some of the items on a cost-per-job basis, but they were fairly costly.

However, they were good projects; they were not just make-work projects. The Van Gorder trails project may not bring in 50 German tourists to walk on the trail - 50 new German tourists - but it certainly adds to the assets that this territory has to offer those people, particularly people who travel in recreational vehicles. It was built in conjunction with the new RV facility in Faro, which is pretty first class, and I think it was a worthwhile expenditure.

We may want to look at cheaper ways of doing things - getting the same project done more cheaply or more efficiently. Perhaps there is equipment that we would not have to buy because we could use surplus equipment from other areas of the government, and whatnot. In essence, I think the expenditures were worth it. They must be. The government clearly demonstrates that they want to spread expenditures around to the communities, and in essence they boast of that in press releases about their expenditures in terms of job weeks and economic activity in the communities.

When we start to ask questions in this Legislature, the government says that all of this excludes Faro. In the case of Faro, everyone there has to move out to bid on these projects. I have made this point many times: in the real world, a lot of Faroites are going to try to do that. A lot of them are going to try, and not be successful, because there are contractors whose crews are set. They are not about to hire a bunch of new people from Faro. In all the other communities, the expenditures take that into account. In Faro, that is not the case because, to use the words of the Minister, Faro is dependent on the mine.

What are communities like Ross River and Mayo dependent on? What single large, private-sector employer are they dependent on?

I am not sure what the Member is getting at, but Ross River is dependent on government to a certain extent. It has a few smaller businesses, but Ross River is basically dependent upon social assistance, more than anything else. I would think that Mayo is in a very similar situation.

That is exactly the problem here. The government is in a position to make expenditures. We have had some discussions with some of the Kaska people about the Ross River, Faro and Little Salmon areas. They are quite disturbed, and they also feel that they are being left out of the loop, as it were, and that social assistance is the major industry in that community.

I do not think the Minister of Economic Development should be standing up in this Legislature promoting it. The Minister talked about the Yukon 2000 strategy and initiatives to diversify the Faro economy. The previous government put their money where their mouth was on that. No, there was not enough economic diversification to keep 1,800 or 2,000 people there, but there was some infrastructure put in. I just mentioned a couple of things. We had a tremendous beautification project in the community. There was a recreation facility put in, a first-class RV park, a lot of expenditures in tourism, facility improvements, Johnson Lake campground, which turned out to be not as successful; nonetheless, the commitment was there to try.

To say that because the Yukon 2000 identified it as a target for diversification, and the fact that we cannot maintain the entire population there means it was a failure, and the government should not do anything further in that area, is wrong. It does not say anything about giving up on Faro because the mine is down.

The Minister says he has not given up on Faro, yet he is saying he wants to encourage people to leave the community. He says that Faro has the infrastructure in place - that is the last argument - and that, therefore, they should not have any expenditures. There are quite a few communities - one of which was just identified by the Member for McIntyre-Takhini - that have the infrastructure in place but are still receiving funding for certain projects and infrastructure improvements.

The Minister’s arguments do not hold water.

When I go around and talk to people at the coffee shop, union hall, businesses that are remaining, the school and the recreation centre, they tell me the same thing, that we need a little bit of a boost and a little bit of help, just like the other communities. We are not even talking about the Grum stripping here; I will get to that in a few minutes.

I went to Yukon College the other night and, in the space of five minutes of walking down the hall, I bumped into three ex-Faroites who are taking courses and trying to improve their education.

The Yukon College Faro campus has over 50 students enrolled right now. It is bursting at the seams, which is not due to any territorial help.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Harding: The Minister of Education figures that it is because we have a grant through Yukon College, which we have had forever.

I want to ask the government what they have done specifically. They have left it up to the federal government. CEIC is sponsoring all these people. Sure, the territorial government put out a grant that they always have for Yukon College, and then they try to claim that the $200,000 trust fund set up a couple of years ago was something that they had committed to the people in Faro. It was a very sad political exercise, and disappointing. I am glad that the money is there, but it certainly was not as a result of an expenditure of the Members opposite to handle the increase at the college.

We have all of these people taking training who need jobs. There is no possible way, with 600 people left in the community, that I can see the government providing infrastructure jobs for all of these people, but certainly they do not have to turn the tap off entirely, and that is what I am seeing.

The Minister talks about these projects - they spit out this term “make-work projects”. There were proposals put before this government in this fiscal year that were not just make-work projects. They had some infrastructure benefit, and some long-term potential. It is hard to quantify how much that would be but, nonetheless, it was making an investment, recognizing that people have to work, recognizing that every other community is receiving some assistance, and perhaps it would be a wise investment in Faro.

Nonetheless, the government turned down the projects and rested on the laurels of two projects the year before, which we share with Ross River, and they started a relationship there that I hope will continue to grow. There were some bumps, but I was very happy to see the cooperation that was shown between the two communities.

People are crying out. I have people calling me in Faro who are trying to diversify. They want to start a wood-cutting business. There are others who want to start fishing, guiding, tourism businesses and outdoor activities businesses. The community leadership on the town council is desperately trying to do something to diversify the economy. They are presently looking at offering, at low prices, some of the available housing to people from outside the community at low prices for in-home businesses. We do not know how successful this is going to be. I do think they have to be congratulated for their efforts in trying.

The Faro Economic Diversification and Development Corporation has restarted and these people are all trying. They do not want to give up. They believe, as do I, that we can continue to have a good population of people there, maybe not always working full-time, that can continue to build the infrastructure in that community and try and diversify.

I recently wrote the president of Western Copper about a sulphuric acid producing plant in Faro. I got a letter back denying my request, saying they wanted to build it in the area.

We have some meetings set up with First Nations in the area to discuss social and economic common goals. Where all these people are trying, we get the same constant speech from the Members opposite that government cannot help everyone out. Nobody is asking the Minister to do everything for the people of Faro, but they certainly need not turn the tap off totally. People are trying to use their own initiative.

It is so frustrating to watch the attitude of this government. I really believe it is immoral. These people are Yukoners as much as everyone else. Just because it is only a 25-year-old town, as opposed to thousands of years old - or 100 years old - it does not mean that it has to disappear. It does not necessarily equate to that, unless the government really feels that is what is going to happen.

I get really frustrated. Sometimes, I get to the point where I say to myself, “Is it worth asking these questions?” I turn around and tell myself that it is my job to do it, and I will continue to do it, and I will be relentless on it, and I will not give it up.

We have some proposals for solutions to help deal with this problem. Is the Minister of Economic Development prepared to invest any capital into these ideas, in principle, of the people of Faro, or is the response a carte blanche, “I am not going to put any more into it than the block funding agreement?”

Hon. Mr. Devries: The two CDF projects we participated in are two examples that we are not giving up on Faro on a wholesale basis. Definitely yes, we do believe there is opportunity for a small town to be there. Again, depending on Curragh, it could be a fully operational town again down the road.

The Member talked about the economic development planning committee that was established. Their report is overdue but, yes, $22,000 was given there, I believe by the previous administration. Up to this point, we have not received any suggestions from that particular committee.

If they come forward with a plan that shows some long-term economic benefits, we will certainly take a look at it. Meanwhile, there could still be potential in the Faro area for several things but, until I actually see something in writing, I am not going to get into it. I do not want to give false hopes to these people on something that might or might not happen.

I feel the same way about the sale of the mine, at this point. We do not know if it is going to happen in the next six months. We do not know if they are going to operate it at full capacity. We do not know if they are going to operate at half capacity, or what they would have in mind when they purchase it. We all know there is environmental work that has to be done there. There could be some opportunities in the short term for Faroites there.

If an idea comes forward that would lead to economic diversification, I certainly would look at it, as I would look at it for any community.

Mr. Harding: The people of Faro put forth four proposals in writing this fiscal year, for infrastructure development at the airport, as well as some tourism infrastructure projects, but they were denied. If the Minister is prepared to look at them, why did he not? Why did he not approve them?

Hon. Mr. Devries: Two of them were approved. The community development fund spending in Faro was, I believe, the third highest spending of all the communities in the Yukon. Obviously, they were looked at. The $1 million grant is still there too. This government is not abandoning Faro.

Mr. Penikett: I would remind the Minister that two of the CDF projects he is talking about were done last year. I would also remind him that the one CDF project he has mentioned as helping Faro recently is about to be cancelled by this government. I would remind him also that 13 people from Faro worked on the